From metrics to practice: identifying preventable emergency department visits for patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Oncology patients disproportionately utilize the emergency department (ED) for symptom management. At our institution, approximately 1 in 4 visits to the ED by oncology patients led to discharge. We hypothesized that many of the visits leading to ED discharge would be potentially preventable (PP). METHODS: We retrospectively characterized ED discharges of oncology patients. Visits were classified by presenting symptom, type of cancer, and time of ED visit. Chart reviewers were additionally asked whether each case could have been safely managed as an outpatient. RESULTS: We analyzed 100 ED discharges in a 4-month period in 2016 and 2017. Gastrointestinal (GI) complaints, pain, and fever were the most common presenting symptoms for these visits. We rated 44 of 100 ED discharges as potentially preventable. Given we analyzed only ED discharges which comprise about 25% of ED visits for patients with cancer, overall about 10% of all ED visits by these patients may be preventable. We also found that ED visits without a clinic appointment or phone call to the clinic on the day of ED presentation were more likely to be preventable (51% vs 27%, OR 2.9, p = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Many ED visits by oncology patients may be preventable and occur for symptoms which can be managed as an outpatient. More of these visits also appear to occur in those who do not reach a clinic member prior to the visit. These findings suggest that improved access to clinics and standardized outpatient symptom management are next steps to consider in preventing ED visits in this vulnerable population.

A mixed methods approach to developing and evaluating oncology trainee education around minimization of adverse events and improved patient quality and safety.

BACKGROUND: Adverse events are a significant quality and safety issue in the hospital setting due to their direct impact on patients. Additionally, such events are often handled by junior doctors due to their direct involvement with patients. As such, it is important for health care organizations to prioritize education and training for junior doctors on identifying adverse events and handling them when they occur. The Cancer Cup Challenge is an educational program focuses on quality improvement and adverse event awareness targeting for junior oncology doctors across three international sites. METHODS: A mixed methodology was used to develop and evaluate the program. The Qstream spaced learning platform was used to disseminate information to participants, as it has been demonstrated to impact on both knowledge and behavior. Eight short case based scenarios with expert feedback were developed by a multidisciplinary advisory committee containing representatives from the international sites. At the conclusion of the course impact on participant knowledge was evaluated using analysis of the metrics collected by the Qstream platform. Additionally, an online survey and semi-structured interviews were used to evaluate engagement and perceived value by participants. RESULTS: A total of 35 junior doctors registered to undertake the Qstream program, with 31 (88.57 %) successfully completing it. Analysis of the Qstream metrics revealed 76.57 % of cases were answered correctly on first attempt. The post-program survey received 17 responses, with 76.47 % indicating cases for the course were interesting and 82.35 % feeling cases were relevant. Finally, 14 participants consented to participate in semi-structured interviews about the program, with feedback towards the course being generally very positive. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrates that an online game is well accepted by junior doctors as a method to increase their quality improvement awareness. Developing effective and sustainable training for doctors is important to ensure positive patient outcomes are maintained in the hospital setting. This is particularly important for junior doctors as they are working closely with patients and learning skills and behaviors, which will influence their practice throughout their careers.

Putting the "Action" in RCA2: An Analysis of Intervention Strength After Adverse Events.

BACKGROUND: Safety event reporting and review is well established within US hospitals, but systems to ensure implementation of changes to improve patient safety are less developed. METHODS: Contributing factors and corrective actions for events brought to a tertiary care academic medical center's multidisciplinary hospital-level safety event review meeting were prospectively collected from 2020 to 2021. Corrective actions were tracked to completion through 2023. The authors retrospectively coded corrective actions by category and strength using the US Department of Veterans Affairs/Institute for Healthcare Improvement Action Hierarchy Tool. RESULTS: In the analysis of 67 events, 15 contributing factor themes were identified and resulted in 148 corrective actions. Of these events, 85.1% (57/67) had more than one corrective action. Of the 148 corrective actions, 84 (56.8%) were rated as weak, 36 (24.3%) as intermediate, 15 (10.1%) strong, and 13 (8.8%) needed more information. The completion rate was 97.6% (for weak corrective actions), 80.6% (intermediate), and 73.3% (strong) (p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Safety events were often addressed with multiple corrective actions. There was an inverse relationship between intervention strength and completion, the strongest interventions with the lowest rate of completion. By integrating action strength and completion status into corrective action follow-up, health care organizations may more effectively identify and address those barriers to completing the strongest interventions that ultimately achieve high reliability.

