"Postponing it Any Later Would not be so Great": A Cognitive Interview Study of How Physicians Decide to Initiate Goals of Care Discussions in the Hospital.

BACKGROUND: There are missed opportunities to discuss goals and preferences for care with seriously ill patients in the acute care setting. It is unknown which factors most influence clinician decision-making about communication at the point of care. OBJECTIVE: This study utilized a cognitive-interviewing technique to better understand what leads clinicians to decide to have a goals of care (GOC) discussion in the acute care setting. METHODS: A convenience sample of 15 oncologists, intensivists and hospitalists were recruited from a single academic medical center in a large urban area. Participants completed a cognitive interview describing their thought process when deciding whether to engage in GOC discussions in clinical vignettes. RESULTS: 6 interconnected factors emerged as important in determining how likely the physician was to consider engaging in GOC at that time; (1) the participants' mental model of GOC, (2) timing of GOC related to stability, acuity and reversibility of the patient's condition, (3) clinical factors such as uncertainty, prognosis and recency of diagnosis, (4) patient factors including age and emotional state, (5) participants' role on the care team, and (6) clinician factors such as emotion and communication skill level. CONCLUSION: Participants were hesitant to commit to the present moment as the right time for GOC discussions based on variations in clinical presentation. Clinical decision support systems that include more targeted information about risk of clinical deterioration and likelihood of reversal of the acute condition may prompt physicians to discuss GOC, but more support for managing discomfort with uncertainty is also needed.

Clinically informed machine learning elucidates the shape of hospice racial disparities within hospitals.

Racial disparities in hospice care are well documented for patients with cancer, but the existence, direction, and extent of disparity findings are contradictory across the literature. Current methods to identify racial disparities aggregate data to produce single-value quality measures that exclude important patient quality elements and, consequently, lack information to identify actionable equity improvement insights. Our goal was to develop an explainable machine learning approach that elucidates healthcare disparities and provides more actionable quality improvement information. We infused clinical information with engineering systems modeling and data science to develop a time-by-utilization profile per patient group at each hospital using US Medicare hospice utilization data for a cohort of patients with advanced (poor-prognosis) cancer that died April-December 2016. We calculated the difference between group profiles for people of color and white people to identify racial disparity signatures. Using machine learning, we clustered racial disparity signatures across hospitals and compared these clusters to classic quality measures and hospital characteristics. With 45,125 patients across 362 hospitals, we identified 7 clusters; 4 clusters (n = 190 hospitals) showed more hospice utilization by people of color than white people, 2 clusters (n = 106) showed more hospice utilization by white people than people of color, and 1 cluster (n = 66) showed no difference. Within-hospital racial disparity behaviors cannot be predicted from quality measures, showing how the true shape of disparities can be distorted through the lens of quality measures. This approach elucidates the shape of hospice racial disparities algorithmically from the same data used to calculate quality measures.

Evaluating Physician Emotion Regulation in Serious Illness Conversations Using Multimodal Assessment.

CONTEXT: Emotion regulation by the physician can influence the effectiveness of serious illness conversations. The feasibility of multimodal assessment of emotion regulation during these conversations is unknown. OBJECTIVES: To develop and assess an experimental framework for evaluating physician emotion regulation during serious illness conversations. METHODS: We developed and then assessed a multimodal assessment framework for physician emotion regulation using a cross-sectional, pilot study on physicians trained in the Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG) in a simulated, telehealth encounter. Development of the assessment framework included a literature review and subject matter expert consultations. Our predefined feasibility endpoints included: an enrollment rate of ≥60% of approached physicians, >90% completion rate of survey items, and <20% missing data from wearable heart rate sensors. To describe physician emotion regulation, we performed a thematic analysis of the conversation, its documentation, and physician interviews. RESULTS: Out of 12 physicians approached, 11 (92%) SICG-trained physicians enrolled in the study: five medical oncology and six palliative care physicians. All 11 completed the survey (100% completion rate). Two sensors (chest band, wrist sensor) had <20% missing data during study tasks. The forearm sensor had >20% missing data. The thematic analysis found that physicians': 1) overarching goal was to move beyond prognosis to reasonable hope; 2) tactically focused on establishing a trusting, supportive relationship; and 3) possessed incomplete awareness of their emotion regulation strategies. CONCLUSION: Our novel, multimodal assessment of physician emotion regulation was feasible in a simulated SICG encounter. Physicians exhibited an incomplete understanding of their emotion regulation strategies.

