Using patient flow analysis with real-time patient tracking to optimize radiation oncology consultation visits.

PURPOSE: Clinical efficiency is a key component of the value-based care model and a driver of patient satisfaction. The purpose of this study was to identify and address inefficiencies at a high-volume radiation oncology clinic. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patient flow analysis (PFA) was used to create process maps and optimize the workflow of consultation visits in a gastrointestinal radiation oncology clinic at a large academic cancer center. Metrics such as cycle times, waiting times, and rooming times were assessed by using a real-time patient status function in the electronic medical record for 556 consults and compared between before vs after implementation of the PFA recommendations. RESULTS: The initial PFA revealed four inefficiencies: (1) protracted rooming time, (2) inefficient communications, (3) duplicated tasks, and (4) ambiguous clinical roles. We analyzed 485 consult-visits before the PFA and 71 after the PFA. The PFA recommendations led to reductions in overall median cycle time by 21% (91 min vs 72 min, p < 0.001), in cumulative waiting times by 64% (45 min vs 16 min; p < 0.001), which included waiting room time (14 min vs 5 min; p < 0.001) and wait for physician (20 min vs. 6 min; p < 0.001). Slightly less than one-quarter (22%) of consult visits before the PFA lasted > 2 h vs. 0% after implementation of the recommendations (p < 0.001). Similarly, the proportion of visits requiring < 1 h was 16% before PFA vs 34% afterward (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PFA can be used to identify clinical inefficiencies and optimize workflows in radiation oncology consultation clinics, and implementing their findings can significantly improve cycle times and waiting times. Potential downstream effects of these interventions include improved patient experience, decreased staff burnout, financial savings, and opportunities for expanding clinical capacity.

Optimizing Outpatient Radiation Oncology Consult Workflow by Using Time-Driven Activity-Based Costing: Efficiency and Financial Impacts.

PURPOSE: Clinical efficiency is a key component of value-based health care. Our objective here was to identify workflow inefficiencies by using time-driven activity-based costing (TDABC) and evaluate the implementation of a new clinical workflow in high-volume outpatient radiation oncology clinics. METHODS: Our quality improvement study was conducted with the Departments of GI, Genitourinary (GU), and Thoracic Radiation Oncology at a large academic cancer center and four community network sites. TDABC was used to create process maps and optimize workflow for outpatient consults. Patient encounter metrics were captured with a real-time status function in the electronic medical record. Time metrics were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests. RESULTS: Individual patient encounter data for 1,328 consults before the intervention and 1,234 afterward across all sections were included. The median overall cycle time was reduced by 21% in GI (19 minutes), 18% in GU (16 minutes), and 12% at the community sites (9 minutes). The median financial savings per consult were $52 in US dollars (USD) for the GI, $33 USD for GU, $30 USD for thoracic, and $42 USD for the community sites. Patient satisfaction surveys (from 127 of 228 patients) showed that 99% of patients reported that their providers spent adequate time with them and 91% reported being seen by a care provider in a timely manner. CONCLUSION: TDABC can effectively identify opportunities to improve clinical efficiency. Implementing workflow changes on the basis of our findings led to substantial reductions in overall encounter cycle times across several departments, as well as high patient satisfaction and significant financial savings.

Coronavirus (COVID-19): Patient experience-Administrative services on the frontline during crisis.

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a dramatic impact on care delivery among health care institutions and providers in the United States. As a categorical cancer center, MD Anderson has prioritized care for our patients based on acuity of their disease. We continue to implement measures to protect patients and employees from acquiring the infection within our facilities, and to provide acute management of cancer patients with concomitant COVID-19 infections who are considered at high risk of death. The Division of Patient Experience, formerly established in October 2016, has played an integral role in the institution's pandemic response from its inception. The team actively supported programs and processes in anticipation of the pandemic's effect on our patients and employees. We will describe how the team continues to serve in the ever-dynamic environment as we approach the expected surge in COVID-19 cases among our patient population, our employees, and in our community.

Assessing the Quality of a Radiation Oncology Case-Based, Peer-Review Program in an Integrated Academic and Community Cancer Center Network.

PURPOSE: Academic centers increasingly find a need to define a comprehensive peer-review program that can translate high-quality radiation therapy (RT) to community network sites. In this study, we describe the initial results of a quarterly quality audit program that aims to improve RT peer-review and provider educational processes across community sites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic tool was used by community-based certified member (CM) sites to enter clinical treatment information about patients undergoing peer review. At least 10% of the patient load for each CM physician was selected for audit on a quarterly basis by expert academic faculty. Quality metrics included the review of the management plan, technical plan, and other indicators. RT was scored as being concordant or nonconcordant with institutional guidelines, national standards, or expert judgment. RESULTS: A total of 719 patients were entered into the peer-review database by the first four CM sites. Of 14% of patients audited, 17% (18 of 104) were deemed nonconcordant. Nonconcordance rates were lowest in prevalent disease sites, such as breast (16%), colorectal (14%), and lung (12%), whereas rates were highest in lymphoma (50%), brain (44%), and gynecology (27%). Deficiencies included incomplete staging work-up, incorrect target and normal tissue delineation, and nonadherence to accepted dose-volume constraints. CONCLUSION: Given the high rate of nonconcordance, we recommend prospective, pre-RT peer review of all patients, and, in particular, expert review of patients that are from low-volume or complex disease sites. An integrated approach to peer review holds a promise of improving the quality, safety, and value of cancer therapy in the community setting.