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

Managed Clinical Network for esophageal cancer enables reduction of variation between hospitals trends in treatment strategies, lead time, and 2-year survival

INTRODUCTION

Despite evidence-based guidelines, variation in esophageal cancer care exists in daily practice. Many oncology networks deployed regional agreements to standardize the patient care pathway and reduce unwarranted clinical variation. The aim of this study was to explore the trends in variation of esophageal cancer care between participating hospitals of the Managed Clinical Network (MCN) in the Netherlands.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with esophageal cancer diagnosed from 2012 to 2016 were selected from the Netherlands Cancer Registry. Variation on treatment strategies, lead time to start of treatment, and 2-year survival, were calculated and compared between five clusters of hospitals within the network.

RESULTS

A total of 1763 patients, diagnosed in 17 hospitals, were included. 71% of all patients received treatment with a curative intent, which ranged from 69% to 77% between the clusters of hospitals in 2015-2016. Although variation in treatment modalities between the clusters was observed in 2012-2014, no significant variation existed in 2015-2016, except for patients receiving no treatment at all. The 2-year overall survival of patients receiving treatment with a curative intent did not vary significantly between the clusters of hospitals (range: 56%-63%). Nevertheless, the median lead time before patients started treatment with a curative intent varied between clusters of hospitals in 2015-2016 (range: 34-47 days; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Limited variation in esophageal cancer treatment between clusters of hospitals in the MCN existed. This study shows that oncology networks can promote standardization of cancer care and reduce variation between hospitals through insight into variation.

Relationship Between Participation in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Program and American Board of Internal Medicine's Maintenance of Certification Program

PURPOSE

Medical oncologists have a variety of options for demonstrating proficiency in providing high-quality patient care. Perhaps, the best-known opportunity for demonstrating individual expertise and lifelong learning is the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) program. At the practice level, ASCO has offered the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as a means of optimizing cancer care delivery. In this study, we assess the association between active involvement in MOC on an individual basis and whether that individual's practice is involved with the QOPI program.

METHODS

We evaluated 13,600 US medical oncologists initially certified by the ABIM and divided them into those initially certified before 1990 (the year in which ABIM started to require periodic recertification), those from 1990 to 2007, and those from 2008 to 2016. It was then determined which of these had let their certificates expire by 2020. These data were then compared with practices that participated in QOPI from 2017 to 2019, resulting in the matching of 97% of physicians.

RESULTS

Of individuals initially certified before 1990 (and technically with lifelong certification), 22% were in QOPI practices. Among those who did not have lifelong certification, there was an association between QOPI participation and maintenance of ABIM certification. For those initially certified between 1990 and 2007, 35% of oncologists with up-to-date ABIM certification were in QOPI practices, whereas only 11% with expired ABIM certification were QOPI participants (P < .0001). For those in the 2008-2016 category, the numbers were 36% v 16%, respectively (P < .0001).

CONCLUSION

Our analysis identifies a relationship between participation in these ABIM and ASCO proficiency programs. The reasons for this are likely complex and based on a variety of institutional, professional, monetary, and personal factors.

Prospective Study of Use of Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale Versus Routine Symptom Management During Weekly Radiation Treatment Visits

PURPOSE:

During radiotherapy (RT), patient symptoms are evaluated and managed weekly during physician on-treatment visits (OTVs). The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a 9-symptom validated self-assessment tool for reporting common symptoms in patients with cancer. We hypothesized that implementation and physician review of ESAS during weekly OTVs may result in betterment of symptom severity during RT for certain modifiable domains.

METHODS:

As an institutional quality improvement project, patients were partitioned into 2 groups: (1) 85 patients completing weekly ESAS (preintervention) but blinded to their providers who gave routine symptom management and (2) 170 completing weekly ESAS (postintervention group) reviewed by providers during weekly OTVs with possible intervention. To determine the independent association with symptom severity of the intervention, multivariate logistic regression was performed. At study conclusion, provider assessments of ESAS utility were also collected.

RESULTS:

Compared with the preintervention group, stable or improved symptom severity was seen in the postintervention group for pain (70.7% v 85.6%; P = .005) and anxiety (79.3% v 92.9%; P = .002). The postintervention group had decreased association (on multivariate analysis) with worsening severity of pain (OR, 0.13; P < .001), nausea (OR, 0.25; P = .023), loss of appetite (OR, 0.30; P = .024), and anxiety (OR, 0.19; P = .005). Most physicians (87.5%) and nurses (75%) found ESAS review useful in symptom management.

CONCLUSION:

Incorporation of ESAS for OTVs was associated with stable or improved symptom severity where therapeutic intervention is more readily available, such as counseling, pain medication, anti-emetics, appetite stimulants, and anti-anxiolytics. The incorporation of validated patient-reported symptom-scoring tools may improve provider management.

Measuring the Impact of Academic Cancer Network Development on Clinical Integration, Quality of Care, and Patient Satisfaction

PURPOSE

Many US academic centers have acquired community practices to expand their clinical care and research footprint. The objective of this assessment was to determine whether the acquisition and integration of community oncology practices by Yale/Smilow Cancer Hospital improved outcomes in quality of care, disease team integration, clinical trial accrual, and patient satisfaction at network practice sites.

METHODS

We evaluated quality of care by testing the hypothesis that core Quality Oncology Practice Initiative measures at network sites that were acquired in 2012 were significantly different after their 2016 integration into the network. Clinical and research integration were measured using the number of tumor board case presentations and total accruals in clinical trials. We used Press-Ganey scores to measure patient satisfaction pre- and postintegration.

