RESUMEN
PURPOSE: For patients who select a specialty hospital for cancer treatment, the wait time until the initial consultation leaves patients anxious and delays treatment. To improve quality of care, we implemented an enhanced patient clinical streamlining (EPACS) process that establishes an early connection and coordinates care before the first surgical outpatient visit at our specialty cancer center. METHODS: During a pre-visit EPACS phone call to new patients, an advanced practice provider (APP) collected medical history and ordered work-up tests or consultations if feasible. First visit cancellation rate, number of patients who started treatment, time to start of treatment, and satisfaction by the care team and patient were compared between patients treated with versus without EPACS. RESULTS: Among 5062 consecutive new patients, 720 (14%) received an EPACS call and 4342 did not (86%); work-up was ordered pre-visit in 34% and 16%, respectively. Fewer EPACS patients cancelled the first visit (4.6% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), more started treatment (55% vs. 50%, p = 0.037), and their time to treatment was shorter, but not significantly (median 17 vs. 19 days, p = 0.086). Patient interaction was considered to be improved by EPACS by 17 of 17 APPs and 14 of 16 surgeons, and outpatient clinic efficiency by 14 of 17 APPs and 13 of 16 surgeons. EPACS reduced anxiety and increased preparedness for the first visit in 29 of 31 patients. CONCLUSIONS: EPACS improved effectiveness, timeliness, and physician and patient satisfaction with health care at our cancer center.
Asunto(s)
Pacientes Ambulatorios , Médicos , Instituciones de Atención Ambulatoria , Humanos , Satisfacción del Paciente , Derivación y ConsultaRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) aims to improve patient access to care and communication with clinical providers. Overall, understanding the usability of RPM applications and their influence on clinical care workflows is limited from the perspectives of clinician end users at a cancer center in the Northeast, United States. OBJECTIVE: Explore the usability and functionality of RPM and elicit the perceptions and experiences of oncology clinicians using RPM for oncology patients after hospital discharge. METHODS: The sample included 30 of 98 clinicians (31% response rate) managing at least five patients in the RPM program and responding to the m-Health Usability between March 2021- October 2021. Overall, clinicians responded positively to the survey. Item responses with the highest proportion of disagreement were explored further. A nested sample of five clinicians who responded to the study survey (30% response rate) participated in interview sessions conducted from November 2021 to February 2022, and averaged 60 minutes each. RESULTS: Survey responses highlighted that RPM was easy to use and learn and verified symptom alerts during follow-up phone calls. Areas to improve identified practice changes from reporting RPM alerts through digital portals and its influence on clinicians' workload burden. Interview sessions revealed three main themes: clinician understanding and usability constraints, patient constraints, and suggestions for improving the program. Subthemes for each theme were explored, characterizing technical and functional limitations that could be addressed to enhance efficiency, workflow, and user experience. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians support the value of RPM for improving symptom management and engaging with providers. Functional changes to enhance the program's utility, such as input from patients about temporal changes in their symptoms and technical resources for home monitoring devices.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Improving care transitions for patients with cancer discharged from the hospital is considered an important component of quality care. Digital monitoring has the potential to better the delivery of transitional care through improved patient-provider communication and enhanced symptom management. However, remote patient monitoring (RPM) interventions have not been widely implemented for oncology patients after discharge, an innovative setting in which to apply this technology. METHODS: We implemented a RPM intervention which identifies medical oncology patients at discharge, monitors their symptoms for 10 days, and intervenes as necessary to manage symptoms. We evaluated the feasibility (>50% patient engagement with symptom assessment), appropriateness (symptom alerts), and acceptability (net promoter score >0.7) of the intervention and the initial effect on acute care visits and return on investment. RESULTS: During the study period, January 1, 2021, to December 31, 2022, we evaluated 2,257 medical oncology discharges representing 1,857 unique patients. We found that 65.9% of patients discharged (N = 1,489) completed at least one symptom assessment postdischarge and of them, 45.5% (n = 678) generated a severe symptom alert that we helped to manage. Patients expressed high satisfaction with the intervention with a net promoter score of 84%. In preliminary analysis of patients with GI malignancies (n = 449), we found a nonsignificant decrease in 30-day readmissions for the intervention cohort (n = 269) by 5.8% as compared with the control (n = 180; from 33.3% to 27.5%; P = .22). CONCLUSION: Digital transitional care management was feasible and demonstrated that patients transitioning from the hospital to home have a substantial symptom burden. The intervention was associated with high patient satisfaction but will require further refinement and evaluation to increase its impact on 30-day readmission.