Biomarkers of pembrolizumab efficacy in advanced anal squamous cell carcinoma: analysis of a phase II clinical trial and a cohort of long-term responders.

BACKGROUND: Recent trials suggest that programmed cell death 1 (PD-1)-directed immunotherapy may be beneficial for some patients with anal squamous cell carcinoma and biomarkers predictive of response are greatly needed. METHODS: This multicenter phase II clinical trial (NCT02919969) enrolled patients with metastatic or locally advanced incurable anal squamous cell carcinoma (n=32). Patients received pembrolizumab 200 mg every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint of the trial was objective response rate (ORR). Exploratory objectives included analysis of potential predictive biomarkers including assessment of tumor-associated immune cell populations with multichannel immunofluorescence and analysis of circulating tumor tissue modified viral-human papillomavirus DNA (TTMV-HPV DNA) using serially collected blood samples. To characterize the clinical features of long-term responders, we combined data from our prospective trial with a retrospective cohort of patients with anal cancer treated with anti-PD-1 immunotherapy (n=18). RESULTS: In the phase II study, the ORR to pembrolizumab monotherapy was 9.4% and the median progression-free survival was 2.2 months. Despite the high level of HPV positivity observed with circulating TTMV-HPV DNA testing, the majority of patients had low levels of tumor-associated CD8+PD-1+ T cells on pretreatment biopsy. Patients who benefited from pembrolizumab had decreasing TTMV-HPV DNA scores and a complete responder's TTMV-HPV DNA became undetectable. Long-term pembrolizumab responses were observed in one patient from the trial (5.3 years) and three patients (2.5, 6, and 8 years) from the retrospective cohort. Long-term responders had HPV-positive tumors, lacked liver metastases, and achieved a radiological complete response. CONCLUSIONS: Pembrolizumab has durable efficacy in a rare subset of anal cancers. However, despite persistence of HPV infection, indicated by circulating HPV DNA, most advanced anal cancers have low numbers of tumor-associated CD8+PD-1+ T cells and are resistant to pembrolizumab.

Uncovering the Risks of Anticancer Therapy Through Incident Report Analysis Using a Newly Developed Medical Oncology Incident Taxonomy.

BACKGROUND: Incident reporting systems were developed to identify possible and actual harm in healthcare facilities. They have the potential to capture important safety trends and to enable improvements that can mitigate the risk of future patient harm and suffering. We recently developed and validated a taxonomy specific for medical oncology designed to enhance the identification, tracking, and trending of incidents that may lead to patient harm. The current project was designed to test the ability of such a taxonomy to be applied across different organizations delivering medical oncology care and to identify specific risks that could result in future harm. METHODS: We analyzed 309 randomly selected medical oncology-related incident reports from 3 different cancer centers that had been posted between January 2019 and December 2020. Each report was assigned up to 2 incident categories. We used a 2-step process to reconcile reviewer discrepancies. In a secondary analysis, each of the incidents was reviewed and recoded to identify events which may result in major or catastrophic harm. RESULTS: Three hundred four incidents met criteria for inclusion. Three hundred incidents (98.7%) were successfully coded. Sixty-seven percent of incidents were encompassed by the following 4 of 21 categories: prescriber ordering (22%), nursing care (15%), pharmacy (14%), and relational/communication issues (15%). Of 297 evaluable incidents, 47% did not reach the patient, 44.7% reached the patient without harm, 7.7% caused minor injury, and 0.7% caused severe injury or death. Submission rates by physicians varied between the 3 sites accounting for 1.7%, 10.7%, and 16.1% of reports. Secondary analysis identified 9 distinct scenarios that may result in major or catastrophic patient harm. CONCLUSIONS: A medical oncology-specific incident reporting taxonomy has the potential to increase our understanding of inherent risks and may lead to process improvements that improve patient safety.

Trimodality Approach for Esophageal Malignancies.

Trimodality therapy, or the use of concurrent chemoradiation followed by surgery, is the cornerstone of contemporary management of esophageal cancer. This article discusses the landmark trials and most current data to understand the concepts, applications, and outcomes from trimodality therapy in locally advanced esophageal cancer.

Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With New Oral Chemotherapy Prescriptions at an Academic Site and a Community Site.