Structure and integration of specialty palliative care in three NCI-designated cancer centers: a mixed methods case study.

INTRODUCTION: Early access to specialty palliative care is associated with better quality of life, less intensive end-of-life treatment and improved outcomes for patients with advanced cancer. However, significant variation exists in implementation and integration of palliative care. This study compares the organizational, sociocultural, and clinical factors that support or hinder palliative care integration across three U.S. cancer centers using an in-depth mixed methods case study design and proposes a middle range theory to further characterize specialty palliative care integration. METHODS: Mixed methods data collection included document review, semi-structured interviews, direct clinical observation, and context data related to site characteristics and patient demographics. A mixed inductive and deductive approach and triangulation was used to analyze and compare sites' palliative care delivery models, organizational structures, social norms, and clinician beliefs and practices. RESULTS: Sites included an urban center in the Midwest and two in the Southeast. Data included 62 clinician and 27 leader interviews, observations of 410 inpatient and outpatient encounters and seven non-encounter-based meetings, and multiple documents. Two sites had high levels of "favorable" organizational influences for specialty palliative care integration, including screening, policies, and other structures facilitating integration of specialty palliative care into advanced cancer care. The third site lacked formal organizational policies and structures for specialty palliative care, had a small specialty palliative care team, espoused an organizational identity linked to treatment innovation, and demonstrated strong social norms for oncologist primacy in decision making. This combination led to low levels of specialty palliative care integration and greater reliance on individual clinicians to initiate palliative care. CONCLUSION: Integration of specialty palliative care services in advanced cancer care was associated with a complex interaction of organization-level factors, social norms, and individual clinician orientation. The resulting middle range theory suggests that formal structures and policies for specialty palliative care combined with supportive social norms are associated with greater palliative care integration in advanced cancer care, and less influence of individual clinician preferences or tendencies to continue treatment. These results suggest multi-faceted efforts at different levels, including social norms, may be needed to improve specialty palliative care integration for advanced cancer patients.

Association Between Opening a Palliative Care Unit and Hospital Care for Patients With Serious Illness.

Background: Palliative care units (PCUs) are devoted to intensive management of symptoms and other palliative care needs. We examined the association between opening a PCU and acute care processes at a single U.S. academic medical center. Methods: We retrospectively compared acute care processes for seriously ill patients admitted before and after the opening of a PCU at a single academic medical center. Outcomes included rates of change in code status to do-not-resuscitate (DNR) and comfort measures only (CMO) status, and time to DNR and CMO. We calculated unadjusted and adjusted rates and used logistic regression to assess interaction between care period and palliative care consultation. Results: There were 16,611 patients in the pre-PCU period and 18,305 patients in the post-PCU period. The post-PCU cohort was slightly older, with a higher Charlson index (p < 0.001 for both). Post-PCU, unadjusted rates of DNR and CMO increased from 16.4% to 18.3% (p < 0.001) and 9.3% to 11.5% (p < 0.001), respectively. Post-PCU, median time to DNR was unchanged (0 days), and time to CMO decreased from 6 to 5 days. The adjusted odds ratio was 1.08 (p = 0.01) for DNR and 1.19 (p < 0.001) for CMO. Significant interaction between care period and palliative care consultation for DNR (p = 0.04) and CMO (p = 0.01) suggests an important role for palliative care engagement. Conclusions: The opening of a PCU at a single center was associated with increased rates of DNR and CMO status for seriously ill patients.

Problematic Integration: Racial Discordance in End-of-Life Decision Making.

We describe racially discordant oncology encounters involving EOL decision-making. Fifty-eight provider interviews were content analyzed using the tenets of problematic integration theory. We found EOL discussions between non-Black providers and their Black patients were often complex and anxiety-inducing. That anxiety consisted of (1) ontological uncertainty in which providers characterized the nature of Black patients as distrustful, especially in the context of clinical trials; (2) ontological and epistemological uncertainty in which provider intercultural incompetency and perceived lack of patient health literacy were normalized and intertwined with provider assumptions about patients' religion and support systems; (3) epistemological uncertainty as ambivalence in which providers' feelings conflicted when deciding whether to speak with family members they perceived as lacking health literacy; (4) divergence in which the provider advised palliative care while the family desired surgery or cancer-directed medical treatment; and (5) impossibility when an ontological uncertainty stance of Black distrust was seen as natural by providers and therefore impossible to change. Some communication strategies used were indirect stereotyping, negotiating, asking a series of value questions, blame-guilt framing, and avoidance. We concluded that provider perceptions of Black distrust, religion, and social support influenced their ability to communicate effectively with patients.