Asunto(s)
Cuidado de Transición , Humanos , Cuidado de Transición/normas , Masculino , Femenino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Neoplasias/terapia , Oncología Médica/métodos , Alta del Paciente , Telemedicina/métodos , AdultoRESUMEN
At the opening session of JADPRO Live Virtual 2021, panelists shared creative responses to the COVID-19 pandemic and considered strategies to effectively respond to crises that may impact cancer patients and practices in the future.
RESUMEN
Introduction: The utilization of advanced practice providers (APPs) in oncology has been growing over the last decade; however, there is no standard method for assessing an APP's contributions to oncology care. Methods: The NCCN Best Practices Committee (BPC) created an APP Workgroup to develop recommendations to support the roles of APPs at NCCN Member Institutions. The Workgroup conducted surveys to understand how NCCN centers measure productivity. This article will review the survey results and provide recommendations for measuring APP productivity. Results: Although 54% of responding centers indicated they utilize relative value units (RVU) targets for independent APP visits, 88% of APPs are either unsure or do not believe RVUs are an effective measurement of overall productivity. Relative value units do not reflect non-billable hours, and APPs perform a significant number of non-billable tasks that are important to oncology practices. Sixty-six percent of APPs believe that measuring disease-based team productivity is a more reasonable assessment of APP productivity than measuring productivity at the individual level. Conclusion: Our recommendation for cancer centers is to focus on the value that APPs provide to overall care delivery. Advanced practice provider productivity metrics should consider not only the number of patients seen by APPs, but also the high quality and thorough care delivered that contributes to the overall care of the patient and practice. Advanced practice providers can help improve access to care, deliver improved outcomes, and increase patient and provider satisfaction. Reducing the focus on RVUs, accounting for important non-RVU-generating activities, and incorporating quality and team metrics will provide a better overall picture of APP productivity.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Traditional oncology care models have not effectively identified and managed at-risk patients to prevent acute care. A next step is to harness advances in technology to enable patients to report symptoms any time, enabling digital hovering-intensive symptom monitoring and management. Our objective was to evaluate a digital platform that identifies and remotely monitors high-risk patients initiating antineoplastic therapy with the goal of preventing acute care visits. METHODS: This was a single-institution matched cohort quality improvement study conducted at a National Cancer Institute-designated cancer center between January 1, 2019, and March 31, 2020. Eligible patients were those initiating intravenous antineoplastic therapy who were identified as high risk for seeking acute care. Enrolled patients' symptoms were monitored using a digital platform. A dedicated team of clinicians managed reported symptoms. The primary outcomes of emergency department visits and hospitalizations within 6 months of treatment initiation were analyzed using cumulative incidence analyses with a competing risk of death. RESULTS: Eighty-one patients from the intervention arm were matched by stage and disease with contemporaneous high-risk control patients. The matched cohort had similar baseline characteristics. The cumulative incidence of an emergency department visit for the intervention cohort was 0.27 (95% CI, 0.17 to 0.37) at six months compared with 0.47 (95% CI, 0.36 to 0.58) in the control (P = .01) and of an inpatient admission was 0.23 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.33) in the intervention cohort versus 0.41 (95% CI, 0.30 to 0.51) in the control (P = .02). CONCLUSION: The narrow employment of technology solutions to complex care delivery challenges in oncology can improve outcomes and innovate care. This program was a first step in using a digital platform and a remote team to improve symptom care for high-risk patients.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos , Humanos , Antineoplásicos/farmacología , Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Cuidados Paliativos , Hospitalización , Servicio de Urgencia en Hospital , Estudios de CohortesRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Best Practices Committee created an Advanced Practice Provider (APP) Workgroup to develop recommendations to support APP roles at NCCN Member Institutions. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys to understand APP program structure, staffing models, and professional development opportunities at NCCN Member Institutions. RESULTS: The total number of new and follow-up visits a 1.0 APP full-time equivalent conducts per week in shared and independent visits ranged from 11 to 97, with an average of 40 visits per week (n = 39). The type of visits APPs conduct include follow-up shared (47.2%), follow-up independent (46%), new shared (6.5%), and new independent visits (0.5%). Seventy-two percent of respondents utilize a mixed model visit type, with 15% utilizing only independent visits and 13% utilizing only shared visits (n = 39). Of the 95% of centers with APP leads, 100% indicated that leads carry administrative and clinical responsibilities (n = 20); however, results varied with respect to how this time is allocated. Professional development opportunities offered included posters, papers, and presentations (84%), leadership development (57%), research opportunities (52%), writing book chapters (19%), and other professional development activities (12%; n = 422). Twenty percent of APPs indicated that protected time to engage in development opportunities should be offered. CONCLUSION: As evidenced by the variability of the survey results, the field would benefit from developing standards for APPs. There is a lack of information regarding leadership structures to help support APPs, and additional research is needed. Additionally, centers should continuously assess the career-long opportunities needed to maximize the value of oncology APPs.
