Health Resource and Cost Savings Achieved in a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic.

Background: Lung cancer (LC) care is resource and cost intensive. We launched a Multidisciplinary LC Clinic (MDC), where patients with a new LC diagnosis received concurrent oncology consultation, resulting in improved time to LC assessment and treatment. Here, we evaluate the impact of MDC on health resource utilization, patient and caregiver costs, and secondary patient benefits. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed patients in a rapid assessment clinic with a new LC diagnosis pre-MDC (September 2016-February 2017) and post-MDC implementation (February 2017-December 2018). Data are reported as means; unpaired t-tests and ANOVA were used to assess for significance. We also conducted a cost analysis. Resource utilization, out-of-pocket costs, procedure-related costs, and indirect costs were evaluated from the societal perspective and presented in 2019 Canadian dollars (CAD); multi-way worst/best case and threshold sensitivity analyses were conducted. Results: We reviewed 428 patients (78 traditional model, 350 MDC). Patients in the MDC model required significantly fewer oncology visits from LC diagnosis to first LC treatment (1.62 vs. 2.68, p < 0.001), which was significant for patients with stage 1, 3, and 4 disease. Compared with the traditional model, there was no change in mean biopsies/patient (1.32 traditional vs. 1.17 MDC, p = 0.18) or staging investigations/patient (2.24 traditional vs. 2.02 MDC, p = 0.20). Post-MDC, there was an increase in invasive mediastinal staging for patients with stage 2/3 LC (15.0% vs. 60.0%, p < 0.001). Over 22 months, MDC resulted in savings of CAD 48,389 including CAD 24,167 CAD in direct patient out-of-pocket expenses. For the threshold analyses, MDC was estimated to cost CAD 25,708 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY), considered to be below current willingness to pay thresholds (at CAD 80,000 per QALY). MDC also facilitated oncology assessment for 29 non-LC patients. Conclusions: An MDC led to a reduction in patient visits and direct patient and caregiver costs.

Improving Timeliness of Lung Cancer Diagnosis and Staging Investigations Through Implementation of Standardized Triage Pathways.

PURPOSE: Timely care for patients with lung cancer (LC) is associated with improved clinical outcomes. In Southeastern Ontario, Canada, we identified delays in the diagnostic process for patients undergoing evaluation for suspected LC through a rapid assessment clinic. We developed improvement initiatives with an aim of reducing the time from referral to diagnosis. METHODS: A Standardized Triage Process (STP) was implemented for patients referred with suspected LC, including routine interdisciplinary triage, standardized pathways with preordered staging tests, and a new Small Nodule Clinic. We retrospectively analyzed all patients referred pre-STP (January to April 2018) and prospectively for improvement (May 2018 to March 2019). Process measures included STP compliance and time to completion of staging investigations (positron emission tomography [PET] and computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging of brain). Data are reported as means; significance was determined by special-cause variation using Statistical Process Control charts; unpaired t tests were compared between groups. RESULTS: We reviewed 833 referrals (207 baseline and 626 post-STP). STP compliance improved monthly to 99.4%. Post-STP, time from referral to PET decreased (from 38.5 to 15.7 days), time from referral to brain imaging decreased (from 33.4 to 13.1 days), and time from referral to diagnosis decreased (from 38.0 to 22.7 days), all demonstrating special-cause variation. Patients completing preordered staging tests experienced significantly faster care than those without preordered tests, including time to PET (23.0 v 35.9 days), computed tomography/magnetic resonance imaging of brain (16.2 v 29.9 days), and diagnosis (39.9 v 28.1 days), all P < .001. CONCLUSION: An STP significantly improved timeliness of diagnosis and staging for patients with suspected LC undergoing evaluation in a rapid assessment clinic.

Improving Timeliness of Oncology Assessment and Cancer Treatment Through Implementation of a Multidisciplinary Lung Cancer Clinic.

PURPOSE: Timely lung cancer care has been associated with improved clinical outcomes and patient satisfaction. We identified improvement opportunities in lung cancer management pathways at Kingston Health Sciences Centre. Quality improvement strategies led to the implementation of a multidisciplinary lung cancer clinic (MDC). METHODS: We set an outcome measure of decreasing the time from diagnosis to first cancer treatment by 10 days within 6 months of clinic implementation. We implemented a weekly MDC that involved respirologists, medical oncologists, and radiation oncologists at which patients with new lung cancer diagnoses were offered concurrent oncology consultation. We used Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles to guide our improvement initiatives. A total of five Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles spanned 14 months and consisted of an MDC pilot clinic, large-scale MDC launching, debriefing meetings, and clinic expansion. Pre-MDC data were analyzed retrospectively to establish baseline and prospectively for improvement. Statistical Process Control XmR(i) charts were used to report data. RESULTS: Since MDC initiation, 128 patients have been seen in 34 MDC clinics (3.8 patients per clinic). Mean days from diagnosis to first oncology assessment decreased from 12.4 days to 3.9 days, and mean days from diagnosis to first cancer treatment decreased from 39.5 to 15.0 days, both of which demonstrated special cause variation. Time to assessment and treatment improved for patients with every stage of lung cancer and for both small-cell and non-small-cell subtypes. CONCLUSION: MDC shortens the time from lung cancer diagnosis to oncology assessment and treatment. Time to treatment improved more than time to oncology assessment, which suggests the improvement is related to benefits beyond faster oncology assessment.

Multidisciplinary Clinics in Lung Cancer Care: A Systematic Review.

Multidisciplinary cancer clinics (MDCCs) are recognized in cancer care as an alternate model of care for lung cancer patients. However, the precise MDCC characteristics that could potentially improve the quality of care in lung cancer care have not been clearly defined. We performed a systematic review of the data regarding MDCCs in the treatment of patients with lung cancer to summarize and evaluate the available evidence and to determine valuable clinic characteristics and projected outcomes. We searched Embase, Cochrane, Medline, PubMed, and Web of Science through April 2017 for studies that included ≥ 2 physician specialties in a MDCC for lung cancer. A total of 2374 unique articles were identified, of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. All the studies were either retrospective or qualitative, with many having small sample sizes. The most commonly reported quantitative outcome for MDCCs was a decreased time from diagnosis to treatment; however, this was only statistically significant in 2 studies. Evidence was conflicting regarding improved patient survival. Several studies of MDCCs reported improved qualitative outcomes, including increased patient satisfaction, increased collaboration, and cohesive communication among care providers, although the sample sizes were small. The few studies of MDCCs that included a care coordinator, in addition to physicians from multiple specialties, reported improvements in patient satisfaction. Overall, our review of the reported data revealed a paucity of evidence regarding the value of MDCCs for lung cancer patients, highlighting the need for further studies to understand the optimal medical model to deliver care.