What is in the palliative care 'syringe'? A systems perspective.

The diffusion of palliative care has been rapid, yet uncertainty remains regarding palliative care's "active ingredients." The National Consensus Project Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care identified eight domains of palliative care. Despite these identified domains, when pressed to describe the specific maneuvers used in clinical encounters, palliative care providers acknowledge that "it's complex." The field of systems has been used to explain complexity across many different types of systems. Specifically, engineering systems develop a representation of a system that helps manage complexity to help humans better understand the system. Our goal was to develop a system model of what palliative care providers do such that the elements of the model can be described concretely and sequentially, aggregated to describe the high-level domains currently described by palliative care, and connected to the complexity described by providers and the literature. Our study design combined methodological elements from both qualitative research and systems engineering modeling. The model drew on participant observation and debriefing semi-structured interviews with interdisciplinary palliative care team members by a systems engineer. The setting was an interdisciplinary palliative care service in a US rural academic medical center. In the developed system model, we identified 59 functions provided to patients, families, non-palliative care provider(s), and palliative care provider(s). The high-level functions related to measurement, decision-making, and treatment address up to 8 states of an individual, including an overall holistic state, physical state, psychological state, spiritual state, cultural state, personal environment state, and clinical environment state. In contrast to previously described expert consensus domain-based descriptions of palliative care, this model more directly connects palliative care provider functions to emergent behaviors that may explain system-level mechanisms of action for palliative care. Thus, a systems modeling approach provides insights into the challenges surrounding the recurring question of what is in the palliative care "syringe."

Development of dynamic health care delivery heatmaps for end-of-life cancer care: a cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: Measures of variation in end-of-life (EOL) care intensity across hospitals are typically summarised using unidimensional measures. These measures do not capture the full dimensionality of complex clinical care trajectories over time that are needed to inform quality improvement efforts. The objective is to develop a novel visual map of EOL care trajectories that illustrates multidimensional utilisation over time. SETTING: United States' National Cancer Institute or National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCI/NCCN)-designated hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: We identified Medicare claims for fee-for-service beneficiaries with poor prognosis cancers who died between April and December 2016 and received the preponderance of treatment in the last 6 months of life at an NCI/NCCN-designated hospital. DESIGN: For each beneficiary, we transformed each Medicare claim into two elements to generate a two-dimensional individual-level heatmap. On the y-axis, each claim was classified into a categorical description of the service delivered by a healthcare resource. On the x-axis, the date for each claim was converted into the day number prior to death it occurred on. We then summed up individual-level heatmaps of patients attributed to each hospital to generate two-dimensional hospital-level heatmaps. We used four case studies to illustrate the feasibility of interpreting these heatmaps and to shed light on how they might be used to guide value-based, quality improvement initiatives. RESULTS: We identified nine distinct EOL care delivery patterns from hospital-level heatmaps based on signal intensity and patterns for inpatient, outpatient and home-based hospice services. We illustrate that in most cases, heatmaps illustrating patterns of multidimensional healthcare utilisation over time provide more information about care trajectories and highlight more heterogeneity than current unidimensional measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the feasibility of representing multidimensional EOL utilisation over time as a heatmap. These heatmaps may provide potentially actionable insights into hospital-level care delivery patterns, and the approach may generalise to other serious illness populations.

Development of an Abstraction Tool to Assess Palliative Care Components.