PURPOSE: Oral chemotherapy challenges providers' abilities to safely monitor patients' symptoms, adherence, and financial toxicity. COVID-19 has increased the urgency of caring for patients remotely. Collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated efficacy for patients on intravenous chemotherapy, but limited data support their use in oral chemotherapy. We undertook a pilot project to assess the feasibility of implementing an ePRO system for patients starting oral chemotherapy at our cancer center, which includes both an academic site and a community site. METHODS: Patients initiating oral chemotherapy were asked to participate. A five-question tool was built in REDCap. Concerning responses triggered outreach within one business day. The primary outcome was time to first symptom assessment. For comparison, we used a historical cohort of patients who had been prescribed oral chemotherapies by providers in the same disease groups at the cancer center. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 62 (40%) patients completed ePRO assessments. Fifty historical charts were reviewed. Time to first symptom assessment was 7 days (IQR, 4-14 days) in the historical group compared with 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days) in the ePRO group. Time to clinical action was 14 days (7-35 days) in the historical group compared with 8 days (4-19 days) in the ePRO group. No statistically significant differences were detected in 30-day emergency department visit or hospitalization (12% for both groups) or 90-day emergency department visit or hospitalization rates (historical 28% and ePRO 20%). CONCLUSION: An ePRO tool monitoring patient concerns about adherence, cost, and toxicities for patients with new oral chemotherapy regimens is feasible and improves time to symptom assessment. Further investigation is needed to improve patient engagement with ePROs and evaluate the long-term impacts for patients on oral chemotherapy.

Why focus on patient-reported outcome measures in older colorectal cancer patients?

Colorectal cancer is the most common cancer among older persons, with surgery the recommended treatment for many. With a growing emphasis on value-based care, there is an increasing desire to implement patient-reported outcome measures. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools and instruments used to collect patient-reported symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. Monitoring and addressing PROMs has been shown to improve patient-centered care in surgical oncology populations and survival in patients with advanced cancer. For older patients, functional status and quality of life are valuable outcomes of cancer treatment. However, experience with PROMs for older patients, and specifically older colorectal cancer patients, is limited and heterogenous. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has recommended a set of outcome measures for colorectal cancer patients and a set of outcome measures for older patients, which have considerable overlap, providing a starting point for future investigations of PROMs for older colorectal cancer patients. While many questions remain, it is imperative that PROMs for older colorectal cancer patients be considered for their potential to improve cancer outcomes in this population.

Survivorship Care Plans: Reaching a Benchmark and Striving to Achieve Intent.

PURPOSE: Survivorship care plans (SCPs) have been endorsed by major oncologic organizations despite challenges in implementation and unclear patient-specific benefits. In January 2020, the Commission on Cancer removed a 2018 provision that required accredited programs to deliver SCPs to eligible patients. Programs must determine whether to continue SCP use or begin de-implementation. We detail a framework to increase SCP delivery for programs continuing to provide SCPs as a component of survivorship care and suggest a patient-centered approach to evaluate continued utility amidst updated national standards. METHODS: We surveyed medical, surgical, and radiation oncologists at our academic and community sites to identify barriers to SCP use and performed a Pareto analysis to highlight the most notable barriers. We then designed an intervention that used SCP templates within the medical record, disease-specific recommendations, delegation to nonphysician staff, and provider education. We monitored our intervention via a statistical process control analysis and assessed patient perceptions of SCP usefulness via a questionnaire. RESULTS: Before implementing our process improvements, our SCP completion rate during a 10-month period was 45%. During the 6-month period after our intervention, the SCP completion rate increased to 89%. Greater than 80% of patients who had recently received an SCP found the information helpful and were satisfied with the amount of information received. More than 40% did not remember receiving their original SCP. CONCLUSION: We demonstrated a feasible method for increasing SCP delivery for all cancers across a cancer network and used a patient-specific questionnaire to assess continued value amidst changing national standards.

Chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction in a patient with metastatic gastro-oesophageal junction cancer receiving treatment with pembrolizumab.

Acute gastrointestinal (GI) immune-related adverse events (irAE) are commonly reported by patients with cancer undergoing treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPI); however chronic irAEs are rare. We present a case of a 71-year-old woman with metastatic gastro-oesophageal junction (GOJ) adenocarcinoma who developed delayed-onset chronic intestinal pseudo-obstruction (CIPO) while receiving second-line pembrolizumab. Repeated CT scans of the abdomen/pelvis found no small bowel obstruction, and evaluations for bowel inflammation, infection and paraneoplastic syndrome were negative. Bowel rest and glucocorticoids were associated with transient symptom resolution; however, symptoms recurred within 1 month. The patient was ultimately supported with total parenteral nutrition and intestinal motility agents. After 4 months, the GOJ cancer remained stable with no signs of progression. As CPI use expands, the incidence of rare irAEs, such as CIPO, may increase.