RESULTS

Mean Quality Oncology Practice Initiative scores at Smilow Care Centers were significantly higher in 2016 than in 2012 for core measures related to improvement in tumor staging ( z = 1.33; P < .05), signed consent and documentation plans for antineoplastic treatment ( z = 2.69; P < .01; and z = 2.36; P < .05, respectively), and appropriately quantifying and addressing pain during office visits ( z = 2.95; P < .05; and z = 3.1; P < .01, respectively). A total of 493 cases were presented by care center physicians at the tumor board in 2017 compared with 45 presented in 2013. Compared with 2012, Smilow Care Center clinical trial accrual increased from 25 to 170 patients in 2017. Last, patient satisfaction has remained at greater than the 90th percentile pre- and postintegration.

CONCLUSION

The process of integration facilitates the ability to standardize cancer practice and provides a platform for quality improvement.

Association of Practice-Level Hospital Use With End-of-Life Outcomes, Readmission, and Weekend Hospitalization Among Medicare Beneficiaries With Cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the relationships between hospital use of treating oncology practices and patient outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective analysis of 397,646 Medicare beneficiaries who received anticancer therapy in 2012. Each beneficiary was associated with a practice; practices were ranked on the basis of risk-adjusted hospital use, that is, inpatient intensity. Outcomes included 30-day readmission, weekend admissions, intensive care unit stays in the last month of life, and hospice stay of ≥ 7 days. Outcomes were measured for each quartile of practice-level inpatient intensity. We fit multivariable logistic regression models to calculate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for each outcome for each quartile of inpatient intensity.

RESULTS

Total 30-day readmissions were 22.8% and 31.9% (OR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.39 to 1.50) for patients in practices with the lowest versus highest quartiles of inpatient intensity, respectively; unplanned readmissions were 19.8% and 27.1% (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.41), respectively. The proportion of admissions that occurred on weekends was similar across quartiles. Patients of practices in the highest quartiles of inpatient intensity had higher rates of death in an ICU stay in the last month of life (25.5% versus 18.0%; OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.49) and a lower rate of hospice stay of at least 7 days (50.9% to 42.5%; OR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.74 to 0.86).

CONCLUSION

Medical oncology practices that seek to reduce hospitalizations should consider focusing initially on processes related to end-of-life care and care transitions.

Influencing Quality Reporting: Using the Rapid Quality Reporting System in a Community Network

BACKGROUND

Value-based cancer care warrants an exploration of ways that nurses can influence quality for patients with cancer, particularly in the community setting, where the majority of patients with cancer are treated.
.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose is to explore how community cancer centers met and sustained key quality breast cancer care indicators through implementation of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS) and patient navigation projects.
.

METHODS

The authors identified and interviewed staff at three sites that achieved significant increases in concordance with three breast cancer outcome measures.

FINDINGS

Three main themes emerged through analysis.

Improving Care With a Portfolio of Physician-Led Cancer Quality Measures at an Academic Center

PURPOSE

Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients.

METHODS

Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams.

RESULTS

A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP.

CONCLUSION

Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.

Why the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Matters: It's Not Just About Cost

The nature and cost of cancer care is evolving, affecting more patients and often involving expensive treatment options. The upward cost trends also coincide with a national landscape of increasing regulatory mandates that may demand improved outcomes and value, but that often require significant up-front investment in infrastructure to achieve safety and quality. Oncology practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Institute for Quality's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) and the QOPI Certification Program (QCP) continue to grow in number and reflect changing demographics of the provision of cancer care. QOPI and QCP benchmarking can be used to achieve quality improvement and to build collaborative quality communities. These programs may be useful tools for oncology practices to comply with new legislation such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA).

The strategic case for establishing public-private partnerships in cancer care

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) launched the NCI Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) as a public-private partnership with community hospitals with a goal of advancing cancer care and research. In order to leverage federal dollars in a time of limited resources, matching funds from each participating hospital were required. The purpose of this paper is to examine hospitals' level of and rationale for co-investment in this partnership, and whether there is an association between hospitals' co-investment and achievement of strategic goals.

METHODS

Analysis using a comparative case study and micro-cost data was conducted as part of a comprehensive evaluation of the NCCCP pilot to determine the level of co-investment made in support of NCI's goals. In-person or telephone interviews with key informants were conducted at 10 participating hospital and system sites during the first and final years of implementation. Micro-cost data were collected annually from each site from 2007 to 2010. Self-reported data from each awardee are presented on patient volume and physician counts, while secondary data are used to examine the local Medicare market share.

RESULTS

The rationale expressed by interviewees for participation in a public-private partnership with NCI included expectations of increased market share, higher patient volumes, and enhanced opportunities for cancer physician recruitment as a result of affiliation with the NCI. On average, hospitals invested resources into the NCCCP at a level exceeding $3 for every $1 of federal funds. Six sites experienced a statistically significant change in their Medicare market share. Cancer patient volume increased by as much as one-third from Year 1 to Year 3 for eight of the sites. Nine sites reported an increase in key cancer physician recruitment.

CONCLUSIONS

Demonstrated investments in cancer care and research were associated with increases in cancer patient volume and perhaps in recruitment of key cancer physicians, but not in increased Medicare market share. Although the results reflect a small sample of hospitals, findings suggest that hospital executives believe there to be a strategic case for a public-private partnership as demonstrated through the NCCCP, which leveraged federal funds to support mutual goals for advancing cancer care and research.