Search

BACKGROUND: Asthma remains a leading cause of hospitalization in US children. Well-child care (WCC) visits are routinely recommended, but how WCC adherence relates to asthma outcomes is poorly described. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective longitudinal cohort study using electronic health records among 5 to 17 year old children residing in Durham County with confirmed asthma and receiving primary care within a single health system, to compare the association between asthma exacerbations and previous WCC exposure. Exacerbations included any International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, or International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, coded asthma exacerbation encounter with an accompanying systemic glucocorticoid prescription. Exacerbations were grouped by severity: ambulatory encounter only, urgent care, emergency department, hospital encounters

Incremental improvements in the treatment of children and adolescents with cancer have led to 5-year survival rates reaching nearly 85%. In the past decade, impressive progress has been made in understanding the biology of many pediatric cancers. With that understanding, multiple new agents have become available that offer the promise of more-effective and less-toxic treatment. These include agents that target various cell surface antigens and engage the adaptive immune system, as well as those that interfere with key signaling pathways involved in tumor development and growth. For local control, surgery and radiation techniques also have evolved, becoming less invasive or featuring new techniques and particles that more precisely target the tumor and limit the dose to normal tissue. Nevertheless, targeted agents, like conventional chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and surgery, may have off-target effects and deserve long-term follow-up of their safety and efficacy. These include injury to the endocrine, cardiovascular, and immunologic systems. New radiation and surgical techniques that theoretically reduce morbidity and improve long-term quality of life must also be validated with actual patient outcomes. Finally, with advances in genomics, information on host susceptibility to late effects is beginning to emerge. Such knowledge, coupled with improved metrics that better describe the spectrum of potential late effects across the entire lifespan, can lead to the development of decision models that project the potential long-term health outcomes associated with various treatment and follow-up strategies. These developments will help extend the current focus on precision medicine to precision survivorship, where clinicians, patients, and families will have a better grasp of the potential risks, benefits, and tradeoffs associated with the growing number of cancer treatment options.

The improvement in survival of childhood cancer observed across the past 50 years has resulted in a growing acknowledgment that simply extending the lifespan of survivors is not enough. It is incumbent on both the cancer research and the clinical care communities to also improve the health span of survivors. It is well established that aging adult survivors of childhood cancer are at increased risk of chronic health conditions, relative to the general population. However, as the first generation of survivors age into their 50s and 60s, it has become increasingly evident that this population is also at risk of early onset of physiologic aging. Geriatric measures have uncovered evidence of reduced strength and speed and increased fatigue, all components of frailty, among survivors with a median age of 33 years, which is similar to adults older than 65 years of age in the general population. Furthermore, frailty in survivors independently increased the risk of morbidity and mortality. Although there has been a paucity of research investigating the underlying biologic mechanisms for advanced physiologic age in survivors, results from geriatric populations suggest five biologically plausible mechanisms that may be potentiated by exposure to cancer therapies: increased cellular senescence, reduced telomere length, epigenetic modifications, somatic mutations, and mitochondrial DNA infidelity. There is now a critical need for research to elucidate the biologic mechanisms of premature aging in survivors of childhood cancer. This research could pave the way for new frontiers in the prevention of these life-changing outcomes.

Many childhood cancer survivors carry a significant risk for late morbidity and mortality, a consequence of the numerous therapeutic exposures that contribute to their cure. Focused surveillance for late therapy-related complications provides opportunities for early detection and implementation of health-preserving interventions. The substantial body of research that links therapeutic exposures used during treatment of childhood cancer to adverse outcomes among survivors enables the characterization of groups at the highest risk for developing complications related to specific therapies; however, methods available to optimize screening strategies to detect these therapy-related complications are limited. Moreover, the feasibility of conducting clinical trials to test screening recommendations for childhood cancer survivors is limited by requirements for large sample sizes, lengthy study periods, prohibitive costs, and ethical concerns. In addition, the harms of screening should be considered, including overdiagnosis and psychological distress. Experts in several countries have developed guideline recommendations for late effects surveillance and have collaborated to harmonize these recommendations internationally to enhance long-term follow-up care and quality of life for childhood cancer survivors. Methods used in these international efforts include systematic literature searches, development of evidence-based summaries, rigorous evaluation of the evidence, and formulation of consensus-based surveillance recommendations for each late complication. Alternate methods to refine recommendations, such as cumulative burden assessment and risk prediction and cost-effectiveness modeling, may provide novel approaches to guide survivorship care in this vulnerable population and, thus, represents a worthy objective for future international survivorship collaborations.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), which includes cardiomyopathy/heart failure, coronary artery disease, stroke, pericardial disease, arrhythmias, and valvular and vascular dysfunction, is a major concern for long-term survivors of childhood cancer. There is clear evidence of increased risk of CVD largely attributable to treatment exposures at a young age, most notably anthracycline chemotherapy and chest-directed radiation therapy, and compounded by traditional cardiovascular risk factors accrued during decades after treatment exposure. Preclinical studies are limited; thus, it is a high priority to understand the pathophysiology of CVD as a result of anticancer treatments, taking into consideration the growing and developing heart. Recently developed personalized risk prediction models can provide decision support before initiation of anticancer therapy or facilitate implementation of screening strategies in at-risk survivors of cancer. Although consensus-based screening guidelines exist for the application of blood and imaging biomarkers of CVD, the most appropriate timing and frequency of these measures in survivors of childhood cancer are not yet fully elucidated. Longitudinal studies are needed to characterize the prognostic importance of subclinical markers of cardiovascular injury on long-term CVD risk. A number of prevention trials across the survivorship spectrum are under way, which include primary prevention (before or during cancer treatment), secondary prevention (after completion of treatment), and integrated approaches to manage modifiable cardiovascular risk factors. Ongoing multidisciplinary collaborations between the oncology, cardiology, primary care, and other subspecialty communities are essential to reduce therapeutic exposures and improve surveillance, prevention, and treatment of CVD in this high-risk population.