Role of Adverse Events in Unscheduled Hospitalizations Among Patients With Solid Tumors Who Receive Medical Oncology Treatment.

PURPOSE: The development of strategies to prevent or mitigate cancer treatment-related adverse events (AEs) is necessary to improve patient experience, safety, and cost containment. To develop a strategy to easily identify and mitigate AEs, we sought to understand the frequency and severity of those that resulted in hospitalizations. METHODS: We retrospectively characterized hospitalizations of ambulatory adult patients with solid tumor cancers within 30 days of chemotherapy administration using medical record data abstraction. Hospitalizations were categorized as caused by cancer symptoms, a noncancer medical condition, or a medical oncology treatment-related AE. Severity of the treatment-related AE hospitalization was rated using the National Patient Safety Agency risk assessment matrix scale. RESULTS: Between May and October 2016, 116 patients experienced 197 hospitalizations (per-patient mean, 1.7 AEs; range, 1 to 7 AEs). Sixty-six percent (n = 130) of hospitalizations were related to cancer symptoms, whereas 19.3% (n = 38) were treatment-related AE hospitalizations. The median length of stay of hospitalizations that resulted from an AE was 6 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9 days), and 36.8% had more than 1 AE. GI symptoms accounted for 48.1% of AEs, and neutropenic fever accounted for 11.1%. Sixty-one percent of treatment-related AE hospitalizations were characterized as moderate severity. CONCLUSION: Hospitalizations in patients with solid tumors as a direct result of their medical oncology care treatment are not uncommon. These findings argue for novel approaches, such as automated trigger tools, to identify and manage complications of medical oncology treatment before hospitalization is needed. Improved outpatient management of cancer symptoms may have a dramatic impact on hospitalizations for patients with cancer.

Significant and Distinctive n-Grams in Oncology Notes: A Text-Mining Method to Analyze the Effect of OpenNotes on Clinical Documentation.

PURPOSE: OpenNotes is a national movement established in 2010 that gives patients access to their visit notes through online patient portals, and its goal is to improve transparency and communication. To determine whether granting patients access to their medical notes will have a measurable effect on provider behavior, we developed novel methods to quantify changes in the length and frequency of use of n-grams (sets of words used in exact sequence) in the notes. METHODS: We analyzed 102,135 notes of 36 hematology/oncology clinicians before and after the OpenNotes debut at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center. We applied methods to quantify changes in the length and frequency of use of sequential co-occurrence of words (n-grams) in the unstructured content of the notes by unsupervised hierarchical clustering and proportional analysis of n-grams. RESULTS: The number of significant n-grams averaged over all providers did not change, but for individual providers, there were significant changes. That is, all significant observed changes were provider specific. We identified eight providers who were late note signers. This group significantly reduced its late signing behavior after OpenNotes implementation. CONCLUSION: Although the number of significant n-grams averaged over all providers did not change, our text-mining method detected major content changes in specific providers' documentation at the n-gram level. The method successfully identified a group of providers who decreased their late note signing behavior.

Interventions to Improve Oral Chemotherapy Safety and Quality: A Systematic Review.

IMPORTANCE: With the growing use of oral chemotherapy, there is an urgent need to develop safe and effective systems to administer and manage these agents. A comprehensive synthesis of literature on oral chemotherapy care delivery programs to which clinicians can look for best practices is lacking. OBJECTIVE: To summarize the peer-reviewed and gray literature on interventions to improve oral chemotherapy care delivery toward describing best practices and identifying current gaps. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Using search terms pertaining to the concepts of oral chemotherapy, cancer, and interventions and outcomes, we performed a systematic review of PubMed, EMBASE, and CINAHL from January 1995 to May 24, 2016, to identify oral chemotherapy intervention programs. We searched the gray literature from January 1995 through February 2016 and contacted gray literature authors for further information. Four physician abstractors reviewed the titles, abstracts, and articles. Quality of the articles was assessed using SQUIRE2 guidelines. Interventions were evaluated in the categories of prescribing, preparation/dispensing, education, administration, monitoring, and storage/disposal. The population of interest included all ages and was limited to traditional cytotoxic and targeted anticancer oral agents. FINDINGS: From 7984 abstracts identified in the peer-reviewed literature search, 16 full-text articles met inclusion criteria representing 3612 patients. Interventions focused on prescribing (n = 1), preparation/dispensing (n = 2), education (n = 11), administration (n = 5), monitoring (n = 14), and storage/disposal (n = 1). In the 10 articles with adherence as the primary outcome, 4 evaluation methods were used. Most improvements were seen in toxic effects/safety compared with adherence. Of the 7 interventions with statistically significant improvement in the primary outcome, 3 nursing phone calls to contact patients within the first few days after treatment initiation, 2 of them with standardized toxic effects management protocols. Interventions using technology to increase touch points between care teams and patients (including video directly observed therapy, automated voice response, and text messages) were not effective. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: A framework for the oral chemotherapy management process with standardized outcome definitions is needed to ensure constructive research. Existing data suggest that a monitoring program should include personal contact with patients within the first weeks of treatment. Whether such contact can be enhanced by technology is uncertain.