Background: Little is known regarding the fidelity of delivery of guideline-recommended components of palliative care in "real world" encounters. Objective: To develop a qualitative coding framework to identify components of clinical palliative care in clinical documentation across care settings. Design: Retrospective review of palliative care clinical documentation from medical providers, with directed qualitative content analysis to identify components of clinical care documented. Setting/Subjects: Purposively sampled deceased patients seen by palliative care at a US academic medical center between 7/1/2011-7/1/2018. Main Outcomes and Measures: The outcome of this work is a coding framework for use in future research. We assessed the robustness of the framework using Cohen's kappa. Results: We reviewed sixty-two encounters from twenty-six patients. We identified 7 major themes in documentation: (1) addressing physical symptoms, (2) addressing psychological symptoms, (3) establishing illness understanding, (4) supporting decision making, (5) end-of-life planning, (6) understanding psychosocial context, and (7) care coordination. Interrater reliability varied widely between components, with Cohen's kappa ranging from -.51 to 1. Conclusions: This pilot study provides a coding framework to measure documentation of clinical palliative care components. Several components could not be reliably identified using this framework, suggesting the need for additional measurement strategies.

Systemic Therapy Decision Making in Advanced Cancer: A Qualitative Analysis of Patient-Oncologist Encounters.

PURPOSE: We sought to characterize patient-oncologist communication and decision making about continuing or limiting systemic therapy in encounters after an initial consultation, with a particular focus on whether and how oncologists foster shared decision making (SDM). METHODS: We performed content analysis of outpatient oncology encounters at two US National Cancer Institute-designated cancer centers audio recorded between November 2010 and September 2014. A multidisciplinary team used a hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. We used a combination of random and purposive sampling. We restricted quantitative frequency counts to the coded random sample but included all sampled encounters in qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Among 31 randomly sampled dyads with three encounters each, systemic therapy decision making was discussed in 90% (84 of 93) encounters. Thirty-four (37%) broached limiting therapy, which 27 (79%) framed as temporary, nine (26%) as completion of a standard regimen, and five (15%) as permanent discontinuation. Thematic analysis of these 93 encounters, plus five encounters purposively sampled for permanent discontinuation, found that (1) patients and oncologists framed continuing therapy as the default, (2) deficiencies in the SDM process (facilitating choice awareness, discussing options, and incorporating patient preferences) contributed to this default, and (3) oncologists use persuasion rather than deliberation when broaching discontinuation. CONCLUSION: In this study of outpatient encounters between patients with advanced cancer and their oncologists, when discussing systemic therapy, there exists a default to continue systemic therapy, and deficiencies in SDM contribute to this default.

Actual and Missed Opportunities for End-of-Life Care Discussions With Oncology Patients: A Qualitative Study.

Importance: Early discussion of end-of-life (EOL) care preferences improves clinical outcomes and goal-concordant care. However, most EOL discussions occur approximately 1 month before death, despite most patients desiring information earlier. Objective: To describe successful navigation and missed opportunities for EOL discussions (eg, advance care planning, palliative care, discontinuation of disease-directed treatment, hospice care, and after-death wishes) between oncologists and outpatients with advanced cancer. Design, Setting, and Participants: This study is a secondary qualitative analysis of outpatient visits audio-recorded between November 2010 and September 2014 for the Studying Communication in Oncologist-Patient Encounters randomized clinical trial. The study was conducted at 2 US academic medical centers. Participants included medical, gynecological, and radiation oncologists and patients with stage IV malignant neoplasm, whom oncologists characterized as being ones whom they "…would not be surprised if they were admitted to an intensive care unit or died within one year." Data were analyzed between January 2018 and August 2020. Exposures: The parent study randomized participants to oncologist- and patient-directed interventions to facilitate discussion of emotions. Encounters were sampled across preintervention and postintervention periods and all 4 treatment conditions. Main Outcomes and Measures: Secondary qualitative analysis was done of patient-oncologist dyads with 3 consecutive visits for EOL discussions, and a random sample of 7 to 8 dyads from 4 trial groups was analyzed for missed opportunities. Results: The full sample included 141 patients (54 women [38.3%]) and 39 oncologists (8 women [19.5%]) (mean [SD] age for both patients and oncologists, 56.3 [10.0] years). Of 423 encounters, only 21 (5%) included EOL discussions. Oncologists reevaluated treatment options in response to patients' concerns, honored patients as experts on their goals, or used anticipatory guidance to frame treatment reevaluation. In the random sample of 31 dyads and 93 encounters, 35 (38%) included at least 1 missed opportunity. Oncologists responded inadequately to patient concerns over disease progression or dying, used optimistic future talk to address patient concerns, or expressed concern over treatment discontinuation. Only 4 of 23 oncologists (17.4%) had both an EOL discussion and a missed opportunity. Conclusions and Relevance: Opportunities for EOL discussions were rarely realized, whereas missed opportunities were more common, a trend that mirrored oncologists' treatment style. There remains a need to address oncologists' sensitivity to EOL discussions, to avoid unnecessary EOL treatment.