Recent research has demonstrated that survivors of childhood cancer are at risk for a myriad of late effects that affect physical and mental quality of life. We discuss the patterns and prevalence of neurocognitive problems commonly experienced by survivors of CNS tumors and acute lymphoblastic leukemia, the two most commonly researched cancer diagnoses. Research documenting the direct effects of tumor location and treatment type and intensity is presented, and patient characteristics that moderate outcomes (eg, age at diagnosis and sex) are discussed. Potential biologic mechanisms of neurotoxic treatment exposures, such as cranial irradiation and intrathecal and high-dose antimetabolite chemotherapy, are reviewed. Genetic, brain imaging, and neurochemical biomarkers of neurocognitive impairment are discussed. Long-term survivors of childhood cancer are also at risk for physical morbidity (eg, cardiac, pulmonary, endocrine) and problems with health behaviors (eg, sleep); research is reviewed that demonstrates these health problems contribute to neurocognitive impairment in survivors with or without exposure to neurotoxic therapies. We conclude this review with a discussion of literature supporting specific interventions that may be beneficial in the treatment of survivors who already experience neurocognitive impairment, as well as in the prevention of impairment manifestation.

The field of knowledge translation (kt) seeks to understand how to apply findings derived from research to clinical practice to benefit the population [...]

Radiation therapists play an important role in helping patients to safely manage and triage potentially life-threatening symptoms. The purpose of the present study was to assess factors influencing the use by radiation therapists of evidence-informed symptom practice guides for patients experiencing cancer treatment&ndash, related symptoms. In a mixed-methods descriptive study guided by the Knowledge-to-Action framework, interviews and a barriers survey were conducted. Two independent reviewers conducted a content analysis of interview transcripts. Barriers survey data were analyzed using frequency distributions and univariate descriptive statistics. Open-ended data from the surveys underwent content analysis and were triangulated with interview findings. Of 90 radiation therapists approached, 58 completed the survey (64%), and 14 were interviewed. Of the 98% who reported providing symptom management to patients undergoing radiation treatment, 53% used evidence-informed practice guidelines. Radiation therapists had moderate moral norms (4.6 of 7) and beliefs about the consequences of using costars (pan-Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support) practice guides (4.8), but neutral intention (3.4) and beliefs about their own capabilities (3.9). Environmental barriers included lack of time (2.0), lack of access (2.5), and neutral organizational support (3.0). Radiation therapists identified a need for training (5.5). Common unique barriers to practice guide use were lack of time during radiation treatments, unclear fit with scope of practice, disparate focus on site-specific symptoms, and lack of medication knowledge. The symptom practice guides were perceived by the radiation therapists to benefit patients, enhance their own knowledge of symptom management, and promote consistent practice. Additional work is required to identify the scope of practice of radiation therapists within the interprofessional team.

With improvements in cancer treatment and supportive care, a growing population of survivors of childhood cancer at risk for significant and potentially life-threatening late effects has been identified. To provide a current snapshot of the models of care from countries with varying levels of resources and health care systems, stakeholders in childhood cancer survivorship clinical care and research were identified from 18 countries across five continents. Stakeholders responded to a survey and provided a brief narrative regarding the current state of survivorship care. Findings indicate that among pediatric-age survivors of childhood cancer (allowing for differences in age cutoffs across countries), resources are generally available, and a large proportion of survivors are seen by a physician familiar with late effects in most countries. After survivors transition to adulthood, only a minority are seen by a physician familiar with late effects. Despite the need to improve communication between pediatric oncology and primary care, only a few countries have existing national efforts to educate primary care physicians, although many more reported that educational programs are in development. These data highlight common challenges and potential solutions for the lifelong care of survivors of childhood cancer. Combining risk-based and patient-oriented solutions for this population is likely to benefit both providers and patients.

The diagnosis, treatment, and medical late effects of childhood cancer may alter the psychosocial trajectory of survivors across their life course. This review of the literature focuses on mental health symptoms, achievement of social milestones, socioeconomic attainment, and risky health behaviors in survivors of childhood cancer. Results suggest that although most survivors are psychologically well adjusted, survivors are at risk for anxiety and depression compared with siblings. Although the absolute risk of suicide ideation and post-traumatic stress symptoms is low, adult survivors are at increased risk compared with controls. Moreover, young adult survivors are at risk for delayed psychosexual development, lower rates of marriage or cohabitation, and nonindependent living. Survivors’ socioeconomic attainment also is reduced, with fewer survivors graduating college and gaining full-time employment. Despite risk for late health-related complications, survivors of childhood cancer generally engage in risky health behaviors at rates similar to or only slightly lower than siblings and peers. CNS tumors and CNS-directed therapies are salient risk factors for poor psychosocial outcomes. In addition, physical health morbidities resulting from cancer-directed therapies are associated with worse psychosocial functioning. Several studies support the effectiveness of cognitive and behavioral interventions to treat psychological symptoms as well as to modify health behaviors. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate the efficacy and long-term outcomes of intervention efforts. Future research should focus on the identification of potential genetic predispositions related to psychosocial outcomes to provide opportunities for preventive interventions among survivors of childhood cancer.

Meta-analyses offer a rigorous and transparent systematic framework for synthesizing data that can be used for a wide range of research areas, study designs, and data types. Both the outcome of meta-analyses and the meta-analysis process itself can yield useful insights for answering scientific questions and making policy decisions. Development of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards illustrates many potential applications of meta-analysis. These applications demonstrate the strengths and limitations of meta-analysis, issues that arise in various data realms, how meta-analysis design choices can influence interpretation of results, and how meta-analysis can be used to address bias and heterogeneity. Reviewing available data from a meta-analysis perspective can provide a useful framework and impetus for identifying and refining strategies for future research. Moreover, increased pervasiveness of a meta-analysis mindset-focusing on how the pieces of the research puzzle fit together-would benefit scientific research and data syntheses regardless of whether or not a quantitative meta-analysis is undertaken. While an individual meta-analysis can only synthesize studies addressing the same research question, the results of separate meta-analyses can be combined to address a question encompassing multiple data types. This observation applies to any scientific or policy area where information from a variety of disciplines must be considered to address a broader research question.