Quality Improvement Training in a Variety of Cancer Care Delivery Settings: Experiences From a Comprehensive Cancer Center, an Academic Medical Center, and Community Practices.

PURPOSE: Training clinical and supportive staff in quality improvement (QI) theory and use of QI tools has the potential to improve oncology care delivery. We report our combined experience of providing training to oncologists in a variety of local settings and assess the effect of the training on individual participants and for institutions. METHODS: Multidisciplinary oncology teams at a comprehensive cancer center, an academic medical center, and community practices were led through experiential QI training that spanned several months. The curriculum included didactic training sessions that attendees applied to their local project-based work and that required plan-do-study-act cycles. The curriculum was adapted to the smaller practice setting through use of a workbook and a reduced focus on quantitative methods. All teams were supported by coaches and provided final presentations to leadership. The self-rated abilities of trainees to use 15 QI tools were assessed with a pre/post training survey that had five response categories (information, skill, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom). Local institutional and external project presentations were tracked. RESULTS: During 7 years, 129 trainees participated in 56 QI projects. All of the 15 QI tools had 80% of trainees rate themselves in the top three categories (knowledge, understanding, and wisdom) after the training; none met this threshold before. Multiple projects were presented in institutional and external settings. Most projects targeted three of the four domains of the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative certification program standards. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented and sustained QI training programs in a variety of cancer delivery settings. The flexible training model should be easily adoptable by others.

Developing a model for embedded palliative care in a cancer clinic.

OBJECTIVES: Describe the development and key features of a model for embedded palliative care (PC) for patients with advanced kidney cancer or melanoma seen in a cancer clinic. METHODS: Retrospective chart review of patients following an initial phase and then a prospective review following the implementation of a model for embedded PC. RESULTS: In the initial phase, 18 patients were seen for a total of 53 visits; 78% were seen more than once, with a mean of three visits per patient. In the model phase, 46 patients were seen for a total of 163 visits; 74% were seen more than once, with a mean of 3.5 visits. Demographics were similar between the two groups. Content of the first PC visit in the initial and model phases was symptom management (61% and 57%), psychosocial support/relationship building (28% and 35%) and advance care planning/decision-making support (11% and 8%), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The initial phase demonstrated acceptability and feasibility of a model for embedded PC for patients and the oncology team. Establishment of specific eligibility criteria and screening to identify eligible patients in the model phase led to an increased uptake of PC for patients with advanced kidney cancer and melanoma in a cancer clinic.

An International Collaborative Standardizing a Comprehensive Patient-Centered Outcomes Measurement Set for Colorectal Cancer.

IMPORTANCE: Global health systems are shifting toward value-based care in an effort to drive better outcomes in the setting of rising health care costs. This shift requires a common definition of value, starting with the outcomes that matter most to patients. OBJECTIVE: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), a nonprofit initiative, was formed to define standard sets of outcomes by medical condition. In this article, we report the efforts of ICHOM's working group in colorectal cancer. EVIDENCE REVIEW: The working group was composed of multidisciplinary oncology specialists in medicine, surgery, radiation therapy, palliative care, nursing, and pathology, along with patient representatives. Through a modified Delphi process during 8 months (July 8, 2015 to February 29, 2016), ICHOM led the working group to a consensus on a final recommended standard set. The process was supported by a systematic PubMed literature review (1042 randomized clinical trials and guidelines from June 3, 2005, to June 3, 2015), a patient focus group (11 patients with early and metastatic colorectal cancer convened during a teleconference in August 2015), and a patient validation survey (among 276 patients with and survivors of colorectal cancer between October 15, 2015, and November 4, 2015). FINDINGS: After consolidating findings of the literature review and focus group meeting, a list of 40 outcomes was presented to the WG and underwent voting. The final recommendation includes outcomes in the following categories: survival and disease control, disutility of care, degree of health, and quality of death. Selected case-mix factors were recommended to be collected at baseline to facilitate comparison of results across treatments and health care professionals. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized set of patient-centered outcome measures to inform value-based health care in colorectal cancer was developed. Pilot efforts are under way to measure the standard set among members of the working group.