The power of specialty palliative care: moving towards a systems perspective.

Three palliative care clinical trials were presented at the 2020 American Society for Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting. The heterogeneity in populations, models of care, study design, and assessment of clinical outcomes across these three studies show the broad opportunities for research into interventions for palliative care. In this Viewpoint, we summarise the characteristics of these studies, discuss their novel features and lingering questions, and offer a suggestion for further expanding the focus of clinical trials for delivery of palliative care in the future. We particularly argue that the propensity to characterise palliative care as if it was a clinical or biomedical intervention hampers the design and evaluation of complex clinical interventions that influence clinicians, systems for health-care delivery, individual patients, and their families.

Inner Deliberations of Surgeons Treating Critically-ill Emergency General Surgery Patients: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: 30% of elderly patients who require emergency general surgery (EGS) die in the year after the operation. Preoperative discussions can determine whether patients receive preference-sensitive care. Theoretically, surgeons frame their conversations after systematically assessing the risks and benefits of management options based on the clinical characteristics of each case. However, little is known about how surgeons actually deliberate about those options. OBJECTIVE: To identify variables that influence surgeons' assessment of management options for critically-ill EGS patients. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 general surgeons in western Pennsylvania who worked in a variety of hospital settings. Interviews explored perioperative decision-making by asking surgeons to think aloud about selected memorable cases and a standardized case vignette of a frail patient with acute mesenteric ischemia. We used constant comparative methods to analyze interview transcripts and inductively developed a framework for the decision-making process. RESULTS: Surgeons averaged 13 years (standard deviation (SD) 10.4) of experience; 40% specialized in trauma/acute care surgery. Important themes regarding the main topic of "perioperative decision-making" included many considerations beyond the clinical characteristics of cases. Surgeons described the importance of variables ranging from the availability of institutional resources to professional norms. Surgeons often remarked on their desire to achieve individual flow, team efficiency, and concordant expectations of treatment and prognosis with patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore how surgeons decide among management options for critically-ill EGS patients. Surgeons' decision-making reflected a broad array of clinical, personal, and institutional variables. Effective interventions to ensure preference-sensitive care for EGS patients must address all of these variables.

Implementation and Impact of a Serious Illness Communication Training for Hematology-Oncology Fellows.

Effective communication between providers and patients with serious illness is critical to ensure that treatment is aligned with patient goals. We developed and tested an implementation strategy for incorporating the previously developed Serious Illness Conversation Guide (SICG), a clinician script, into hematology-oncology fellowship training at a single US academic medical center. Between December 2017 and April 2018, we trained 8 oncology fellows to use and document the SICG. The training included associated communication skills-such as handling emotion and headlining-over 7 didactic sessions. Implementation strategies included training 4 oncology faculty as coaches to re-enforce fellows' skills and an electronic medical record template to document the SICG. We assessed effectiveness using 4 approaches: (1) SICG template use among fellows in the 12 months following training, (2) fellow confidence pre- and post-intervention via survey, (3) performance in 2 simulated patient encounters, and (4) semi-structured interviews after 12 months. Fellows successfully implemented the SICG in simulated patient encounters, though only 2 of 6 fellows documented any SICG in the clinical practice. Most fellows reported greater confidence in their communication after training. Thematic analysis of interviews revealed the following: (1) positive training experience, (2) improved patient preference elicitation, (3) selected SICG components used in a single encounter, (4) prioritize other clinical duties, (5) importance of emotion handling skills, (6) no faculty coaching receive outside training. Despite acquisition of communication skills, promoting new clinical behaviors remains challenging. More work is needed to identify which implementation strategies are required in this learner population.

