Multidisciplinary management of immunotherapy-related adverse events in solid tumors: An inter-institutional and telemedicine-based working team.

BACKGROUND: Although immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) show a more favorable toxicity profile than classical cytotoxic drugs, their mechanism of action is responsible for peculiar new toxicities. There is an urgent need for a multidisciplinary approach to advice on how to manage organ-specific toxicities. METHODS: Our project aims to integrate the practices of two different hospitals into a single Italian regional collaborative model to treat immune-related adverse events (irAEs). The team structure is a multi-professional and multidisciplinary cooperative network that consists of different medical specialists. The team referrer is the medical oncologist and an existing telematic platform is used for specialists' cooperation. The leading oncologist first evaluates patients' clinical condition, therefore team intervention and teleconsultation are planned to activate proper management. After a first phase structured for general setting, outcomes analysis, data collection, and identification of critical issues, it is planned to define appropriate key performance indicators (KPIs) in quality, structure, process, and outcome settings. Therefore, a second phase would serve to implement KPIs. In the third phase, the proposal for the enlargement of the network with the extension to more centers in the context of the Regional Health Service will be performed. DISCUSSION: The multidisciplinary management of irAEs based on telemedicine fits into the debate on the renewal of healthcare systems and the push for change toward multidisciplinary with the rising use of telemedicine. To our knowledge, this is the first project reporting a multi-institutional experience for change of service in irAEs management.

Implementation of Precision Oncology in the National Healthcare System: A Statement Proposal Endorsed by Italian Scientific Societies.

PURPOSE: Precision oncology (PO) promises positive results for patients. To date, in Italy, the effort to implement PO has been made autonomously by regional health institutions in a top-down fashion. This approach is not very efficient and jeopardizes patients' equal access to PO. Similar outcomes have been recorded in other Western countries. We tested a method of collaboration among professionals, scientific societies, and government institutions to facilitate the delivery of PO innovation to patients' bedsides. METHOD: We designed an organizational research project on the basis of a bottom-up approach. We started by observing PO-related activities in five health care authorities (HCAs) in one Italian region. We then compared the issues that emerged with those of three additional HCAs in other Italian regions. Using the results of the initial observation and adopting validated multiple-step consensus methods, we finally derived 14 statements that were approved by the four main scientific societies of oncology and pathology at the national level. RESULTS: The 14 statements addressed the main issues linked to the implementation of PO in clinical practice. The strong professional consensus advocated for prompt adoption within the national healthcare system. CONCLUSIONS: The consensus on the statements that were obtained shows the importance of a synergistic effort among professionals, scientific societies, and health care institutions in defining homogeneous solutions for innovation implementation within the health care system.

Implementation of Precision Oncology in Clinical Practice: Results of a National Survey for Health Care Professionals.

BACKGROUND: Two main aspects lead the implementation of precision oncology into clinical practice: the adoption of extended genome sequencing technologies and the institution of the Molecular Tumor Boards (MTBs). CIPOMO (Italian Association of Heads of Oncology Department) promoted a national survey across top health care professionals to gain an understanding of the current state of precision oncology in Italy. METHODS: Nineteen questions were sent via the SurveyMonkey platform to 169 heads of oncology departments. Their answers were collected in February 2022. RESULTS: Overall, 129 directors participated; 113 sets of answers were analyzed. Nineteen regions out of 21 participated as a representative sample of the Italian health care system. The use of next-generation sequencing (NGS) is unevenly distributed; informed consent and clinical reports are managed differently, as the integration of medical, biologic, and informatics domains in a patient-centered workflow is inconsistent. A heterogeneous MTB environment emerged. A total of 33.6% of the responding professionals did not have access to MTBs while 76% of those who have did not refer cases. CONCLUSIONS: NGS technologies and MTBs are not homogeneously implemented in Italy. This fact potentially jeopardizes equal access chances to innovative therapies for patients. This survey was carried out as part of an organizational research project, pursuing a bottom-up approach to identify the needs and possible solutions to optimize the process. These results could be a starting point for clinicians, scientific societies, and health care institutions to outline the best practices and offer shared recommendations for precision oncology implementation in current clinical practice.

Evaluating the appropriateness of elective surgery: The case of spinal fusion (arthrodesis).

INTRODUCTION: Appropriateness is an essential element of quality of care. Several methods and tools have been developed to measure the appropriateness of care, however, none of these could be used to systematically support providers in keeping the appropriateness under control. Our study aimed to develop a framework to evaluate the appropriateness of care that took into account four dimensions of appropriateness: clinical dimension, equity, service delivery model, outcome. METHODS: We employed mixed-method approaches. These included a retrospective analysis of administrative data collected from Kinetika Sardinia (Italy) and a qualitative analysis of stakeholders' experiences and perspectives aimed at supporting data collection, identification of improvement actions and definition of performance indicators. We used arthrodesis as a paradigmatic example of potentially inappropriate elective surgery. RESULTS: We collected data from 2,584 patients that underwent arthrodesis between January 1, 2010 and April 30, 2015. Based on the analysis and the exchanges with professionals, we identified 11 improvement actions. Monitoring and evaluation actions were finally conducted for 171 patients that underwent spinal fusion during the first semester of 2016 in order to assess if the improvement actions identified were put into practice and acquired desirable outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Our work provides a definition of appropriateness that goes beyond the clinical perspective and includes other perspectives (equity, service delivery and outcome); develops a framework and an approach that can be a valid help to systematically assess the appropriateness of elective surgery, adopt improvement actions, and monitor their impact; discusses what are the competencies necessary for measuring the appropriateness.

Managing cancer care through service delivery networks: The role of professional collaboration in two European cancer networks.

Background The study examines two meso-strategic cancer networks, exploring to what extent collaboration can strengthen or hamper network effectiveness. Unlike macro-strategic networks, meso-strategic networks have no hierarchical governance structures nor are they institutionalised within healthcare services' delivery systems. This study aims to analyse the models of professional cooperation and the tools developed for managing clinical practice within two meso-strategic, European cancer networks. Methods Multiple case study design based on the comparative analysis of two cancer networks: Iridium, in Antwerp, Belgium and the Institut Català d'Oncologia in Catalonia, Spain. The case studies applied mixed methods, with qualitative research based on semi-structured interviews ( n = 35) together with case-site observation and material collection. Results The analysis identified four levels of collaborative intensity within medical specialties as well as in multidisciplinary settings, which became both platforms for crosscutting clinical work between hubs' experts and local care teams and the levers for network-based tools development. The organisation of clinical practice relied on professional-based cooperative processes and tiers, lacking vertical integration mechanisms. Conclusions The intensity of professional linkages largely shaped the potential of meso-strategic cancer networks to influence clinical practice organisation. Conversely, the introduction of managerial techniques or network governance structures, without introducing vertical hierarchies, was found to be critical solutions.