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.

Cost and Survival Analysis Before and After Implementation of Dana-Farber Clinical Pathways for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Increasing costs and medical complexity are significant challenges in modern oncology. We explored the use of clinical pathways to support clinical decision making and manage resources prospectively across our network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created customized lung cancer pathways and partnered with a commercial vendor to provide a Web-based platform for real-time decision support and post-treatment data aggregation. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) Pathways for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were introduced in January 2014. We identified all DFCI patients who were diagnosed and treated for stage IV NSCLC in 2012 (before pathways) and 2014 (after pathways). Costs of care were determined for 1 year from the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: Pre- and postpathway cohorts included 160 and 210 patients with stage IV NSCLC, respectively. The prepathway group had more women but was otherwise similarly matched for demographic and tumor characteristics. The total 12-month cost of care (adjusted for age, sex, race, distance to DFCI, clinical trial enrollment, and EGFR and ALK status) demonstrated a $15,013 savings after the implementation of pathways ($67,050 before pathways v $52,037 after pathways). Antineoplastics were the largest source of cost savings. Clinical outcomes were not compromised, with similar median overall survival times (10.7 months before v 11.2 months after pathways; P = .08). CONCLUSION: After introduction of a clinical pathway in metastatic NSCLC, cost of care decreased significantly, with no compromise in survival. In an era where comparative outcomes analysis and value assessment are increasingly important, the implementation of clinical pathways may provide a means to coalesce and disseminate institutional expertise and track and learn from care decisions.

ReCAP: Feasibility and Effectiveness of a Pilot Program to Facilitate Quality Improvement Learning in Oncology: Experience of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Training Program.

PURPOSE: Studies have demonstrated that structured training programs can improve health professionals' skills in performing clinical care or research. We sought to develop and test a novel quality training program (QTP) tailored to oncology clinicians. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology QTP consisted of three in-person learning sessions and four phases: prework, planning, implementation, and sustain and spread. We measured two primary outcomes: program feasibility and effectiveness. Feasibility was evaluated by recording participation. Effectiveness was measured using the Kirkpatrick model, which evaluates four outcomes: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. We collected qualitative feedback through a focus group of participants and mixed quantitative­qualitative results from a 6-month follow-up evaluation survey. Results are presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received feedback from of 80% of participants who took part in 92% of in-person program days. QTP deliverables were completed by 100% of teams; none withdrew from the program. Regarding reaction, 100% of respondents expressed interest in actively contributing to future QTP courses. For learning, most teams continued to use the core methodology tools (eg, project charter, aims statements) after the program. Regarding behavior, when asked about intention to serve as a local quality improvement leader, a majority said they "definitely will" serve as: team leader on a specific project (75%), project champion or sponsor (75%), or teacher or trainer for others (64%). In evaluating outcomes, 50% reported applying learned methodology to new projects at their local institution. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate one of the first feasible and effective training programs to facilitate quality improvement learning for oncology clinicians.

High-priority topics for cancer quality measure development: results of the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology Collaborative Cancer Measure Summit.

PURPOSE: Most cancer quality measures focus on individual cancers, assess specific providers, and evaluate processes of care. Although important, these efforts are not sufficient. A more comprehensive measure set is needed to address gaps in care, focus on patients rather than providers, and assess the cross-cutting aspects of care that are relevant to all patients with cancer throughout the trajectory of their illness. METHODS: With the long-term goal of developing a more comprehensive oncology measure set, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) organized a collaborative measure summit that used an iterative consensus approach to identify priorities for the development of new cancer quality measures. The summit, which included professional societies and patient/consumer advocacy organizations, was held during the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in December 2012. RESULTS: This effort, which brought together 12 diverse stakeholders, identified 10 high-priority topics for cancer quality measure development that cross-cut cancer diagnoses and care settings and addressed patient-centered concerns. Topics of particular interest included planning and counseling before therapy, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary coordinated care, comprehensive symptom assessment, patient experience of care, and use of palliative care and hospice services. CONCLUSION: This is an important first step in the development of patient-centered, cross-cutting cancer quality measures. Addressing the high-priority topics identified by this effort will help fill the gaps left by existing cancer quality measures, including care coordination and transitions, quality of life, safety, experience of care, and outcomes. More work will be needed to specify, implement, and validate measures based on these topics.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards.

Standardization of care can reduce the risk of errors, increase efficiency, and provide a framework for best practice. In 2008, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) invited a broad range of stakeholders to create a set of standards for the administration of chemotherapy to adult patients in the outpatient setting. At the close of a full-day structured workshop, 64 draft standards were proposed. After a formal process of electronic voting and conference calls, 29 draft standards were eliminated, resulting in a final list of 35 draft measures. The proposed set of standards was posted for 6 weeks of open public comment. Three hundred twenty-two comments were reviewed by the Steering Group and used as the basis for final editing to a final set of standards. The final list includes 31 standards encompassing seven domains, which include the following: review of clinical information and selection of a treatment regimen; treatment planning and informed consent; ordering of treatment; drug preparation; assessment of treatment compliance; administration and monitoring; assessment of response and toxicity monitoring. Adherence to ASCO and ONS standards for safe chemotherapy administration should be a goal of all providers of adult cancer care.

