National Collaborative to Improve Oncology Practice: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Experience

Quality improvement in the national cancer institute community cancer centers program: the quality oncology practice initiative experience

PURPOSE

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007; it is a network of community-based hospitals funded by the NCI. Quality of care is an NCCCP priority, with participation in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) playing a fundamental role in quality assessment and quality improvement (QI) projects. Using QOPI methodology, performance on quality measures was analyzed two times per year over a 3-year period to enhance our implementation of quality standards at NCCCP hospitals.

METHODS

A data-sharing agreement allowed individual-practice QOPI data to be electronically sent to the NCI. Aggregated data with the other NCCCP QOPI participants were presented to the network via Webinars. The NCCCP Quality of Care Subcommittee selected areas in which to focus subsequent QI efforts, and high-performing practices shared voluntarily their QI best practices with the network.

RESULTS

QOPI results were compiled semiannually between fall 2010 and fall 2013. The network concentrated on measures with a quality score of ≤ 0.75 and planned voluntary group-wide QI interventions. We identified 13 measures in which the NCCCP fell at or below the designated quality score in fall 2010. After implementing a variety of QI initiatives, the network registered improvements in all parameters except one (use of treatment summaries).

CONCLUSION

Using the NCCCP as a paradigm, QOPI metrics provide a useful platform for group-wide measurement of quality performance. In addition, these measurements can be used to assess the effectiveness of QI initiatives.

Associations among survivorship care plans, experiences of survivorship care, and functioning in older breast cancer survivors: CALGB/Alliance 369901

PURPOSE

Survivorship care plans (SCP) are recommended for all cancer patients and could be especially useful to survivors 65 years and over ("older"). This study examined receipt of SCPs among older breast cancer survivors and whether SCPs were associated with improved patient-reported outcomes.

METHODS

Three hundred and twenty-eight older women diagnosed with invasive, nonmetastatic breast cancer between 2007-2011 were recruited from 78 cooperative-group sites. Participants completed telephone interviews at baseline and 1-year posttreatment. Regression analyses examined SCP receipt (yes/no) and functioning (EORTC-QLQ-C30), cancer worry, and experiences of survivorship care (care coordination, knowledge).

RESULTS

Only 35% of women received SCPs. For each 1-year increase in age, there was a 5% lower odds of receiving an SCP (odds ratio (OR) = 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.91-0.98, p = 0.007). Besides age, no other factor predicted SCPs. SCP receipt was associated with greater knowledge and understanding of requisite follow-up care (p < 0.05); however, functioning was not significantly different among those with vs. without SCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of care plans was limited. SCPs improved understanding of breast cancer follow-up care among older survivors, but did not impact functioning one year post-treatment.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

To impact functioning and salient needs of the growing cohort of older survivors, survivorship care plans likely should be tailored to geriatric-specific issues. To improve functioning, SCP content should expand to include exercise, nutrition, polypharmacy, social support and management of symptom burden from cancer, and other comorbid conditions. To improve follow-up care for cancer survivors, SCPs should delineate shared care roles between oncology and primary care in managing recurrence surveillance, screening, and cancer sequelae.

Trends and issues in oncology costs

Approximately 18% of US gross domestic product is spent on healthcare and 5% of that is for cancer care. With rapidly increasing oncologic drug prices, growth in cancer spending will likely far outpace overall healthcare spending growth. Developing cost-saving strategies is imperative, but economizing must not compromise patients' well-being. Providing quality care at the most economical price is the main aim. This article summarizes trends in rising cancer costs, and reviews cost-management strategies, including those proposed in the Affordable Care Act. Many programs economize by correcting inefficiencies, preventing therapeutic failures and eliminating errors. Process improvement is important, but in oncology, medications substantially drive costs. Identifying the most effective and economical treatments requires cost-effectiveness research. At the current pace, the US payers cannot continue to afford increasing costs for cancer treatments. Research on maximizing patient outcomes for reasonable costs is essential. More analyses of quality of life assessment and cost-effectiveness can support future decisions about cancer care.

Using the Delphi technique to improve clinical outcomes through the development of quality indicators in renal cell carcinoma

PURPOSE

Optimal quality of care is needed for ideal outcomes. In renal cell carcinoma (RCC), there is a lack of information defining optimal care. This is particularly important in RCC, with increased complexity of care and a need for coordination among providers. The goal of this study was to identify quality indicators (QIs) and measures of quality care across the RCC disease spectrum.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A modified Delphi technique was used to select QIs that are relevant and practical to RCC care. This technique involved an expert panel of 13 urologic and medical oncologists who participated in two e-mail questionnaires and an in-person meeting to review and prioritize potential QIs. These potential QIs were identified from a systematic literature review or were suggested by panel members.

