Characterizing Different Multidisciplinary Team Models Implemented Within One Comprehensive Cancer Center.

Background: The multidisciplinary approach is considered "best practice" in oncology. Multidisciplinary Teamwork (MDTW) can be broadly classified into Multidisciplinary Team Meetings (MDTM) and Multidisciplinary Cancer Clinics (MDCC; involving also patients), yet both models are heterogeneously implemented. Purpose: This study aims at describing the different MDTW implemented models in a Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: All clinical unit directors of the hospital were contacted to identify any MDTW activities the personnel of the unit were involved in. Structured interviews were carried out to collect MDTWs information, ie, type (MDTM vs MDCC), team composition, aims, disease phase, use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Descriptive analyses and Social Network Analysis (SNA) were performed. Results: Among 38 structured interviews, 25 concerned MDTMs and 13 in MDCCs. Responders were mainly surgeons (35%) and oncologists (29%), 35% of them were team leaders. Teams were mostly composed of physicians only (64% in MDTMs, 69% in MDCCs). Case managers (8% and 31%), palliative care specialists (12% and 23%) and psychologists (20% and 31%) were involved to a lesser extent, mainly when dealing with advanced disease. MDTWs were mainly aimed at integrating the skills of the different specialists (respectively 72% for MDTMs and 64% for MDCCs) and offering the best overall patient care pathway (64%, 61.5%). MDTWs were directed at patients in both diagnostic (72%, 61.5%) and locally advanced/metastatic (32%, 38.4%) disease. PROMs were seldom used (24%, 23%). SNA shows a similar density in the two MDTWs, but in the MDCCs two nodes remain isolated (pathologists and radiologists). Conclusion: Despite a high number of MDTWs for advanced/metastatic disease, there is limited involvement of palliative care specialists, psychologists, and nurses.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. METHODS: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. DISCUSSION: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

Response of a comprehensive cancer center to the COVID-19 pandemic: the experience of the Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano.

BACKGROUND: The rapid spread of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is affecting many countries. While healthcare systems need to cope with the need to treat a large number of people with different degrees of respiratory failure, actions to preserve aliquots of the healthcare system to guarantee treatment to patients are mandatory. METHODS: In order to protect the Fondazione IRCCS-Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori di Milano from the spread of COVID-19, a number of to-hospital and within-hospital filters were applied. Among others, a triage process to detect severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) positivity in patients with cancer was developed consisting of high-resolution low-dose computed tomography (CT) scan followed by reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) detection of SARS-CoV-2 in nose-throat swabs whenever CT was suggestive of lung infection. To serve symptomatic patients who were already admitted to the hospital or in need of hospitalization while waiting for RT-PCR laboratory confirmation of infection, a COVID-19 surveillance zone was set up. RESULTS: A total of 301 patients were screened between March 6 and April 3, 2020. Of these, 47 were hospitalized, 53 needed a differential diagnosis to continue with their cancer treatment, and 201 were about to undergo surgery. RT-PCR was positive in 13 of 40 hospitalized patients (32%), 14 of 52 day hospital patients (27%), and 6 of 201 surgical patients (3%). CONCLUSION: Applying filters to protect our comprehensive cancer center from COVID-19 spread contributed to guaranteeing cancer care during the COVID-19 crisis in Milan. A surveillance area and surgical triage allowed us to protect the hospital from as many as 33 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

[Assessment of the impact over one year of a workplace health promotion programme in the province of Bergamo]. / Stima dell's effecto ad un anno di un programma di promozione della salute nei luoghi di lavoro in provincia di Bergamo.

OBJECTIVES: To estimate short-term effects of integrated health promotion in the workplace within the framework of the Bergamo WHP (Workplace Health Promotion) network, which involves 94 companies and about 21,000 workers. METHODS: A controlled non-randomized, before-after evaluation was carried out. Data were collected through anonymous questionnaires before (t0) and after participation in a 12-month health promotion programme (t1). The "control" group consisted of workers of companies participating in the programme who had not yet undertaken any interventions in the theme areas covered by the assessment. RESULTS: In the workers participating in the programme, positive early effects (after 12 months) were related to intake of food providing protection (fruit and vegetables) and increased rates of smoking cessation. The effects were more evident in males and in white collars. The physical activity and alcohol consumption trends went in the desired direction and with more effects than in the non-participating group, but without statistical significance. In the short term, no evident changes in events of road injury risk or in the quality of personal relationships were seen, probably due to the small size of the sample involved in these study areas. CONCLUSIONS: The results, although within the methodological limitations of the study, showed that after 12 months there was a reduction in some important risk factors for chronic diseases in workers participating in the programme, particularly for fruit and vegetable intake and smoking cessation. It will be important to monitor the effects of the programme on other risk factors in the medium and long term, and also the impact of employment status and gender so as to adjust the programme interventions accordingly. Cooperation with occupational/authorized physicians with use of their data collected from health surveillance, together with a limited set of general risk factor indicators, would be a desirable development for further studies.