Evolution and elements of the quality oncology practice initiative measure set.

BACKGROUND: Over the past 5 years, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has supported the development of a Web-based quality-reporting tool in response to a recognized need to provide medical oncologists the opportunity to demonstrate the quality of care that they are providing to patients. METHODS: The development of quality measures, their basis in the literature, and the descriptions and organizational structure of the measures are discussed. RESULTS: Specific results are the property of practices and are not shared outside of the practices except in aggregate. The system allows collection of information concerning a wide range of quality measures in a short period of time. In the last data collection period in the fall of 2008, information was submitted concerning 81 measures of quality divided into one required and six optional modules from over 250 practices concerning 15,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS: The timely collection of information on a wide range of quality measures regarding cancer patients can be efficiently collected using a Web-based data collection tool allowing for practice self-examination and comparison with other practices.

American Society Of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards.

Standardization of care can reduce the risk of errors, increase efficiency, and provide a framework for best practice. In 2008, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) invited a broad range of stakeholders to create a set of standards for the administration of chemotherapy to adult patients in the outpatient setting. At the close of a full-day structured workshop, 64 draft standards were proposed. After a formal process of electronic voting and conference calls, 29 draft standards were eliminated, resulting in a final list of 35 draft measures. The proposed set of standards was posted for 6 weeks of open public comment. Three hundred twenty-two comments were reviewed by the Steering Group and used as the basis for final editing to a final set of standards. The final list includes 31 standards encompassing seven domains, which include the following: review of clinical information and selection of a treatment regimen; treatment planning and informed consent; ordering of treatment; drug preparation; assessment of treatment compliance; administration and monitoring; and assessment of response and toxicity monitoring. Adherence to ASCO and ONS standards for safe chemotherapy administration should be a goal of all providers of adult cancer care.

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.

Measuring supportive care in medical oncology practice: lessons learned from the quality oncology practice initiative.

We provide a brief review of the use of quality measures to assess supportive care in the medical oncology office. Specifically, we discuss the development and implementation of supportive care measures in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), a voluntary quality measurement and improvement program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. QOPI has demonstrated that medical oncologists voluntarily engage in self-assessment and often select measures related to supportive care for measurement and improvement. Results to date have demonstrated that there is room for improvement in this domain. Because supportive care measures appropriate for use through structured chart review in the outpatient oncology setting are not generally available in the published literature, measures have been developed and tested through the program. Additional measures are in development for implementation in QOPI in 2008.

American Society of Clinical Oncology/National Comprehensive Cancer Network Quality Measures.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Policy Board recommended the creation of quality measures and a national reporting system in 1999. Representatives from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) collaborated to create metrics suitable for national performance measurement. METHODS: Content and methodology experts nominated by ASCO and NCCN met to select and refine metrics for breast, colon, and rectal cancer based on National Initiative for Cancer Care Quality and NCCN measures and NCCN and ASCO guidelines. Measures were selected based on their impact on disease free and overall survival, the degree to which opportunities for improvement exist, and the feasibility of data collection. RESULTS: Three breast cancer measures and four colorectal cancer measures were chosen. Measures for breast cancer included adjuvant hormone therapy for hormone receptor-positive tumors, chemotherapy for hormone receptor-negative cancer, and radiation after lumpectomy. Colorectal measures included adjuvant radiation and chemotherapy for rectal cancer, and adjuvant chemotherapy for colon cancer. All but one were recommended as accountability measures and one for quality improvement (removal and examination of 12 or more lymph nodes in colon cancer). Specifications were developed for each measure using tumor registries as the data source. CONCLUSION: ASCO/NCCN measures can be implemented by health systems, provider groups or payors for improvement or accountability using local tumor registries to furnish data on staging and treatment.

Improvement in oncology practice performance through voluntary participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) became available to all American Society of Clinical Oncology member physicians in 2006 as a voluntary medical oncology practice-based quality measurement and improvement project. QOPI assesses practice performance for a series of evidence- and consensus-based process measures, relying on practices to complete structured chart reviews and submit data via a secure Web-based portal. METHODS: This analysis focused on the 71 practices that participated in both the March and September 2006 data collections (7,624 charts abstracted in March and 10,240 in September). Among 33 measures common to both collections, five measures were closely correlated, and 28 are included in the final analysis. Composite scores were created for six different domains of care. Statistical significance was tested on both absolute changes and relative changes (relative failure reduction) of quality measures from baseline to follow-up and between the lower quartile and all other quartiles. RESULTS: Practice performance on individual measures varied between 18.8% and 98.6%. Mean overall performance as measured by a composite score increased from 78.7% in March to 82.3% in September (P < .05). Improvement was most marked among practices originally performing in the bottom quartile. Using a composite score, the absolute and relative performance for the bottom quartile improved by 27% and 35%, respectively, statistically superior to that of all others. CONCLUSION: Practices that participated in QOPI demonstrated improved performance in self-reported process measures, with the greatest improvement demonstrated in initially low-performing practices.

A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported. METHODS: Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices. RESULTS: Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures. CONCLUSION: Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.