Two Innovative Cancer Care Programs Have Potential to Reduce Utilization and Spending

Non-emergency department (ED) interventions to reduce ED utilization: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Emergency department (ED) crowding is a global burden. Interventions to reduce ED utilization have been widely discussed in the literature, but previous reviews have mainly focused on specific interventions or patient groups within the EDs. The purpose of this scoping review was to identify, summarize, and categorize the various types of non-ED-based interventions designed to reduce unnecessary visits to EDs.

METHODS

This scoping review followed the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the PRISMA-SCR checklist. A comprehensive structured literature search was performed in the databases MEDLINE and Embase from 2008 to March 2024. The inclusion criteria covered studies reporting on interventions outside the ED that aimed to reduce ED visits. Two reviewers independently screened the records and categorized the included articles by intervention type, location, and population.

RESULTS

Among the 15,324 screened records, we included 210 studies, comprising 183 intervention studies and 27 systematic reviews. In the primary studies, care coordination/case management or other care programs were the most commonly examined out of 15 different intervention categories. The majority of interventions took place in clinics or medical centers, in patients' homes, followed by hospitals and primary care settings - and targeted patients with specific medical conditions.

CONCLUSION

A large number of studies have been published investigating interventions to mitigate the influx of patients to EDs. Many of these targeted patients with specific medical conditions, frequent users and high-risk patients. Further research is needed to address other high prevalent groups in the ED - including older adults and mental health patients (who are ill but may not need the ED). There is also room for further research on new interventions to reduce ED utilization in low-acuity patients and in the general patient population.

Adult Cancer-Related Emergency Department Utilization: An Analysis of Trends and Outcomes From Emergency Departments in Maryland and New York

PURPOSE

To explore emergency department (ED) visits by adults with cancer and to estimate associations between inpatient admissions through the ED and mortality with sociodemographic and clinical factors within this cohort.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, pooled, cross-sectional analysis of the Healthcare Cost and Utilization State Emergency Department Databases and State Inpatient Databases for Maryland and New York from January 2013 to December 2017. We examined inpatient admissions through the ED and mortality using frequencies. Among patients with cancer, multivariable regressions were used to estimate sociodemographic and clinical factors associated with inpatient admissions and outpatient ED and inpatient mortality overall.

RESULTS

Among 22.7 million adult ED users, 1.3 million (5.7%) had at least one cancer-related diagnosis. ED visit rates per 100,000 population increased annually throughout the study period for patients with cancer and were 9.9% higher in 2017 compared with 2013 (2013: 303.5; 2017: 333.6). Having at least one inpatient admission (68.7% v 20.5%; P < .001) and inpatient or ED mortality (6.5% v 1.0%; P < .001) were higher among ED users with cancer compared with those without. Among patients with cancer, being uninsured (adjusted odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.62) compared with having Medicare coverage and non-Hispanic Black (adjusted odds ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.92) compared with non-Hispanic White were associated with decreased odds of inpatient admissions. In contrast, patients with cancer without health insurance, non-Hispanic Black patients, and residents of nonlarge metropolitan areas and of areas with lower household incomes had increased odds of mortality.

CONCLUSION

High inpatient admissions through the ED and mortality among adult patients with cancer, coupled with an increase in cancer-related ED visit rates and observed disparities in outcomes, highlight the need to improve access to oncologic services to contain ED use and improve care for patients with cancer.

Patient-Reported Symptom Complexity and Acute Care Utilization Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using a Novel Symptom Complexity Algorithm and Observational Data

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer in Canada are often effectively managed in ambulatory settings; however, patients with unmanaged or complex symptoms may turn to the emergency department (ED) for additional support. These unplanned visits can be costly to the healthcare system and distressing for patients. This study used a novel patient-reported outcomes (PROs)-derived symptom complexity algorithm to understand characteristics of patients who use acute care, which may help clinicians identify patients who would benefit from additional support.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This retrospective observational cohort study used population-based linked administrative healthcare data. All patients with cancer in Alberta, Canada, who completed at least one PRO symptom-reporting questionnaire between October 1, 2019, and April 1, 2020, were included. The algorithm used ratings of 9 symptoms to assign a complexity score of low, medium, or high. Multivariable binary logistic regressions were used to evaluate factors associated with a higher likelihood of having an ED visit or hospital admission (HA) within 7 days of completing a PRO questionnaire.