Purpose: Although the rising number of oral chemotherapy agents offers many patients with cancer a more convenient and less invasive treatment option compared with infusion therapy, multiple risks and challenges have been identified with the oral regimen, including dosing errors, drug interactions, and nonadherence or overadherence. Until recently, cancer care providers had maintained a considerable amount of control, including the certainty that the right drug was being administered in the right dose, via the right route, at the right time, and to the right patient—all of which were meticulously documented in patient records. In contrast, oral chemotherapy takes much of the control out of the clinician's hands and places tremendous responsibility on the patient, raising a number of adherence and control issues. Studies regarding oral hormonal therapy for breast cancer have described adherence rates ramping down from 83% to 77% within the first 2 years of therapy. These figures continue to decrease over time to a range of 50% to 64% within 4 to 5 years. On the basis of these data and a literature review, we developed a program to promote adherence to oral anticancer protocols. Methods: Our team took a proactive, team-focused approach and established protocols at a time when oral chemotherapies were still at a low volume. In addition to infrastructures, policies, and procedures promoting collaborative communications among physicians, nurses, and pharmacists, we developed an in-depth educational component that provides the linchpin for ensuring an effective oral chemotherapy program. Our program focuses on three key pillars: education, communication, and follow-up. Our project team first conducted an inclusive review of available literature, with the objective of designing processes that would help our program directly address existing risks and challenges. Then we introduced concepts for the formalized program to our cancer center physicians, whose support was paramount to successful implementation. The next step was to start the program with a mandatory in-service for all clinical staff, which included a presentation of the research evidence that prompted the creation of this model for oral chemotherapy. To enhance patient understanding, our team provides printed materials, individualized calendars, and in some cases preloaded pillboxes to assist patients. Concurrently, our nurses provide weekly telephone intervention for the second and third months and monthly phone interventions thereafter. Communication is key to the success of the program. This includes the use of a translation service to ensure effective communication with all non–English-speaking patients. We intervene early for those patients with financial barriers and offer a variety of referrals and resources for emotional, nutritional, and patient support services, including transportation issues. Results: Since the inception of the program, the in-service has been incorporated into our new employee orientation. At the same time, a growing number of cancer center physicians are embracing the program. The program has received the attention of the Oncology Roundtable, which developed a Webinar around the topic, and been described in a feature article in an oncology journal. Finally, our team has been tapped to educate other pharmacists regarding oral agents, toxicity profiles, and safe handling. Conclusion: By combining safeguards, patient education strategies, intensive follow-up, and a system of effective checks and balances, our center is taking significant steps to maximize patient safety and oral chemotherapy treatment effectiveness, while keeping pace with the rapidly occurring changes in oncology practice.

Purpose: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), through the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program, are providing incentive payments to eligible professionals as they demonstrate meaningful use of certified EHR technology. Eligible professionals can receive up to $44,000 over a 5-year period for Medicare participation if they successfully demonstrate the ability to automatically generate, transmit, and meet thresholds for specific reporting elements from the EHR. Meeting the meaningful use requirement involves a reorganization of workflow within the clinical setting so that the data elements necessary to produce the relevant measurements are documented in the electronic medical record (EMR) as they are delivered. A by-product of this is operational efficiency improvement in three areas: coordination of data input throughout the care team to reduce or remove bottlenecks, assignment of responsibility for specific activity, and real-time objective monitoring of the work process. Methods: Using the reporting system functionality of a certified EMR deployed in a two-physician medical oncology practice at the New London Cancer Center, the objective measurement of the ability of each of the eligible providers in the clinic to improve their individual MU scores was tracked. Analysis of the progress of each provider revealed gaps. Process issues were identified by work group: secretaries, laboratory preparation and phlebotomy staff, nurses, and clinicians. The designated physician leader met with each group to discuss the sections relevant to that particular group. Results: By discovering and addressing work processes that were not utilizing the ability of the EHR to capture and document (ie, meaningful use of the EHR), rapid progress that affected all of the eligible providers and all patients cared for was made. Changes resulted in increased clarity of clinical and administrative responsibilities during patient processing and clinical care provision. Meaningful use attestation was completed in 14 weeks. Conclusion: Completion of the documentation necessary to meet the requirements of the EHR Incentive Program led to the discovery of systemic inefficiencies in administrative and clinical workflows. Addressing these bottlenecks, along with using the reporting capability of the EHR to measure the impact of workflow changes, enabled the administrative and care teams to make changes quickly and effectively. The certified EHR provided guidance and status-reporting capabilities that allowed the practice to achieve the meaningful use requirement.