Role of norms in variation in cancer centers' end-of-life quality: qualitative case study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A critical barrier to improving the quality of end-of-life (EOL) cancer care is our lack of understanding of the mechanisms underlying variation in EOL treatment intensity. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying 1) organizational and provider practice norms at major US cancer centers, and 2) how these norms influence provider decision making heuristics and patient expectations for EOL care, particularly for minority patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a multi-center, qualitative case study at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Centers. We will theoretically sample centers based upon National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsed EOL quality metrics and demographics to ensure heterogeneity in EOL intensity and region. A multidisciplinary team of clinician and non-clinician researchers will conduct direct observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection. Participants will include: 1) cancer center and clinical service line administrators; 2) providers from medical, surgical, and radiation oncology; palliative or supportive care; intensive care; hospital medicine; and emergency medicine who see patients with cancer and have high clinical practice volume or high local influence (provider interviews and observations); and 3) adult patients with metastatic solid tumors and whom the provider would not be surprised if they died in the next 12 months and their caregivers (patient and caregiver interviews). Leadership interviews will probe about EOL institutional norms and organization. We will observe inpatient and outpatient care for two weeks. Provider interviews will use vignettes to probe explicit and implicit motivations for treatment choices. Semi-structured interviews with patients near EOL, or their family members and caregivers will explore past, current, and future decisions related to their cancer care. We will import transcribed field notes and interviews into Dedoose software for qualitative data management and analysis, and we will develop and apply a deductive and inductive codebook to the data. DISCUSSION: This study aims to improve our understanding of organizational and provider practice norms pertinent to EOL care in U.S. cancer centers. This research will ultimately be used to inform a provider-oriented intervention to improve EOL care for racial and ethnic minority patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03780816 ; December 19, 2018.

Radiation oncologists' attitudes and beliefs about intensity-modulated radiation therapy and stereotactic body radiation therapy for prostate cancer.

BACKGROUND: To better understand how radiation oncologists perceive intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) for prostate cancer and how these perceptions may influence treatment decisions. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews of radiation oncologists between January-May, 2016. We used a purposeful sampling technique to select participants across a wide range of experience, regions, and practice types. Two trained qualitative researchers used an inductive, iterative approach to code transcripts and identify themes. We then used content analysis and thematic analysis of the coded transcripts to understand radiation oncologists' attitudes and beliefs about IMRT and SBRT. RESULTS: Thematic saturation was achieved after 20 interviews. Participants were affiliated with academic (n = 13; 65%), private (n = 5; 25%), and mixed (n = 2; 10%) practices and had a wide range of clinical experience (median 19 years; range 4-49 years). Analysis of interview transcripts revealed four general themes: 1) most radiation oncologists offered surgery, brachytherapy, IMRT, and active surveillance for low-risk patients; 2) there was no consensus on the comparative effectiveness of IMRT and SBRT; 3) key barriers to adopting SBRT included issues related to insurance, reimbursement, and practice inertia; and 4) despite these barriers, most participants envisioned SBRT use increasing over the next 5-10 years. CONCLUSIONS: In the absence of strong opinions about effectiveness, nonclinical factors influence the choice of radiation treatment. Despite a lack of consensus, most participants agreed SBRT may become a standard of care in the future.

The Development and Validation of Prostate Cancer-specific Physician-Hospital Networks.

OBJECTIVE: To develop prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks to define hospital-based units that more accurately group hospitals, providers, and the patients they serve. METHODS: Using Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Medicare, we identified men diagnosed with localized prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We created physician-hospital networks by assigning each patient to a physician and each physician to a hospital based on treatment patterns. We assessed content validity by examining characteristics of hospitals anchoring the physician-hospital networks and of the patients associated with these hospitals. RESULTS: We identified 42,963 patients associated with 344 physician-hospital networks. Networks anchored by a teaching hospital (compared to a nonteaching hospital) had higher median numbers of prostate cancer patients (117 [interquartile range {71-189} vs 82 {50-126}]) and treating physicians (7 [4-11] vs 4 [3-6]) (both P <0.001). On average, patients traveled farther to networks anchored by a teaching hospital (49 miles [standard deviation] [207] vs 41 [183]; P <.001). Hospitals known as high-volume centers for robotic prostatectomies, proton-beam therapy, and active surveillance had network rates for these procedures well above the mean. Hospitals known as safety net providers served higher proportions of minorities. CONCLUSION: We empirically developed prostate-cancer specific physician-hospital networks that exhibit content validity and are relevant from a clinical and policy perspective. They have the potential to become targets for policy interventions focused on improving the delivery of prostate cancer care.