RESULTS

Of the 29,133 patients in the cohort, 738 had an ED visit and 452 had an HA within 7 days of completing the PRO questionnaire. Patients with high symptom complexity had significantly higher odds of having an ED visit (OR, 3.10; 95% CI, 2.59-3.70) or HA (OR, 4.20; 95% CI, 3.36-5.26) compared with low complexity patients, controlling for demographic covariates.

CONCLUSIONS

Given that patients with higher symptom complexity scores were more likely to use acute care, clinicians should monitor these more complex patients closely, because they may benefit from additional support or symptom management in ambulatory settings. A symptom complexity algorithm can help clinicians easily identify patients who may require additional support. Using an algorithm to guide care can enhance patient experiences, while reducing use of acute care services and the accompanying cost and burden.

Cancer Survivorship and Supportive Care Economics Research: Current Challenges and Next Steps

BACKGROUND

Rapid growth in the number of cancer survivors raises numerous questions about health and economic outcomes among survivors along with their families, caregivers, and employers. Health economics theory and methods can contribute to many open questions to improve survivorship.

METHODS

In this paper, we review key areas where more research is needed and describe strategies for improving data infrastructure, research funding, and capacity building to strengthen survivorship health economics research.

CONCLUSIONS

Health economics has broadened an understanding of key supply- and demand-side factors that promote cancer survivorship. To ensure necessary research in survivorship health economics moving forward, we recommend dedicated funding, inclusion of health economics outcomes in primary data collection, and investments in secondary data sets.

Methodological approaches to measuring the incidence of unplanned emergency department presentations by cancer patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy: a systematic review

Background

The need to mitigate the volume of unplanned emergency department (ED) presentations is a priority for health systems globally. Current evidence on the incidence and risk factors associated with unplanned ED presentations is unclear because of substantial heterogeneity in methods reporting on this issue. The aim of this review was to examine the methodological approaches to measure the incidence of unplanned ED presentations by patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy in order to determine the strength of evidence and to inform future research.

Methods

An electronic search of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane was undertaken. Papers published in English language between 2000 and 2019, and papers that included patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy as the denominator during the study period were included. Studies were eligible if they were analytical observational studies. Data relating to the methods used to measure the incidence of ED presentations by patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy were extracted and assessed for methodological rigor. Findings are reported in accordance with the Synthesis Without Meta-Analysis (SWiM) guideline.

Results

Twenty-one articles met the inclusion criteria: 20 cohort studies, and one cross-sectional study. Overall risk of bias was moderate. There was substantial methodological and clinical heterogeneity in the papers included. Methodological rigor varied based on the description of methods such as the period of observation, loss to follow-up, reason for ED presentation and statistical methods to control for time varying events and potential confounders.

Conclusions

There is considerable diversity in the population and methods used in studies that measure the incidence of unplanned ED presentations by patients receiving systemic anti-cancer therapy. Recommendations to support the development of robust evidence include enrolling participants at diagnosis or initiation of treatment, providing adequate description of regular care to support patients who experience toxicities, reporting reasons for and characteristics of participants who are lost to follow-up throughout the study period, clearly defining the outcome including the observation and follow-up period, and reporting crude numbers of ED presentations and the number of at-risk days to account for variation in the length of treatment protocols.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01555-3.

The patient-centered oncology care on health care utilization and cost: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Optimal cancer care entails coordination among multiple providers and continued follow-up and surveillance over time. The patient-centered care brings opportunities to improve the delivery of cancer care. The adoption of patient-centered oncology care (PCOC) is in its infancy. Evidence synthesis on the model's effectiveness is scant.

PURPOSES

This is the first systemic review and meta-analysis on associations of PCOC with cancer patients' adverse health care utilization, cost, patient satisfaction, and quality of care.

METHODS

Our study was guided by the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) framework. Quality appraisal was performed using Downs and Black's quality checklist. Study-level effect sizes of adverse health care utilization were computed using Cohen's d and summarized using forest plots. Funnel plots were constructed to examine publication bias.

RESULTS

Of 334 studies that were reviewed, 10 met eligibility criteria and were included into the final analysis. Many included studies implemented almost all six of patient-centered care core attributes, plus three additional attributes that specifically addressed cancer patients' needs, including triage pathways, standardized and evidence-based symptom management, as well as support patient navigation. PCOC patients had lower utilization of inpatient care (standardized means difference [SMD] = -0.027, p = .049). Overall positive effect of PCOC on emergency department use was small and not significant (SMD = -0.023, p = .103). With regard to cost and quality of care, our narrative summaries showed an overall positive direction, though we found limitations in individual study quality that precluded a meta-analysis.