Purpose: In Ontario, health care spending has grown to 45% of total government expenditures. In a public health care system, changes in demographics and the emergence of innovative technologies challenge our ability to adapt to evolving patient needs. To maintain a high standard of clinical effectiveness, there is a need to identify opportunities to improve health care delivery. This study was structured to meet the following objectives: to understand the operating room (OR) inventory practices at a tertiary academic hospital, to mathematically model this process to ascertain service levels based on changes in inventory and demand, and to define the appropriate level of reusable inventory for open and laparoscopic colorectal surgery. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed OR throughput for all cases of colorectal cancer from January 1, 2010, to January 31, 2011. The process flow of OR instrumentation was studied to understand delays in the provision of inventory. Combining total surgeries performed with surgeon-specific instrument preferences generated daily instrument demand. We fitted parametric demand distributions for two instrument sets for major colon resections. Markovian models were used to estimate the distribution of available inventory and the likelihood of insufficient instruments on any given day. Results: We reviewed 1,458 cases, 39.5% of which involved major open surgery, whereas 26.2% involved laparoscopic surgery. Demand for open and laparoscopic instrument sets was observed to fit binomial (20, 0.15) and Poisson (1.41) distributions, respectively. On the basis of these curves, we estimated the probability distribution of the in-stock inventory and, subsequently, the probability that demand would exceed supply on any given day ( Table 1 ). In particular, with 10 open and six laparoscopic sets currently owned by the institution, the probabilities that there would be insufficient inventory were 3.02% and 2.17%, respectively. [Table: see text] Conclusion: This analysis will guide purchasing decisions based on desired service levels and forecasted changes in demand. Furthermore, by ensuring that demand is being serviced, this analysis will help to curb loss of revenue, decrease wait times, and limit potential patient morbidity. Strategic purchasing can also reduce excessive inventory and therefore minimize shrinkage and obsolescence and increase working capital and institutional flexibility.

Purpose: In the United States, public and private payer misincentivization of medical care and the invisibility of costs to the consumers of that care have conspired to create unsustainable growth in health care expenditure that undermines our economy, diminishes our productivity, and limits our international competitiveness. Cancer medicine provides a small yet salient example. On average, Medicare reimburses oncologists 6% above the average acquisition price for essential anticancer agents and supportive therapies. The costs of these agents vary across a stunning five orders of magnitude, from a few dollars to more than $400,000 per course of treatment. The profitability to providers varies across approximately four orders of magnitude, from cents to thousands of dollars per treatment. National guidelines (National Comprehensive Cancer Network [NCCN], American Society of Clinical Oncology [ASCO]) help providers select the most effective therapies without regard for cost. Methods: We created an oncologist-to-oncologist professional education program to help cancer physicians optimally use expensive long-acting white blood cell growth factors, in accordance with these national guidelines. We then compared their use across a population of approximately 97,000 Medicare members before and after our intervention. Baseline use was recorded over two consecutive quarters (2009 to 2010). In March 2010, our oncologists initiated real-time discussions with the oncologists of 22 separate groups if these agents were ordered for use with regimens that placed patients at less than 10% risk of febrile neutropenia, according to NCCN guidelines. Neither NCCN nor ASCO recommend the routine use of these agents in this low-risk group. The care of 82 such patients was thoroughly discussed in the following 6 months. Results: The monthly costs for these agents decreased by more than 50% by the final month of our intervention, although savings began immediately, reducing costs by more than $150,000 per quarter. No episode of febrile neutropenia was recorded in any patient in the intervention group. These savings generalize to the entire Medicare population at $30 million each month. Conclusion: We conclude that personal, oncologist-to-oncologist, real-time professional education will favorably modify oncologic prescribing behavior and can do so with significant immediate savings at no risk to patients with cancer.

Some survivors of childhood, adolescent, and young adult cancer are at increased risk of gonadal dysfunction and adverse pregnancy outcomes. We reviewed currently available literature that evaluated reproductive function and pregnancy outcomes of female cancer survivors diagnosed before the age of 25 years. High-dose alkylating agent chemotherapy and abdominal/pelvic radiotherapy adversely affect gonadal function in a dose-related fashion, with older age at exposure conferring greater risk as a result of the age-related decline in ovarian reserve. Gonadal injury clinically manifests as ovarian hormone insufficiency (delayed or arrested puberty, premature ovarian insufficiency, or premature menopause) and infertility. The effect of molecular-targeted agents on ovarian function has not been established. For female cancer survivors who maintain fertility, overall pregnancy (relative risk, 0.67 to 0.81) and live birth rates (hazard ratio, 0.79 to 0.82) are lower than those in the general public. Pregnancy in cancer survivors also may be associated with risks to both the mother and the fetus related to miscarriage; preterm birth; and, rarely, cardiomyopathy. Women at risk for these complications require preconception assessment and counseling from both obstetricians and oncology providers. The risk for inherited genetic disease in offspring conceived after cancer treatment exposure is not increased. The optimization of reproductive outcomes and minimization of risks of pregnancy complications in survivors requires informed, risk-based assessment and monitoring.

Computational chemistry is a largely empirical field that makes predictions with substantial uncertainty. And yet the use of standard statistical methods to quantify this uncertainty is often absent from published reports. This article covers the basics of confidence interval estimation for molecular modeling using classical statistics. Alternate approaches such as non-parametric statistics and bootstrapping are discussed.

The National Comprehensive Cancer Network's (NCCN) palliative care (PC) guidelines recommend screening all patients for PC issues at the first visit with their oncologist and at subsequent, clinically relevant times. Criteria for referral to a PC specialist are also part of the guideline. We evaluated the feasibility of screening for PC needs in outpatients attending one GI oncology practice specializing in colorectal cancer and neuroendocrine tumors.All patients attending clinic during a 3-week period were screened by the office practice nurse (OPN). A one-page screening tool based on the NCCN guidelines was developed, giving a score from 0 to 13. The OPN also evaluated the NCCN referral criteria.There were 152 clinic visits by 125 patients during the surveillance period; 119 were screened. Median age was 61 years; half were male. Eighty percent had colorectal cancer, and two thirds had advanced disease. Screening took approximately 3 to 5 minutes per patient. Depending on the PC definition used, between 7% and 17% of patients screened positive; all met the NCCN referral criteria. Psychosocial distress was commoner than physical symptoms. The maximum screening score was 8. A cut point of 5 had the best predictive value for specialist referral, and would result in 13% patients having PC consultations.Screening identified 7% to 17% of patients in this busy clinic as having PC issues and 13% who might benefit from specialist referral. But even this simple method adds considerably to the clinic workload, so the benefits of implementing routine screening need to be carefully evaluated.

