Search

Purpose: Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received., Patients and Methods: Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate)., Results: Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment., Conclusion: In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.

Purpose: The role of multidisciplinary care (MDC) on cancer care processes is not fully understood. We investigated the impact of MDC on the processes of care at cancer centers within the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP)., Methods: The study used data from patients diagnosed with stage IIB to III rectal cancer, stage III colon cancer, and stage III non–small-cell lung cancer at 14 NCCCP cancer centers from 2007 to 2012. We used an MDC development assessment tool—with levels ranging from evolving MDC (low) to achieving excellence (high)—to measure the level of MDC implementation in seven MDC areas, such as case planning and physician engagement. Descriptive statistics and cluster-adjusted regression models quantified the association between MDC implementation and processes of care, including time from diagnosis to treatment receipt., Results: A total of 1,079 patients were examined. Compared with patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting low MDC scores, time to treatment receipt was shorter for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high or moderate MDC scores for physician engagement (hazard ratio [HR] for high physician engagement, 2.66; 95% CI, 1.70 to 4.17; HR for moderate physician engagement, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.89) and longer for patients with colon cancer treated at cancer centers reporting high 2MDC scores for case planning (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.85). Results for patients with rectal cancer were qualitatively similar, and there was no statistically significant difference among patients with lung cancer., Conclusion: MDC implementation level was associated with processes of care, and direction of association varied across MDC assessment areas., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research., (© 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

More than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, obstacles to achieving high-quality care remain, and studies suggest that cancer care is often not as patient centered, accessible, coordinated, or evidence based as it could be. Patients, their families, and clinicians face a wide range of complex and often confusing choices regarding their health and health care concerns and require trustworthy information to decide which options are best for them. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) strives to fund clinical comparative effectiveness research, guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader health care community, that will provide high-integrity, evidence-based information to help people make informed health care decisions. This mission is well aligned with the IOM's recent conceptual framework and corresponding recommendations that recognize that addressing the needs of patients with cancer and their families is the most important component of a high-quality cancer care delivery system. PCORI seeks the opportunity to partner with diverse interdisciplinary research teams who demonstrate a strong commitment to the inclusion and engagement of patients and stakeholders as they work to develop high-quality cancer care delivery systems. We see rich opportunities for such partnership in the cancer care community, given the wealth of well-established patient advocacy groups and organizations and cutting-edge research institutions, all of which are working toward the common goal of improving the quality of cancer care for patients and their families. This article and the project it describes provide an example of an avenue for advancing this goal., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007; it is a network of community-based hospitals funded by the NCI. Quality of care is an NCCCP priority, with participation in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) playing a fundamental role in quality assessment and quality improvement (QI) projects. Using QOPI methodology, performance on quality measures was analyzed two times per year over a 3-year period to enhance our implementation of quality standards at NCCCP hospitals., Methods: A data-sharing agreement allowed individual-practice QOPI data to be electronically sent to the NCI. Aggregated data with the other NCCCP QOPI participants were presented to the network via Webinars. The NCCCP Quality of Care Subcommittee selected areas in which to focus subsequent QI efforts, and high-performing practices shared voluntarily their QI best practices with the network., Results: QOPI results were compiled semiannually between fall 2010 and fall 2013. The network concentrated on measures with a quality score of ≤ 0.75 and planned voluntary group-wide QI interventions. We identified 13 measures in which the NCCCP fell at or below the designated quality score in fall 2010. After implementing a variety of QI initiatives, the network registered improvements in all parameters except one (use of treatment summaries)., Conclusion: Using the NCCCP as a paradigm, QOPI metrics provide a useful platform for group-wide measurement of quality performance. In addition, these measurements can be used to assess the effectiveness of QI initiatives., (Copyright © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007 with a goal of expanding cancer research and delivering quality care in communities. The NCCCP Quality of Care (QoC) Subcommittee was charged with developing and improving the quality of multidisciplinary care. An assessment tool with nine key elements relevant to MDC structure and operations was developed., Methods: Fourteen NCCCP sites reported multidisciplinary care assessments for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in June 2010, June 2011, and June 2012 using an online reporting tool. Each site evaluated their level of maturity (level 1 = no multidisciplinary care, level 5 = highly integrated multidisciplinary care) in nine elements integral to multidisciplinary care. Thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative responses was also conducted., Results: The proportion of sites that reported level 3 or greater on the assessment tool was tabulated at each time point. For all tumor types, sites that reached this level increased in six elements: case planning, clinical trials, integration of care coordination, physician engagement, quality improvement, and treatment team integration. Factors that enabled improvement included increasing organizational support, ensuring appropriate physician participation, increasing patient navigation, increasing participation in national quality initiatives, targeting genetics referrals, engaging primary care providers, and integrating clinical trial staff., Conclusions: Maturation of multidisciplinary care reflected focused work of the NCCCP QoC Subcommittee. Working group efforts in patient navigation, genetics, and physician conditions of participation were evident in improved multidisciplinary care performance for three common malignancies. This work provides a blueprint for health systems that wish to incorporate prospective multidisciplinary care into their cancer programs., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer., Patients and Methods: Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories., Results: There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics., Conclusion: This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.