RESULTS

From 233 literature citations, 34 possible QIs were identified; 24 additional potential QIs were suggested. A final set of 23 QIs was established. These are distributed across the RCC disease spectrum as follows (number of QIs in parentheses): screening (n=1), diagnosis/prognosis (n=3), surgical for localized disease (n=6), surgery for advanced disease (n=3), systemic therapy (n=6), and follow-up (n=2). In addition, two QIs related to survival outcomes (overall and progression-free survival) were selected.

CONCLUSION

A systematic, consensus-based approach was used to determine relevant QIs in RCC care. These 23 QIs will provide a means of evaluating the quality of RCC care in an effort to improve outcomes in patients. The next step will be to establish a means of measuring each QI based on defined or yet-to-be-defined benchmarks.

Measuring the improving quality of outpatient care in medical oncology practices in the United States

PURPOSE

The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) has provided a method for measuring process-based practice quality since 2006. We sought to determine whether QOPI scores showed improvement in measured quality over time and, if change was demonstrated, which factors in either the measures or participants were associated with improvement.

METHODS

The analysis included 156 practice groups from a larger group of 308 that submitted data from 2006 to 2010. One hundred fifty-two otherwise eligible practices were excluded, most commonly for insufficient data submission. A linear regression model that controlled for varied initial performance was used to estimate the effect of participation over time and evaluate participant and measure characteristics of improvement.

RESULTS

Participants completed a mean of 5.06 (standard deviation, 1.94) rounds of data collection. Adjusted mean quality scores improved from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.91) to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95). Overall odds ratio of improvement over time was 1.09 (P < .001). The greatest improvement was seen in measures that assessed newly introduced clinical information, in which the mean scores improved from 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.17) to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.91; P < .001). Many measures showed no change over time.

CONCLUSION

Many US oncologists have participated in QOPI over the past 6 years. Participation over time was highly correlated with improvement in measured performance. Greater and faster improvement was seen in measures concerning newly introduced clinical information. Some measures showed no change despite opportunity for improvement.

Early-phase clinical trials in the community: results from the national cancer institute community cancer centers program early-phase working group baseline assessment

PURPOSE

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) formed an Early-Phase Working Group to facilitate site participation in early-phase (EP) trials. The Working Group conducted a baseline assessment (BA) to describe the sites' EP trial infrastructure and its association with accrual.

METHODS

EP accrual and infrastructure data for the sites were obtained for July 2010-June 2011 and 2010, respectively. Sites with EP accrual rates at or above the median were considered high-accruing sites. Analyses were performed to identify site characteristics associated with higher accrual onto EP trials.

RESULTS

Twenty-seven of the 30 NCCCP sites participated. The median number of EP trials open per site over the course of July 2010-June 2011 was 19. Median EP accrual per site was 14 patients in 1 year. Approximately half of the EP trials were Cooperative Group; most were phase II. Except for having a higher number of EP trials open (P = .04), high-accruing sites (n = 14) did not differ significantly from low-accruing sites (n = 13) in terms of any single site characteristic. High-accruing sites did have shorter institutional review board (IRB) turnaround time by 20 days, and were almost three times as likely to be a lead Community Clinical Oncology Program site (small sample size may have prevented statistical significance). Most sites had at least basic EP trial infrastructure.

CONCLUSION

Community cancer centers are capable of conducting EP trials. Infrastructure and collaborations are critical components of success. This assessment provides useful information for implementing EP trials in the community.

Quality oncology practice initiative certification program: overview, measure scoring methodology, and site assessment standards

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.

Improving modern cancer care through information technology

The cancer care system is increasingly complex, marked by multiple hand-offs between primary care and specialty providers, inadequate communication among providers, and lack of clarity about a "medical home" (the ideal accountable care provider) for cancer patients. Patients and families often cite such difficulties as information deficits, uncoordinated care, and insufficient psychosocial support. This article presents a review of the challenges of delivering well coordinated, patient-centered cancer care in a complex modern healthcare system. An examination is made of the potential role of information technology (IT) advances to help both providers and patients. Using the published literature as background, a review is provided of selected work that is underway to improve communication, coordination, and quality of care. Also discussed are additional challenges and opportunities to advancing understanding of how patient data, provider and patient involvement, and informatics innovations can support high-quality cancer care.