PUBLIC IMPLICATION

The results showed that it is possible to utilize patient-centered model to support best practice of cancer care. Early evidence shows that the PCOC model has potential to improve health care utilization, cost, and quality of care, but limited numbers of included articles and heterogeneity of those studies implied that more rigorous research is expected to further investigate the model's effects.

Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Expert Testicular Cancer Tumor Board Across a Large Integrated Healthcare Delivery System Via Early Case Ascertainment

PURPOSE

In 2016, Kaiser Permanente Northern California began regionalizing testicular cancer care using population-based tumor board review. This mixed methods evaluation describes implementation outcomes and learnings.

METHODS

We conducted in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, administered surveys to local oncologists and urologists, and used clinical data to evaluate changes in care delivery during 2015-2018.

RESULTS

An average of 135 patients with testicular cancer were diagnosed each year. Interviews with 16 key stakeholders provided several insights. Implementation resulted in high levels of satisfaction, was dependent on leadership and staff at various levels, and required technology and consulting solutions aligned to user agreements and clinical workflows. Of 123 local oncologists and urologists who completed surveys, 97% understood why care was regionalized and 89% agreed that tumor board review improved treatment decisions. Among 177 patients with stage I seminoma, the percentage appropriately observed rather than treated with adjuvant chemotherapy or radiation therapy increased from 48% (95% CI, 35 to 62) in 2015 to 87% (75 to 99) in 2018. Review altered care based on pathology and radiology re-review in 14.5 % of cases.

CONCLUSION

Regionalization was feasible and effective.

Cancer-related Emergency Department Visits: Comparing Characteristics and Outcomes

Introduction

There is increasing appreciation of the challenges of providing safe and appropriate care to cancer patients in the emergency department (ED). Our goal here was to assess which patient characteristics are associated with more frequent ED revisits.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study of all ED visits in California during the 2016 calendar year using data from the California Office of Statewide Health Planning and Development. We defined revisits as a return visit to an ED within seven days of the index visit. For both index and return visits, we assessed various patient characteristics, including age, cancer type, medical comorbidities, and ED disposition.

Results

Among 12.9 million ED visits, we identified 73,465 adult cancer patients comprising 103,523 visits that met our inclusion criteria. Cancer patients had a 7-day revisit rate of 17.9% vs 13.2% for non-cancer patients. Cancer patients had a higher rate of admission upon 7-day revisit (36.7% vs 15.6%). Patients with cancers of the small intestine, stomach, and pancreas had the highest rate of 7-day revisits (22–24%). Cancer patients younger than 65 had a higher 7-day revisit rate than the elderly (20.0% vs 16.2%).

Conclusion

In a review of all cancer-related ED visits in the state of California, we found a variety of characteristics associated with a higher rate of 7-day ED revisits. Our goal in this study was to inform future research to identify interventions on the index visit that may improve patient outcomes.

Oncology Medical Home: ASCO and COA Standards

PURPOSE

To provide Standards on the basis of evidence and expert consensus for a pilot of the Oncology Medical Home (OMH) certification program. The OMH model is a system of care delivery that features coordinated, efficient, accessible, and evidence-based care and includes a process for measurement of outcomes to facilitate continuous quality improvement. The OMH pilot is intended to inform further refinement of Standards for OMH model implementation.

METHODS

An Expert Panel was formed, and a systematic review of the literature on the topics of OMH, clinical pathways, and survivorship care plans was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Using this evidence base and an informal consensus process, the Expert Panel developed a set of OMH Standards. Public comments were solicited and considered in preparation of the final manuscript.

RESULTS

Three comparative peer-reviewed studies of OMH met the inclusion criteria. In addition, the results from 16 studies of clinical pathways and one systematic review of survivorship care plans informed the evidence review. Limitations of the evidence base included the small number of studies of OMH and lack of longer-term outcomes data. More data were available to inform the specific Standards for pathways and survivorship care; however, outcomes were mixed for the latter intervention. The Expert Panel concluded that in the future, practices should be encouraged to publish the results of OMH interventions in peer-reviewed journals to improve the evidence base.