Performance status is prognostic in oncology and palliative care settings. Traditionally clinician rated, it is often inconsistently collected, recorded, and measured, thereby limiting its utility. Patient-reported strategies are increasingly used for routine symptom and quality of life assessment in the clinic, and may be useful for tracking performance status.Tablet personal computers were used to collect patient-reported reviews of systems via the Patient Care Monitor (PCM) v2.0 for 86 patients with advanced lung cancer. Relevant subscales included the PCM Impaired Performance and Impaired Ambulation scales. Trained nurse clinicians measured performance status using traditional Karnofsky and Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) instruments. Correlation coefficients were used to compare performance status scales, and survival analysis was performed by Cox proportional hazards modeling.All four performance status scales demonstrated excellent internal consistency and convergent validity. Initial KPS and ECOG scores were statistically correlated with survival, whereas PCM scores showed a nonsignificant trend in this direction. Change in PCM Impaired Performance over time was statistically correlated with survival (hazard ratio = 1.62, P = .046), whereas the other three performance status measures were not statistically prognostic.Patient-reported performance status as measured by PCM v2.0 is at least as reliable as KPS or ECOG. The enhanced resolution provided by this patient-reported method allows for the detection of clinically meaningful changes in trajectory over time, potentially serving as an early-warning system to trigger clinical interventions. Further study is needed to test these findings on a larger scale.

In late 2009 and early 2010, the Association of Northern California Oncologists conducted an economic assessment on a volunteer sample (n = 14) of northern California state oncology society member practices to measure key economic factors, diagnose economic viability, and prescribe changes to practice management to enhance practice economic viability. Recommendations for individual member practices as well as for the state oncology society were made as a result of the findings of this study. Results from follow-up interviews conducted with study practices approximately 1 year after the original assessments reveal that most recommendations were implemented and seem to have generally strengthened the economic performance of the practices.

ASCO projects a shortfall of oncologists in the next decade. The study was designed to address the workforce shortage by exploring collaborative oncology practice models that include nonphysician practitioners (NPPs).ASCO contracted with Oncology Metrics, a division of Altos Solutions, to conduct a national survey of NPP integration and identify collaborative practice models and services provided by NPPs, as the first phase of the ASCO Study of Collaborative Practice Arrangements. Results of the national survey were used to identify practices for the next phase, in which selected practices participated in a more detailed data survey and satisfaction surveys. Focus groups or interviews were conducted with NPPs to collect additional subjective information to inform the project.The incident-to practice model was the predominant model. Satisfaction was universally high for patients and generally high for physicians and NPPs. In virtually all cases (98%), patients recognized they were seeing an NPP rather than a physician. Practices in which the NPP worked with all practice physicians showed significantly higher productivity than those practices in which the NPP worked exclusively with a specific physician or group of physicians.The use of NPPs in oncology practices increases productivity for the practice and provides high physician and NPP satisfaction. Patients were aware when care was provided by an NPP and were very satisfied with all aspects of the collaborative care that they received. The integration of nonphysician practitioners into oncology practice offers a reliable means to address increased demand for oncology services without adding physicians.

The Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act has placed an emphasis on electronic health information exchange (EHIE). Research on needs of patient, especially those touched by cancer, has been sparse. Here, we present data on preferences for EHIE among those touched by cancer compared with a nationally representative sample of American adults.TWO SURVEYS WERE USED: an online survey designed by LIVESTRONG (the Lance Armstrong Foundation) and a dual-frame, nationally representative sample of adults collected through the National Cancer Institute's Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS).The LIVESTRONG EHIE survey yielded a sample of 8,411 respondents, including 433 currently receiving cancer treatment, 298 living with cancer as a chronic disease, 2,343 post-treatment survivors, and 5,337 with no history of cancer. The HINTS sample consisted of 7,674 respondents representative of the general adult population. Comparisons revealed a strong positive view of the value of EHIE within the cancer-relevant groups, especially among those living with cancer as a chronic disease. Only about half of the general population showed a similar degree of enthusiasm for EHIE. When asked about specific functions for EHRs, respondents valued privacy and security above all, followed by improving care coordination and data sharing between providers.These data suggest that the EHIE needs among those touched by cancer may be greater than in the general population. This is particularly important because people affected by cancer are among those who access our health care system most frequently and who have the most at stake.

Kaiser Permanente (KP) is a not-for profit health care organization that provides care for approximately 8.7 million members in nine states and the District of Columbia. In 2004, it began implementation of its current electronic health record (EHR), which by 2010, was in use in all KP regions, in both outpatient and inpatient settings. Over the same period, a suite of online services was also implemented. Among these services was a password-protected e-mail system (referred to as secure messaging) that allowed physicians and patients to communicate electronically. Use of secure messaging has increased rapidly. By 2010, 64% of the 3.6 million KP members in northern California had signed up for online access. In 2010, the 7,000 physicians of Northern California KP received 5.8 million secure messages. Secure messaging has been associated with a decrease in office visits, an increase in measurable quality outcomes (at least in primary care), and excellent patient satisfaction.

The problems that face our national health care delivery systems include fragmentation of the provider base, poor communication among providers and with patients, misaligned incentives among stakeholders, lack of a common governance structure, and insufficient financial and expert resources for instituting and managing change even where the will to do so exists. Although widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) is frequently and correctly cited as necessary to meet the challenge of doing better with less, technology alone will not accomplish this. Societal change within both the medical system and the population that the medical establishment interacts with must accompany the adoption of health information technology (HIT). The reliance on financial incentives and disincentives to control medical behavior, improve value, and bend the rising burden of health care on the nation's economy will fail unless physicians and their professional societies are included as meaningful partners in health care reform. We will begin to advance health care only if we succeed in creating a new socio-technologic ecosystem that includes providers, patients, and payers. The meaningful use (MU) criteria that unlock the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) stimulus dollars matter because these criteria are the tangible first efforts to redesign how health care is delivered while acknowledging the central role of HIT and EHRs. The underlying principles on which these criteria were constructed define the priorities and goals for national health and health care delivery redesign.

