Search

Introduction: The utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in oncology has been growing over the last decade; however, there is no standard method for assessing an APP’s contributions to oncology care. Methods: The NCCN Best Practices Committee (BPC) created an APP Workgroup to develop recommendations to support the roles of APPs at NCCN Member Institutions. The Workgroup conducted surveys to understand how NCCN centers measure productivity. This article will review the survey results and provide recommendations for measuring APP productivity. Results: Although 54% of responding centers indicated they utilize relative value units (RVU) targets for independent APP visits, 88% of APPs are either unsure or do not believe RVUs are an effective measurement of overall productivity. Relative value units do not reflect non-billable hours, and APPs perform a significant number of non-billable tasks that are important to oncology practices. Sixty-six percent of APPs believe that measuring disease-based team productivity is a more reasonable assessment of APP productivity than measuring productivity at the individual level. Conclusion: Our recommendation for cancer centers is to focus on the value that APPs provide to overall care delivery. Advanced practice provider productivity metrics should consider not only the number of patients seen by APPs, but also the high quality and thorough care delivered that contributes to the overall care of the patient and practice. Advanced practice providers can help improve access to care, deliver improved outcomes, and increase patient and provider satisfaction. Reducing the focus on RVUs, accounting for important non-RVU–generating activities, and incorporating quality and team metrics will provide a better overall picture of APP productivity.

Background: Cancer care coordination across major academic medical centers and their networks is evolving rapidly, but the spectrum of organizational efforts has not been described. We conducted a mixed-methods survey of leading cancer centers and their networks to document care coordination and identify opportunities to improve geographically dispersed care. Methods: A mixed-methods survey was sent to 91 cancer centers in the United States and Canada. We analyzed the number and locations of network sites; access to electronic medical records (EMRs); clinical research support and participation at networks; use of patient navigators, care paths, and quality measures; and physician workforce. Responses were collected via Qualtrics software between September 2017 and December 2018. Results: Of the 69 responding cancer centers, 74% were NCI-designated. Eighty-seven percent of respondents were part of a matrix health system, and 13% were freestanding. Fifty-six reported having network sites. Forty-three respondents use navigators for disease-specific populations, and 24 use them for all patients. Thirty-five respondents use ≥1 types of care path. Fifty-seven percent of networks had complete, integrated access to their main center’s EMRs. Thirty-nine respondents said the main center provides funding for clinical research at networks, with 22 reporting the main center provides all funding. Thirty-five said the main center provided pharmacy support at the networks, with 15 indicating the main center provides 100% pharmacy support. Certification program participation varied extensively across networks. Conclusions: The data show academic cancer centers have extensive involvement in network cancer care, often extending into rural communities. Coordinating care through improved clinical trial access and greater use of patient navigation, care paths, coordinated EMRs, and quality measures is likely to improve patient outcomes. Although it is premature to draw firm conclusions, the survey results are appropriate for mapping next steps and data queries.