RESUMEN
PURPOSE: Early detection and management of symptoms in patients with cancer improves outcomes. However, the optimal approach to symptom monitoring and management is unknown. InSight Care is a mobile health intervention that captures symptom data and facilitates patient-provider communication to mitigate symptom escalation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients initiating antineoplastic treatment at a Memorial Sloan Kettering regional location were eligible. Technology supporting the program included the following: a predictive model that identified patient risk for a potentially preventable acute care visit; a secure patient portal enabling communication, televisits, and daily delivery of patient symptom assessments; alerts for concerning symptoms; and a symptom-trending application. The main outcomes of the pilot were feasibility and acceptability evaluated through enrollment and response rates and symptom alerts, and perceived value evaluated on the basis of qualitative patient and provider interviews. RESULTS: The pilot program enrolled 100 high-risk patients with solid tumors and lymphoma (29% of new treatment starts v goal of 25%). Over 6 months of follow-up, the daily symptom assessment response rate was 56% (the goal was 50%), and 93% of patients generated a severe symptom alert. Patients and providers perceived value in the program, and archetypes were developed for program improvement. Enrolled patients were less likely to use acute care than were other high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: InSight Care was feasible and holds the potential to improve patient care and decrease facility-based care. Future work should focus on optimizing the cadence of patient assessments, the workforce supporting remote symptom management, and the return of symptom data to patients and clinical teams.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias , Manejo de Atención al Paciente , Telemedicina , Humanos , Linfoma/terapia , Neoplasias/terapia , Proyectos Piloto , Evaluación de SíntomasRESUMEN
The management of older persons with cancer has become a major public health concern in developed countries because of the aging of the population and the steady increase in cancer incidence with advancing age. Nurses and allied health care professionals are challenged to address the needs of this growing population. The International Society of Geriatric Oncology (SIOG) Nursing and Allied Health (NAH) Interest Group described key issues that nurses and allied health care professionals face when caring for older persons with cancer. The domains of the Geriatric Assessment (GA) are used as a guiding framework. The following geriatric domains are described: demographic data and social support, functional status, cognition, mental health, nutritional status, fatigue, comorbidities, polypharmacy, and other geriatric syndromes (e.g. falls, delirium). In addition to these geriatric domains, quality of life (QoL) is described based on the overall importance in this particular population. Advice for integration of assessment of these geriatric domains into daily oncology practice is made. Research has mainly focused on the role of treating physicians but the involvement of nurses and allied health care professionals is crucial in the care of older persons with cancer through the GA process. The ability of nurses and allied health care professionals to perform this assessment requires specialized training and education beyond standard oncology knowledge.
Asunto(s)
Técnicos Medios en Salud , Evaluación Geriátrica/métodos , Geriatría/normas , Oncología Médica/normas , Neoplasias/terapia , Enfermería Oncológica , Anciano , Competencia Clínica , Femenino , Geriatría/métodos , Humanos , Oncología Médica/métodos , Neoplasias/psicología , Calidad de VidaRESUMEN
Multidisciplinary rounding (MDR) reduces medical errors and improves the quality of care for hospitalized patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate hospital length of stay, patient satisfaction, admission to a skilled care facility, and the use of home health care or hospice in patients who received MDR compared to those who did not. This retrospective study included the records of 3,077 thoracic surgical patients with cancer who were admitted to a midwestern National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center from January 1, 2006, through July 1, 2011. Overall mean length of stay was 5.3 days in the MDR group compared to 6.5 days in the no MDR group. The MDR group also had significantly shorter mean length of stay compared to the no MDR group among patients who were discharged home from the hospital, admitted to hospice following a hospital discharge, discharged to a skilled care facility, or admitted to home healthcare services. No significant differences in satisfaction scores were reported in patients who received MDR compared to those who did not. MDR is an important aspect of inpatient oncology care, and staff should be identified to participate who have expertise relevant to patients' needs.