The transparency and multidisciplinary nature of the CCHIT criteria development process ensure that certification is a meaningful and clinically relevant achievement for an EHR product.

The widespread adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) is creating rich databases documenting the cancer patient's care continuum. However, much of this data, especially narrative "oncologic histories," are "locked" within free text (unstructured) portions of notes. Nationwide incentives, ranging from certification (Quality Oncology Practice Initiative) to monetary reimbursement (the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act), increasingly require the translation of these histories into treatment summaries for patient use and into tools to assist in transitions of care. Unfortunately, formulation of treatment summaries from these data is difficult and time-consuming. The rapidly developing field of automated natural language processing may offer a solution to this communication problem.We surveyed a cross section of providers at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center regarding the importance of treatment summaries and whether these were being formulated on a regular basis. We also developed a program for the Informatics for Integrating Biology and the Bedside challenge, which was designed to extract meaningful information from EHRs. The program was then applied to a sample of narrative oncologic histories.The majority of providers (86%) felt that treatment summaries were important, but only 11% actually implemented them. The most common obstacles identified were lack of time and lack of EHR tools. We demonstrated that relevant medical concepts can be automatically extracted from oncologic histories with reasonable accuracy and precision.Natural language processing technology offers a promising method for structuring a free-text oncologic history into a compact treatment summary, creating a robust and accurate means of communication between providers and between provider and patient.

Pediatric oncology is a challenging environment for computerized provider order entry (CPOE). Our goal was to build on the proven safety features of CPOE and facilitate input of expert clinicians.A standard, commercially available CPOE system was implemented throughout the hospital. The design of the pediatric oncology implementation was a collaborative effort by a multidisciplinary team of clinicians and information technology experts.During 9 months of configuration effort, 30 medical logic modules and 110 order sets were developed to support pediatric oncology. The proportion of chemotherapy orders submitted using specific research protocol or standard-of-care order sets increased from 57% to 84% as the number of active order sets grew to 200. The number of medication-related patient safety events decreased 39% after implementation of CPOE in pediatric oncology. Acceptance of the system is high in all clinical disciplines.Implementation of CPOE required extensive customization but improved patient safety in this highly complex pediatric oncology environment.

The purpose of this study was to review the need for and benefits of multidisciplinary care in patients with cancer, to describe our experience setting up a multidisciplinary reference center (MRC) dedicated to the treatment of the uncommon cancer neuroendocrine tumors (NETs), and to present the perspective of a patient seeking treatment at our center.The literature was searched to review the outcomes of patients with cancer treated by a multidisciplinary team.Multidisciplinary care for patients with more common cancers has been associated with improvements in diagnosis, treatment planning, survival, patient satisfaction, and clinician satisfaction. Similar benefits have been seen in patients with NETs receiving treatment at a specialty center. The establishment of our NETs MRC allows us to offer integrated care, providing surgical oncology and medical oncology disciplines; nurses well experienced in the treatment of NETs; and the expertise of endocrinology, diagnostic radiology, and interventional radiology specialists. Since our clinic was established, we have increased our availability to see patients and have received positive feedback from those attending.MRCs have been associated with improved patient outcomes. As providers at a dedicated NETs MRC, we feel that these centers have a positive effect on both patient and provider experience. The creation of specialty centers with a focus on improving outcomes and quality of care should be a goal of health care systems and are especially important for patients with NETs and other rare cancers.

Multidisciplinary clinics (MDCs) play a prominent role in coordinating complex cancer care delivered by multiple providers from different disciplines. The structure of such clinics and clinicians' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of practicing in MDCs have not been well characterized.We surveyed and interviewed medical providers who participate in cancer MDCs at our comprehensive cancer center about the structure of the MDCs in which they work, their satisfaction working in these clinics, and the perceived benefits and disadvantages. Press-Ganey patient satisfaction scores were also examined.WE IDENTIFIED TWO CARE MODELS: one in which patients are seen sequentially by physicians from each discipline, and a second model in which patients are seen concurrently by physicians from each discipline. Of the 141 survey respondents from surgical oncology, medical oncology and radiation oncology, more than 90% of providers enjoyed working in an MDC and more than 75% preferred to see new patients in an MDC. Additionally, 90% believed that patients perceived the clinics to be valuable for comprehensive, coordinated, and appropriate care. However, one third of the phsyicians thought the clinics were not an efficient use of their time. Participants who practice in the concurrent model of care and surgical oncologists were more likely to express frustration with the inefficiency of MDCs. Patients seen in each clinic model uniformly expressed high satisfaction with the coordination of care.MDCs are valued by oncology patients and providers. Although they are personally and professionally satisfying for physicians, the use of this care model is perceived as inefficient by some caregivers.

Neoadjuvant therapy for pancreatic adenocarcinoma requires referral to multiple specialists before initiating therapy. We evaluated the effect of establishing a multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) for patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma on treatment access and time to therapy.Patients with newly diagnosed pancreatic adenocarcinoma diagnosed and treated at our center were included. Two patient groups were defined: preclinic represented those patients diagnosed before 2008 and MDC represented those patients diagnosed since 2009 who were treated in the newly created MDC and were initially candidates for neoadjuvant therapy. The primary outcomes were days from diagnosis to first treatment (initiation of chemotherapy or external beam radiation), days to completion of all required consultations, and number of visits needed before initiation of therapy.Ninety-seven patients were diagnosed and treated at our medical center from 2003 to 2008; 22 were treated in 2009 after the implementation of the MDC. Compared with the preclinic group, patients treated in the MDC had shorter times from biopsy to treatment (7.7 days v 29.5 days, P.001), shorter time to completion of all required pretreatment consultations (7.1 days v 13.9 days, P.001), and fewer visits to complete all consultations (1.1 v 4.3, P.001). Thirty-three percent of patients seen in the MDC enrolled onto clinical research trials.In patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, the establishment of a multidisciplinary pancreas tumor clinic led to improved patient access to consultations and shorter time to initial treatment.