End-of-life quality metrics among medicare decedents at minority-serving cancer centers: A retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: We calculated the performance of National Cancer Institute (NCI)/National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) cancer centers' end-of-life (EOL) quality metrics among minority and white decedents to explore center-attributable sources of EOL disparities. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries with poor-prognosis cancers who died between April 1, 2016 and December 31, 2016 and had any inpatient services in the last 6 months of life. We attributed patients' EOL treatment to the center at which they received the preponderance of EOL inpatient services and calculated eight risk-adjusted metrics of EOL quality (hospice admission ≤3 days before death; chemotherapy last 14 days of life; ≥2 emergency department (ED) visits; intensive care unit (ICU) admission; or life-sustaining treatment last 30 days; hospice referral; palliative care; advance care planning last 6 months). We compared performance between patients across and within centers. RESULTS: Among 126,434 patients, 10,119 received treatment at one of 54 NCI/NCCN centers. In aggregate, performance was worse among minorities for ED visits (10.3% vs 7.4%, P < .01), ICU admissions (32.9% vs 30.4%, P = .03), no hospice referral (39.5% vs 37.0%, P = .03), and life-sustaining treatment (19.4% vs 16.2%, P < .01). Despite high within-center correlation for minority and white metrics (0.61-0.79; P < .01), five metrics demonstrated worse performance as the concentration of minorities increased: ED visits (P = .03), ICU admission (P < .01), no hospice referral (P < .01), and life-sustaining treatments (P < .01). CONCLUSION: EOL quality metrics vary across NCI/NCCN centers. Within center, care was similar for minority and white patients. Minority-serving centers had worse performance on many metrics.

The Influence of Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy Adoption on Prostate Cancer Treatment Patterns.

PURPOSE: To our knowledge it is unknown whether stereotactic body radiation therapy of prostate cancer is a substitute for other radiation treatments or surgery, or for expanding the pool of patients who undergo treatment instead of active surveillance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using SEER (Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results)-Medicare we identified men diagnosed with prostate cancer between 2007 and 2011. We developed physician-hospital networks by identifying the treating physician of each patient based on the primary treatment received and subsequently assigning each physician to a hospital. We examined the relative distribution of prostate cancer treatments stratified by whether stereotactic body radiation therapy was performed in a network by fitting logistic regression models with robust SEs to account for patient clustering in networks. RESULTS: We identified 344 physician-hospital networks, including 30 (8.7%) and 314 (91.3%) in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was and was not performed, respectively. Networks in which that therapy was and was not done did not differ with time in the performance of robotic and radical prostatectomy, and active surveillance (all p >0.05). The relationship with intensity modulated radiation therapy did not show any consistent temporal pattern. In networks in which it was performed less intensity modulated radiation therapy was initially done but there were similar rates in later years. Brachytherapy trends differed among networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed with a lower brachytherapy rate in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was done (p=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Surgery and active surveillance rates did not differ in networks in which stereotactic body radiation therapy was vs was not performed but when that therapy was done there was a lower brachytherapy rate. Stereotactic body radiation therapy may represent more of an alternative to brachytherapy than to active surveillance.

Patterns of stereotactic body radiation therapy: The influence of lung cancer treatment on prostate cancer treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Technology availability and prior experience with novel cancer treatments may partially drive their use. We sought to examine this issue in the context of stereotactic body radiation therapy (SBRT) by studying how its use for an established indication (lung cancer) impacts its use for an emerging indication (prostate cancer). METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare from 2007 to 2011, we developed prostate cancer-specific physician-hospital networks. Our primary dependent variable was SBRT use for prostate cancer and our primary independent variable was SBRT use for lung cancer, both at the network level. To assess the influence of SBRT availability and experiential use, we generated predicted probabilities of SBRT use for prostate cancer stratified by a network's use of lung cancer SBRT, adjusting for network characteristics. To assess intensity of use, we examined the correlation between the proportion of prostate cancer patients and lung cancer patients receiving SBRT within a network. RESULTS: We identified 316 networks that served 41,034 prostate cancer and 83,433 lung cancer patients. A network was significantly more likely to use SBRT for prostate cancer if that network used SBRT for lung cancer (e.g., in 2011, odds ratio [OR] 12.7; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-41.8). The Pearson's correlation between the proportion of prostate cancer patients and lung cancer patients receiving SBRT in a network was 0.34, which was not statistically significant (P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: SBRT availability and experiential use for lung cancer influences its use for prostate cancer, but intensity of use for one does not relate to intensity of use for the other.