STANDARDS

Standards are provided for OMH in the areas of patient engagement, availability and access to care, evidence-based medicine, equitable and comprehensive team-based care, quality improvement, goals of care, palliative and end-of-life care discussions, and chemotherapy safety. Additional information, including a Standards implementation manual, is available at www.asco.org/standards.

Hospice Use Among Patients With Cancer: Trends, Barriers, and Future Directions

Patients with advanced cancer and their families frequently encounter clinical and logistical challenges related to end-of-life care. Hospice provides interdisciplinary and holistic care to meet patients' biomedical, psychosocial, and spiritual needs in the last phases of life. Despite increasing general acceptance and use among patients with cancer, hospice remains underused. Underuse stems from ongoing misconceptions regarding hospice and its purpose, coupled with the rapid development of novel anticancer treatments, such as immunotherapies and targeted therapies, that have changed the landscape of possibilities. Furthermore, rapid evolutions in how end-of-life care is structured and reimbursed for will affect how oncology patients will intersect with hospice care. In this review, we explore the current and future challenges to greater integration of hospice care in the care of patients with advanced cancer and propose five recommendations as part of the path forward.

Preventing emergency department visits among patients with cancer: a scoping review

PURPOSE

The objective of this scoping review was to examine the effectiveness of supportive care interventions designed to reduce ED visits among patients receiving active cancer treatment.

METHODS

Literature search involving nine electronic databases and grey literature. Inclusion criteria considered studies assessing the impact of any intervention to reduce ED utilization among patients with active cancer. Dichotomous and continuous outcomes were summarized as risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) using a random-effects model, wherever appropriate.

RESULTS

A total of 25 studies were included. Interventions identified in these studies comprised the following: routine and symptom-based patient follow-up, oncology outpatient clinics, early symptom detection, comprehensive inpatient management, hospital at home, and patient navigators. Six out of eight studies assessing oncology outpatient clinics reported a decrease in the proportion of patients presenting to the ED. A meta-analysis of three of these studies did not demonstrate reduction in ED utilization (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.56 to 1.08; I2 = 77%) when comparing oncology outpatient clinics with standard care; however, sensitivity analysis supported a decrease in ED visits (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.99; I2 = 47%). Three studies assessing patient follow-up interventions showed no difference in ED utilization (RR 0.69; 95% CI 0.38 to 1.25; I2 = 86%).

CONCLUSION

A variety of supportive care interventions designed to mitigate ED presentations by patients receiving active cancer treatment have been developed and evaluated. Limited evidence suggests that an oncology outpatient clinic may be an effective strategy to reduce ED utilization; however, additional high-quality studies are needed.

Evolution of a longitudinal, multidisciplinary, and scalable patient navigation matrix model

This Longitudinal patient navigation Matrix Model was developed to overcome barriers across the cancer care continuum by offering prepatients, patients, and their families with support services. The extraordinary heterogeneity of patient needs during cancer screening, risk assessment, treatment, and survivorship as well as the vast heterogeneity of oncology care settings make it nearly impossible to follow a static navigation model. Our model of patient cancer navigation is unique as it enhances the traditional model by being highly adaptable based on both patient and family needs and scalable based on institutional needs and resources (eg, clinical volumes, financial resources, and community‐based resources). This relatively new operational model for system‐wide and systematic navigation incorporates a carefully cultivated supportive care program that evolved over the last decade from a bottom up approach that identified patient and family needs and developed appropriate resources. A core component of this model includes shifting away from department‐centric operations. This model does not require a patient to opt in or independently be able to report their needs or ask for services—it is an opt out model. The multidisciplinary “cross‐training” model can also facilitate reimbursement and sustainability by clarifying the differentiating actions that define navigation services: identification of barriers to quality care and specific actions taken to overcome those barriers, across the full continue of cancer care from community engagement to survivorship or end‐of‐life care.

Effect of a Lay Health Worker Intervention on Goals-of-Care Documentation and on Health Care Use, Costs, and Satisfaction Among Patients With Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Although lay health workers (LHWs) improve cancer screening and treatment adherence, evidence on whether they can enhance other aspects of care is limited.

Objective

To determine whether an LHW program can increase documentation of patients' care preferences after cancer diagnosis.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized clinical trial conducted from August 13, 2013, through February 2, 2015, among 213 patients with stage 3 or 4 or recurrent cancer at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. Data analysis was by intention to treat and performed from January 15 to August 18, 2017.