Pulse Afatinib for ERBB2 Exon 20 Insertion-Mutated Lung Adenocarcinomas.

INTRODUCTION: Genomic aberrations involving the erb-b2 receptor tyrosine kinase 2 gene (ERBB2) are driver oncogenes in approximately 2% of lung adenocarcinomas. However, the use of daily dosing of ERBB2 tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs)-including afatinib-has been fraught with plasma concentrations that barely achieve preclinical model inhibition, significant patient-reported toxicities, and limited clinical activity. We hypothesized that alternative dosing strategies could improve tolerability and efficacy. METHODS: We profiled lung cancer cell lines against TKIs and retrospectively evaluated the toxicity of and response to pulse afatinib (280 mg once weekly) in lung cancers with ERBB2 mutations. RESULTS: An ERBB2 exon 20 insertion-mutated lung cancer cell line had a 50% inhibitory concentration in response to afatinib that was higher than the reported plasma concentration of afatinib, 40 mg daily. Three patients with advanced ERBB2-mutated lung adenocarcinomas were treated with off-label pulse afatinib. The 280-mg weekly dose was well tolerated with no reported rash and minimal diarrhea. One TKI-naive patient achieved a partial response for 5 months and another achieved stable disease for 11 months. CONCLUSIONS: Pulse afatinib at a weekly dosing scheme induced antitumor activity in ERBB2 exon 20 insertion-mutated lung adenocarcinomas. Future clinical trials of alternative dosing schemes of ERBB TKIs as monotherapy or in combination with other therapies are warranted for ERBB2-mutated tumors.

Understanding Oral Chemotherapy Prescribing Patterns at the End of Life at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Analysis of a Massachusetts Payer Claims Database.

PURPOSE: Receipt of chemotherapy in the last 14 days of life is a measure of potential overuse of care. Specific measures defining appropriate end-of-life use of oral agents have not yet been described, and little is known about prescribing patterns. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory analysis of 371 patients at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute who were covered by the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts pharmacy benefit and died during 2012 to 2013. We analyzed processed claims as a surrogate for chemotherapy administration. We compared oral with parenteral chemotherapy claims in the last 6 months of life. RESULTS: In the last 6 months of life, 294 patients (79%) had chemotherapy claims, including 81 (22%) prescribed an oral agent; 20 patients had claims for oral chemotherapy in the last 30 days of life. For eight patients (40%), this was the initial start of that oral agent. In the last 14 days of life, only 23 patients had chemotherapy claims, including six patients prescribed an oral agent. CONCLUSION: The collection of oral chemotherapy use data through insurance claims was feasible. Processed claims for chemotherapy, including oral, sharply declined during the last 30 days of life, consistent with a shift to palliative management. These results highlight the need for a more comprehensive analysis of oral chemotherapy prescribing patterns and development of specific measures to define the appropriate use of oral chemotherapy at the end of life.

Administration of oral chemotherapy: results from three rounds of the quality oncology practice initiative.

PURPOSE: Although use of oral chemotherapy is becoming more prevalent, little is known about the quality of care that patients receive when these agents are prescribed. Moreover, few practice-level systems are in place to ensure safe management of oral chemotherapy in the vulnerable population of patients with cancer. METHODS: We analyzed results from 155 practices that were voluntarily participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) program on 17 test measures of oral chemotherapy administration and management in at least one of three collection periods: spring or fall of 2012, or spring of 2013. The 17 test measures cover three domains: treatment plan documentation, patient education, and adherence/toxicity monitoring. We defined composite scores for each of the three domains. We analyzed the composite scores by secular trend and tested the difference in composite scores for the three domains. Additionally, we tested change in scores over time among practices that participated at least twice. RESULTS: The majority of data was provided by QOPI-certified practices. Overall, mean practice composite scores ranged from 66% to 68% for treatment plan documentation, 51% to 57% for patient education, and 75% to 81% for adherence/toxicity monitoring. Composite scores for practices that participated more than once did not improve significantly. CONCLUSION: The collection of oral chemotherapy test measure data is feasible. Composite scores for treatment plan documentation and patient education were not only lower, but had greater variability compared with adherence/toxicity monitoring. Improvement opportunities exist for patients who are prescribed oral chemotherapy.