To report on the 15-year prostate cancer experience of our multidisciplinary genitourinary cancer clinic established in 1996 at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) -designated Jefferson Kimmel Cancer Center. Patients with genitourinary cancers were evaluated weekly by multiple specialists at a single site, and we focus on the 83% of patients with prostate cancer. To our knowledge, our multidisciplinary genitourinary cancer clinic is the longest continuously operating center of its kind at an NCI Cancer Center in the United States.Data from Jefferson's Oncology Data Services were compared to SEER prostate cancer outcomes. Data on treatment changes in localized disease, patient satisfaction, and related parameters were also assessed.Ten-year survival data approach 100% in stage I and II prostate cancer. Ten-year data for stage III (T3 N0M0) and stage IV (T4 N0M0) disease show that our institutional survival rate exceeds SEER. There is a shift toward robotically assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy and a slight decrease in brachytherapy relative to external beam radiation therapy in localized disease. Patient satisfaction is high as measured by survey instruments.Our long-term experience suggests a benefit of the multidisciplinary clinic approach to prostate cancer, most pronounced for high-risk, locally advanced disease. A high level of satisfaction with this patient-centered model is seen. The multidisciplinary clinic approach to prostate cancer may enhance outcomes and possibly reduce treatment regret through a coordinated presentation of all therapeutic options. This clinic model serves as an interdisciplinary educational tool for patients, their families, and our trainees and supports clinical trial participation.

Multidisciplinary care refers to a practice in which physicians from multiple specialties attend to the same patient population. There are many advantages to the model, including reduced time to treatment, coordinated treatment plans, increased patient and physician satisfaction, and increased enrollment onto clinical trials. At Central Dupage Hospital, multidisciplinary clinics have been instituted in lung and gynecologic cancer. We describe the structure and operation of each clinic and highlight their considerable success in improving patient care.

Multidisciplinary cancer care is a standard feature of high quality care. In many centers, the multidisciplinary meeting (MDM) is an integral component. A qualitative study was performed to explore health professionals' attitudes towards this model of care, the decision making processes, and dynamics among team members.A series of focus groups was conducted with health professionals who attend MDMs at our institution. Focus groups followed a semistructured format with open-ended questions. A thematic analysis was performed.Four focus groups were held, attended by 23 participants including allied health professionals, specialist nurses, medical oncologists, and surgeons. All participants believed the primary objective of the MDM was to develop an individualized treatment plan. Several other key themes emerged. The MDM provided opportunities to improve communication, efficiency, and education as well as enhance professional relationships. Medical information was prioritized ahead of psychosocial details, with allied health professionals describing difficulty contributing to MDM discussion. Patient attendance at MDMs was opposed by health professionals because of concerns about the patient's ability to cope with the information discussed and the effect their presence would have on the dynamics of the decision-making process.Health professionals endorse MDMs as a useful tool in treating patients with cancer. Within this forum, both opportunities and constrains exist, with many benefits extending beyond the meeting itself into other clinical areas. Further study is warranted to establish an evidence base to ensure that both the possibilities and the limitations of this model of care are fully understood.

Purpose: To describe a pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary method of care delivery begun at the University of North Carolina. We describe the characteristics of the population seen and the role of the individual members of the interdisciplinary team, and provide an early analysis of the program’s impact on symptom improvement. Methods: A supportive care consultation service was begun at the University of North Carolina Hospitals to serve adult outpatients with cancer undergoing treatment or follow-up. Patients data were entered into an institutional review board–approved database to permit detailed assessments over time. Patient demographics were analyzed using descriptive statistics, medications used and changes made were noted, and symptom scores from a previously described instrument were captured and compared over time. Results: Patients were seen from all adult oncology services, includinggynecologic,radiation,medical,andsurgical.Thecharacteristics of the population seen were similar to those of the hospital population as a whole. Most of the patients were seen for pain management, and many required a medication change. Symptom scores improved by the second visit, and the improvement was maintained. Conclusion: We are able to demonstrate that the use of a pharmacist-led, interdisciplinary team produced an improvement in symptom scores comparable to what has been seen in the inpatient palliative care service within our institution. Projected shortages of oncology providers may be mitigated by pharmacists working in collaborative practices, with prescriptive authority, in the ambulatory oncology setting.

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.

More than 16% of the total sites participating nationally in the QOPI survey are in Michigan. A significant component of the growth in QOPI participation in Michigan can be attributed to the involvement and quality improvement efforts of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan.

More than a decade ago, the Institute of Medicine created the National Cancer Policy Board and identified a need to assess national quality of cancer care, generating a cascade of projects, including ASCO's QOPI.

As the population ages, maintaining the quality of care for new patients with cancer will be challenged by an anticipated shortage of health professionals to care for the increased number of newly diagnosed and surviving patients with cancer.