Interventions

Six-month program with an LHW trained to assist patients with establishing end-of-life care preferences vs usual care.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was documentation of goals of care. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction on the Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems "satisfaction with provider" item (on a scale of 0 [worst] to 10 [best possible]), health care use, and costs.

Results

Among the 213 participants randomized and included in the intention-to-treat analysis, the mean (SD) age was 69.3 (9.1) years, 211 (99.1%) were male, and 165 (77.5%) were of non-Hispanic white race/ethnicity. Within 6 months of enrollment, patients randomized to the intervention had greater documentation of goals of care than the control group (97 [92.4%] vs 19 [17.5%.]; P < .001) and larger increases in satisfaction with care on the Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems "satisfaction with provider" item (difference-in-difference, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.67-2.41; P < .001). The number of patients who died within 15 months of enrollment did not differ between groups (intervention, 60 of 105 [57.1%] vs control, 60 of 108 [55.6%]; P = .68). In the 30 days before death, patients in the intervention group had greater hospice use (46 [76.7%] vs 29 [48.3%]; P = .002), fewer emergency department visits (mean [SD], 0.05 [0.22] vs 0.60 [0.76]; P < .001), fewer hospitalizations (mean [SD], 0.05 [0.22] vs 0.50 [0.62]; P < .001), and lower costs (median [interquartile range], $1048 [$331-$8522] vs $23 482 [$9708-$55 648]; P < .001) than patients in the control group.

Conclusions and Relevance

Incorporating an LHW into cancer care increases goals-of-care documentation and patient satisfaction and reduces health care use and costs at the end of life.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02966509.

Development and Validation of a Score to Predict Acute Care Use After Initiation of Systemic Therapy for Cancer

IMPORTANCE

Emergency department visits and hospitalizations after starting systemic therapy for cancer are frequent, undesirable, and costly. A score to quantify the risk of needing acute care can inform decision-making and facilitate the development of preventive interventions.

OBJECTIVE

To develop and validate a score to predict early use of acute care after initiating systemic therapy for cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A retrospective population-based cohort study was conducted between July 1, 2014, and June 30, 2015. Patients with cancer were eligible if they started a new systemic therapy for cancer, regardless of line of therapy. A total of 12 162 patients in Southwestern Ontario, Canada, formed the development cohort and 15 845 patients in Northeastern Ontario formed the validation cohort. Data analysis was conducted from December 1, 2016, to August 10, 2019.

EXPOSURES

The Prediction of Acute Care Use During Cancer Treatment (PROACCT) score was created based on logistic regression in the development cohort. Combinations of cancer type and regimens were grouped into quintiles based on risk of needing acute care. The score was assessed in the validation cohort.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

At least 1 emergency department visit or hospitalization within 30 days after starting systemic therapy for cancer identified from administrative databases.

RESULTS

Among the 12 162 patients in the development cohort, 6903 were women and 5259 were men (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [12.6] years); among the 15 845 patients in the validation cohort, 9025 were women and 6820 were men (mean [SD] age, 62.9 [12.6] years). Use of acute care occurred within 30 days after initiation of systemic therapy in 3039 patients (25.0%) in the development cohort and 4212 patients (26.6%) in the validation cohort. Three characteristics predicted early use of acute care and formed the PROACCT score: combination of cancer type and treatment regimen, age, and emergency department visits in the prior year (C statistic, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.66-0.69; P < .001). Other characteristics including patient-reported symptoms did not improve performance. In the validation cohort, the PROACCT score was associated with use of acute care (odds ratio per point increase, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.20-1.24; P < .001), had a C statistic of 0.61 (95% CI, 0.60-0.62; P < .001), was reasonably calibrated, and provided net benefit in decision curve analysis.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PROACCT score predicted the risk of early use of acute care in patients starting systemic treatment for cancer and could be incorporated at the point of care to select patients for preventive interventions. Future studies should validate the PROACCT score in other settings.

