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.

Quality of cancer family history and referral for genetic counseling and testing among oncology practices: a pilot test of quality measures as part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: Family history of cancer (CFH) is important for identifying individuals to receive genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies have demonstrated low rates of family history documentation and referral for GC/GT. METHODS: CFH quality and GC/GT practices for patients with breast (BC) or colon cancer (CRC) were assessed in 271 practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative in fall 2011. RESULTS: A total of 212 practices completed measures regarding CFH and GC/GT practices for 10,466 patients; 77.4% of all medical records reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in first-degree relatives, and 61.5% of medical records documented presence or absence of CFH in second-degree relatives, with significantly higher documentation for patients with BC compared with CRC. Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of medical records (BC, 45.2%; CRC, 35.4%; P ≤ .001). Referall for GC/GT occurred in 22.1% of all patients with BC or CRC. Of patients with increased risk for hereditary cancer, 52.2% of patients with BC and 26.4% of those with CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed, consent was documented 77.7% of the time, and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time. CONCLUSION: We identified low rates of complete CFH documentation and low rates of referral for those with BC or CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists. Documentation and referral were greater for patients with BC compared with CRC. Education and support regarding the importance of accurate CFH and the benefits of proactive high-risk patient management are clearly needed.

Measuring the improving quality of outpatient care in medical oncology practices in the United States.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) has provided a method for measuring process-based practice quality since 2006. We sought to determine whether QOPI scores showed improvement in measured quality over time and, if change was demonstrated, which factors in either the measures or participants were associated with improvement. METHODS: The analysis included 156 practice groups from a larger group of 308 that submitted data from 2006 to 2010. One hundred fifty-two otherwise eligible practices were excluded, most commonly for insufficient data submission. A linear regression model that controlled for varied initial performance was used to estimate the effect of participation over time and evaluate participant and measure characteristics of improvement. RESULTS: Participants completed a mean of 5.06 (standard deviation, 1.94) rounds of data collection. Adjusted mean quality scores improved from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.91) to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95). Overall odds ratio of improvement over time was 1.09 (P < .001). The greatest improvement was seen in measures that assessed newly introduced clinical information, in which the mean scores improved from 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.17) to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.91; P < .001). Many measures showed no change over time. CONCLUSION: Many US oncologists have participated in QOPI over the past 6 years. Participation over time was highly correlated with improvement in measured performance. Greater and faster improvement was seen in measures concerning newly introduced clinical information. Some measures showed no change despite opportunity for improvement.

Michigan oncology practices showed varying adherence rates to practice guidelines, but quality interventions improved care.

Despite improvements in care for patients with cancer, and in their survival rates, it is not clear that best practices are uniformly delivered to patients. We measured the quality of outpatient cancer care, using validated quality measures, in a consortium of thirty-six outpatient oncology practices in Michigan. We discovered that throughout the measurement period, for breast and colorectal cancer care, there was a more than 85 percent rate of adherence to quality care processes. For end-of-life care processes, the adherence rate was 73 percent, and for symptom and toxicity management care processes, adherence was 56 percent. In particular, we found variations in care around the fundamental oncologic task of management of cancer pain. To address quality gaps, we developed interventions to improve adherence to treatment guidelines, improve pain management, and incorporate palliative care into oncology practice. We concluded that statewide consortia that assume much of the cost burden of quality improvement activities can bring together oncology providers and payers to measure quality and design interventions to improve care.

Advancing performance measurement in oncology: quality oncology practice initiative participation and quality outcomes.

The American health care system, including the cancer care system, is under pressure to improve patient outcomes and lower the cost of care. Government payers have articulated an interest in partnering with the private sector to create learning communities to measure quality and improve the value of health care. In 2006, the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) unveiled the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), which has become a key component of the measurement system to promote quality cancer care. QOPI is a physician-led, voluntary, practice-based, quality-improvement program, using performance measurement and benchmarking among oncology practices across the United States. Since its inception, ASCO's QOPI has grown steadily to include 973 practices as of November 2010. One key area that QOPI has addressed is end-of-life care. During the most recent data collection cycle in the Fall of 2010, those practices completing multiple data collection cycles had better performance on care of pain compared with sites participating for the first time (62.61% v 46.89%). Similarly, repeat QOPI participants demonstrated meaningfully better performance than their peers in the rate of documenting discussions of hospice and palliative care (62.42% v 54.65%) and higher rates of hospice enrollment. QOPI demonstrates how a strong performance measurement program can lead to improved quality and value of care for patients.

Advancing performance measurement in oncology.

The American healthcare system, including the cancer care system, is under pressure to improve patient outcomes and lower the cost of care. Government payers have articulated an interest in partnering with the private sector to create learning communities to measure quality and improve the value of healthcare. In 2006, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) unveiled the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), which has become a key component of the measurement system to promote quality cancer care. QOPI is a physician-led, voluntary, practice-based, quality-improvement program, using performance measurement and benchmarking among oncology practices across the United States. Since its inception, ASCO's QOPI has grown steadily to include 973 practices as of November 2010. One key area that QOPI has addressed is end-of-life care. During the most recent data collection cycle in the fall of 2010, those practices completing multiple data collection cycles had better performance on care of pain compared with sites participating for the first time (62.61% vs 46.89%). Similarly, repeat QOPI participants demonstrated meaningfully better performance than their peers in the rate of documenting discussions of hospice and palliative care (62.42% vs 54.65%) and higher rates of hospice enrollment. QOPI demonstrates how a strong performance measurement program can lead to improved quality and value of care for patients.

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.

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.

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.