High-quality oncology care includes many indispensable elements: care coordination, treatment planning, supportive care, and palliative care. Delivery of these services requires appropriate amounts of staff, space, and resources. In the past, profit margins on drugs were used to pay for the provision of the many essential services that have been and continue to be unreimbursed. One of the goals of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 (MMA) was to move away from drug margin by transitioning from an average wholesale price (AWP) model to an average sales price (ASP) model as a means of determining reimbursement amounts. To replace the use of AWP, Medicare augmented its coding and payments for infusion services in an incomplete attempt to better match payments to the services oncology clinics actually perform. Medicare payments for infusion services have been serially reduced every year since 2004. Current payments for infusion services have declined 35% since 2004. When adjusted for the medical economic index, a practice expense adjustment, the decline has been 47%. (Figure 1) Fearing potential shortfalls, Medicare implemented demonstration projects to provide supplemental funding in 2005 and 2006. After 2006, the demonstration projects were not renewed. Figure 1. Decrease in Medicare reimbursement for infusion services since 2004. A partial explanation for these payment reductions includes the most recent American Medical Association (AMA) practice expense survey conducted in 2008. The survey was not specialty specific and included only one question regarding infusion services. Survey data were received from fewer than 60 oncologists nationwide. Nevertheless, based on analysis of the AMA survey and older data, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services proposed a 20% reduction in infusion service payments. As a result of thoughtful opposition from the oncology community, the infusion service payments reductions have been partially mitigated. Recognizing the fundamental misunderstanding of government and private payers regarding oncology practice expenses, the Community Oncology Alliance (COA) and Avalere Health conducted a Components of Care study that collected detailed survey data from 499 oncologists for calendar year 2008.1 Analysis of practice expenses for the provision of infusion services determined that Medicare payments covered only 57% of the cost of providing these services to beneficiaries. Over the past several years, private payers have slowly migrated to an ASP payment model for drugs. Because this transition has been gradual, the full impact of the ASP system has only recently become apparent. The end result has been that current government and private payer payments for infusion and cognitive services do not nearly compensate for the reduced drug margins under the ASP system. The current payment system has thus effectively tried to replace something with nothing, and the result has been the widespread failure of private oncology clinics. COA has compiled a practice impact report that demonstrates this graphically (Figure 2).2 Multiple practices across the country have closed, merged with other entities, or been sold to hospital systems. Figure 2. Nationwide impact of reduced payments. The National Oncology Practice Benchmark study3 provides invaluable data to illustrate the financial impact of these changes on practices. One strength of the data is that it has been collected in a similar, but not identical, format over several years. It likely represents the largest compilation of oncology practice financial data in existence. It is important to remember, however, that financial data were collected from different practice participants each year. The groups that have contributed data over the past few years are the survivors. In an earlier iteration of the National Oncology Practice Benchmark, it was reported that physician-owned oncology practices declined from 87% of respondents in 2007 to 71% in 2009.4 It is likely that the data being analyzed greatly underestimate the true magnitude that changes to the payment system have had on the financial condition of practices. Many practices that were affected the most are no longer around to contribute data. The report accurately describes phases of stability (1991-2003), MMA adaption (2004-2006), and squeeze (2007-2010).3 The squeeze phase began when no additional demonstration projects existed to provide supplemental funding. Reductions in payments for infusion services and gradual private payer adoption of the ASP drug reimbursement model have contributed to the squeeze. One should not necessarily conclude that the ASP methodology has resulted in some bending of the cost curve for oncology drugs. The report correctly describes the effect of reduced usage of erythropoietic stimulating agents on total amount spent on drugs by oncology clinics. However, when interpreting overall trends in drug spending, one must be mindful of the shift of many treatments from physician-owned clinics to the hospital outpatient setting. One critical effect of MMA is that patients who have Medicare coverage without coinsurance are generally treated at a loss in private clinics if the patients are unable to afford their 20% drug payment burden. Most patients cannot afford this expense. Furthermore, Medicaid payments in many states have been curtailed, which has similarly forced patients into hospital outpatient infusion centers. Therefore, the trajectory of total drug spending for oncology care is predictably higher than the National Oncology Practice Benchmark data illustrate. The data from the National Oncology Practice Benchmark have been and continues to be invaluable in analyzing the financial metrics and trends for the operation of oncology clinics. For years, many stakeholders in oncology have been anticipating the tipping point at which private clinics become financially nonviable. As the practice impact report demonstrates, the future is now. Any additional reimbursement reductions for oncology are certain to drive more practices under. Therefore, the question now is not, “Where is the tipping point?” but rather, “Is this current failure of private clinics undesirable?” Many private payers appear to realize that their total spending on oncology care is increasing with the gradual disappearance of private oncology offices. The false narrative has been that private practice oncology offices represented cost centers practicing on the basis of perverse incentives that led to overutilization. Payers are now starting to recognize private offices as the most efficient oncology care delivery model. If payers do not want to return to the past of financing oncology clinics through drug margin, then their only choice is to truly recognize the practice expense for operations and reimburse it in a more viable format. The “experiment” of replacing something with nothing has been proven to be unsustainable for private oncology practices.

Cancer treatment can be a complex and confusing process for both the patients and the care providers. With an ever-increasing array of treatment options, a push toward personalized medicine, and a complex payer system, coordination of cancer care is essential in streamlining the process. At Intermountain Healthcare, we have developed a hospital-based multidisciplinary cancer clinic that provides coordinated and comprehensive treatment planning in a single visit. Provider participation is open to employed, affiliated, and community physicians.The first multidisciplinary clinic, which was for breast cancer, was held in 2005. Similar clinics for other tumor types have subsequently been instituted, including clinics for genitourinary/prostate, GI/liver/pancreas, sarcoma, and thoracic cancer. Each clinic is staffed by a surgeon, medical oncologist, radiation oncologist, and other specialists as needed. Clinic meetings are held immediately following a specialty tumor conference during which each patient is discussed. The patients then meet one-on-one with each specialist and leave the clinic with an individualized treatment plan. Patient and physician satisfaction surveys are regularly conducted. Financial metrics are calculated to track downstream revenue.Satisfaction with the clinic has been high, and 98% of patients rated their overall experience as "excellent." Physicians also give the clinic high marks, crediting it with improving communication, building patient confidence, and increasing efficiency.The multidisciplinary clinic at Intermountain Healthcare has greatly improved the cancer care process for patients, physicians, and the community. If implemented appropriately, multidisciplinary clinics have the potential to enhance quality of care and increase downstream revenue.

The patient diagnosed with cancer often gets only a glimpse of the people making life and death decisions for him or her. To improve patient care, physicians have tried to bring together the members of this care team in the form of multidisciplinary clinics.