Purpose: We assessed cancer survivors' perceptions of the quality of their follow-up care., Methods: We surveyed a population-based cohort of leukemia, bladder, and colorectal cancer survivors diagnosed 2 to 5 years previously in northern California (N = 623; participation rate, 69.2%; overall response rate, 49.2%). Data were collected between April 2003 and November 2004. Ten scales assessed survivors' perceptions of different aspects of care in the last 12 months, and an eleventh scale measured their overall ratings of care., Results: On nine of the 11 scales, mean scores ranged from 88 to 97 on a 0 to 100 response format, indicating very positive experiences. The two areas where quality perceptions were lower were discussions about health promotion and the physician's knowledge of the whole patient. In adjusted analyses, those without private health insurance (P = .02) and Hispanic and Asian survivors compared with whites (P < .001) reported worse timeliness of care. Survivors who had multiple comorbidities reported better scores on timeliness of care (P < .01) and physicians' knowledge (P = .05) than survivors without any comorbidity. Length of the patient-physician relationship was the variable most consistently found to be significantly associated with survivors' quality assessments. Physicians' information exchange had the strongest relationship with overall ratings of care, followed by physicians' affective behavior, their knowledge of the survivor, and survivors' perceptions of coordination of care (P < .001 for all)., Conclusion: Delivery of quality follow-up care to cancer survivors may require efforts to improve patient-centered communication and coordination. Special emphasis may need to be placed on health promotion discussions and adoption of a whole-person orientation.

Collaboration between QOPI and the NCCCP sites represents an evolution in the QOPI process, in which QOPI provides a metric for measuring quality and serves as a springboard for comprehensive quality improvement across independent but mutually committed practices.

To evaluate and improve the use of cancer trial end points that reflect the patient's own perspective, the National Cancer Institute organized an international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006. The 13 preceding articles in this special issue of the Journal were commissioned in preparation for or in response to the PROACT conference, which was cosponsored by the American Cancer Society. Drawing from these articles and also commentary from the conference itself, this concluding report takes stock of what has been learned to date about the successes and challenges in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in phase III, phase II, and symptom management trials in cancer and identifies ways to improve the scientific soundness, feasibility, and policy relevance of PROs in trials. Building on this synthesis of lessons learned, this article discusses specific administrative policies and management procedures to improve PRO data collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings; opportunities afforded by recent methodologic and technologic advances in PRO data collection and analysis to enhance the scientific soundness and cost efficiency of PRO use in trials; and the importance of better understanding the usefulness of PRO data to the full spectrum of cancer decision makers, including patients and families, health providers, public and private payers, regulatory agencies, and standards-setting organizations.