The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of patient navigation programs across the cancer continuum: A systematic review

Published studies regarding patient navigation (PN) and cancer were reviewed to assess quality, determine gaps, and identify avenues for future research. The PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies investigating the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of PN across the cancer continuum. Each included article was scored independently by 2 separate reviewers with the Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies. The current review identified 113 published articles that assessed PN and cancer care, between August 1, 2010, and February 1, 2018, 14 of which reported on the cost-effectiveness of PN programs. Most publications focused on the effectiveness of PN in screening (50%) and diagnosis (27%) along the continuum of cancer care. Many described the effectiveness of PN for breast cancer (52%) or colorectal cancer outcomes (51%). Most studies reported favorable outcomes for PN programs, including increased uptake of and adherence to cancer screenings, timely diagnostic resolution and follow-up, higher completion rates for cancer therapy, and higher rates of attending medical appointments. Cost-effectiveness studies showed that PN programs yielded financial benefits. Quality assessment showed that 75 of the 113 included articles (65%) had 2 or more weak components. In conclusion, this review indicates numerous gaps within the PN and cancer literature where improvement is needed. For example, more research is needed at other points along the continuum of cancer care outside of screening and diagnosis. In addition, future research into the effectiveness of PN for understudied cancers outside of breast and colorectal cancer is necessary along with an assessment of cost-effectiveness and more rigorous reporting of study designs and results in published articles.

Characteristics of Emergency Department Visits and Select Predictors of Hospitalization for Adults With Newly Diagnosed Cancer in a Safety-Net Health System

PURPOSE

There is little description of emergency department (ED) visits and subsequent hospitalizations among a safety-net cancer population. We characterized patterns of ED visits and explored nonclinical predictors of subsequent hospitalization, including time of ED arrival.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of patients with cancer (excluding leukemia and nonmelanoma skin cancer) between 2012 and 2016 at a large county urban safety-net health system. We identified ED visits occurring within 180 days after a cancer diagnosis, along with subsequent hospitalizations (observation stay or inpatient admission). We used mixed-effects multivariable logistic regression to model hospitalization at ED disposition, accounting for variability across patients and emergency physicians.

RESULTS

The 9,050 adults with cancer were 77.2% nonwhite and 55.0% female. Nearly one-quarter (24.7%) of patients had advanced-stage cancer at diagnosis, and 9.7% died within 180 days of diagnosis. These patients accrued 11,282 ED visits within 180 days of diagnosis. Most patients had at least one ED visit (57.7%); half (49.9%) occurred during business hours (Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 4:59 pm), and half (50.4%) resulted in hospitalization. More than half (57.5%) of ED visits were for complaints that included: pain/headache, nausea/vomiting/dehydration, fever, swelling, shortness of breath/cough, and medication refill. Patients were most often discharged home when they arrived between 8:00 am and 11:59 am (adjusted odds ratio for hospitalization, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.84).

CONCLUSION

ED visits are common among safety-net patients with newly diagnosed cancer, and hospitalizations may be influenced by nonclinical factors. The majority of ED visits made by adults with newly diagnosed cancer in a safety-net health system could potentially be routed to an alternate site of care, such as a cancer urgent care clinic.

Defining Priorities to Improve Patient Experience in Non-Muscle Invasive Bladder Cancer

Background:

Although approximately 75% of bladder cancers are non-muscle invasive (NMIBC) at diagnosis, most research tends to focus on invasive disease (e.g., experiences related to radical cystectomy and urinary diversion). There is a lack of studies on quality of life, and especially qualitative research, in bladder cancer generally. As a result, relatively little is known about the experiences and needs of NMIBC patients.

Objective:

To understand patient experience, define care priorities, and identify targets for care improvement in NMIBC across the cancer continuum.

Methods:

Through focus groups, patients treated for NMIBC (stage <T2) were invited to share their care experiences including diagnosis, treatment, and survivorship. Transcripts were analyzed using conventional content analysis to identify themes and subthemes.

Results:

Twenty patients (16 male, 4 female, all white) participated in three focus groups. Five primary themes emerged: access to care, provider characteristics and communication, quality of life, goals of care/influences on decision-making, and role of social support. Patients with NMIBC desired timely access to care and honest and caring provider communication. They described urinary function and emotional quality of life changes resulting from diagnosis and treatment. Avoiding cystectomy and being alive for family were the major decision influencers.

Conclusion:

In this qualitative study, we identified access to care, provider characteristics and communication, quality of life, values/influences on decision-making, and social support as priority areas to improve patient experience in NMIBC. Care redesign efforts should focus on improving access, enhancing provider communication, reducing side effects, and supporting caregiver roles.