Evaluating implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center using RE-AIM.

BACKGROUND: Patient navigation is an evidence-based intervention that reduces cancer health disparities by directly addressing the barriers to care for underserved patients with cancer. Variability in design and integration of patient navigation programs within cancer care settings has limited this intervention's utility. The implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, allows quantitative and qualitative examination of effective implementation of patient navigation programs into cancer care settings. METHODS: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework was used to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation intervention at an NCI-designated cancer center between June 2018 and October 2021. Using a 3-month longitudinal, non-comparative measurement period, univariate and bivariate analyses were conducted to examine associations between participant-level demographics and primary (i.e., barrier reduction) and secondary (i.e., patient-reported outcomes) effectiveness outcomes. Mixed methods analyses were used to examine adoption and delivery of the intervention into the cancer center setting. Process-level analyses were used to evaluate maintenance of the intervention. RESULTS: Participants (n = 311) represented a largely underserved population, as defined by the National Cancer Institute, with the majority identifying as Hispanic/Latino, having a household income of $35,000 or less, and being enrolled in Medicaid. Participants were diagnosed with a variety of cancer types and most had advanced staged cancers. Pre-post-intervention analyses indicated significant reduction from pre-intervention assessments in the average number of reported barriers, F(1, 207) = 117.62, p < .001, as well as significant increases in patient-reported physical health, t(205) = - 6.004, p < .001, mental health, t(205) = - 3.810, p < .001, self-efficacy, t(205) = - 5.321, p < .001, and satisfaction with medical team communication, t(206) = - 2.03, p = .029. Referral patterns and qualitative data supported increased adoption and integration of the intervention into the target setting, and consistent intervention delivery metrics suggested high fidelity to intervention delivery over time. Process-level data outlined a successful transition from a grant-funded community-focused patient navigation intervention to an institution-funded program. CONCLUSIONS: This study utilized the implementation science evaluation framework, RE-AIM, to evaluate implementation of a community-focused patient navigation program. Our analyses indicate successful implementation within a cancer care setting and provide a potential guide for other oncology settings who may be interested in implementing community-focused patient navigation programs.

Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Impact of Cancer Care Regionalization on Patient Volume.

BACKGROUND: Cancer centers are regionalizing care to expand patient access, but the effects on patient volume are unknown. This study aimed to compare patient volumes before and after the establishment of head and neck regional care centers (HNRCCs). METHODS: This study analyzed 35,394 unique new patient visits at MD Anderson Cancer Center (MDACC) before and after the creation of HNRCCs. Univariate regression estimated the rate of increase in new patient appointments. Geospatial analysis evaluated patient origin and distribution. RESULTS: The mean new patients per year in 2006-2011 versus 2012-2017 was 2735 ± 156 patients versus 3155 ± 207 patients, including 464 ± 78 patients at HNRCCs, reflecting a 38.4 % increase in overall patient volumes. The rate of increase in new patient appointments did not differ significantly before and after HNRCCs (121.9 vs 95.8 patients/year; P = 0.519). The patients from counties near HNRCCs, showed a 210.8 % increase in appointments overall, 33.8 % of which were at an HNRCC. At the main campus exclusively, the shift in regional patients to HNRCCs coincided with a lower rate of increase in patients from the MDACC service area (33.7 vs. 11.0 patients/year; P = 0.035), but the trend was toward a greater increase in out-of-state patients (25.7 vs. 40.3 patients/year; P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: The creation of HNRCCs coincided with stable increases in new patient volume, and a sizeable minority of patients sought care at regional centers. Regional patients shifted to the HNRCCs, and out-of-state patient volume increased at the main campus, optimizing access for both local and out-of-state patients.

Quality/risk management system in radiotherapy: Changes afoot.

The French sanitary and regulatory context in which radiotherapy centres are comprised is evolving. Risk and quality management systems are currently adapting to these evolutions. The French nuclear safety agency (ASN) decision of July 1st 2008 on quality assurance obligations in radiotherapy has reached 10 years of age, and the French high authority of health (HAS) certification system 20 years now. Mandatory tools needed for the improvement of quality and safety in healthcare are now well known. From now on, the focus of healthcare policies is oriented towards evaluation of efficiency of these new organisations designed following ASN and HAS nationwide guidelines.

[Adapting to the SARS-CoV2 pandemic: Experience of the Curie Institute]. / S'adapter face à la pandémie SARS-CoV2 : l'expérience de l'Institut Curie.

The Curie Institute exclusively cares for cancer patients, who were considered particularly "vulnerable" from the start of the SARS-CoV 2 pandemic. This pandemic, which took the medical world by surprise, suddenly required the Institute's hospital to undergo rapid and multimodal restructuring, while having an impact on everyone to varying degrees. We will examine here how this hospital has coped, with the concern for a new benefit-risk balance, in times of greater medical uncertainty and scarcity of certain resources, for these "vulnerable" patients but also for their relatives and staff. We will highlight by theme the positive aspects and difficulties encountered, and then what could be useful for other hospitals as the pandemic is ongoing.

Assessing Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems Use at NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Moonshot-funded Cancer Center Cessation Initiative.

Assessing tobacco product use and delivering tobacco dependence treatment is an essential part of cancer care; however, little is known about electronic nicotine delivery systems (ENDS) or e-cigarette use assessment in cancer treatment settings. Given the importance of tailoring tobacco treatment, it is critical to understand how ENDS use is assessed in the electronic health record (EHR) in cancer care settings. Two questionnaires were completed by tobacco treatment program leads at 42 NCI-Designated Cancer Centers in the Cancer Center Cessation Initiative (January 1 to June 30 and July 1 to December 31, 2019). Items assessed how often smoking status and ENDS use were recorded in the EHR. An open-ended item recorded the text and response categories of each center's ENDS assessment question. All 42 centers assessed smoking status at both time periods. Twenty-five centers (59.5%) assessed ENDS use in the first half of 2019, increasing to 30 (71.4%) in the last half of 2019. By the end of 2019, 17 centers assessed smoking status at every patient visit while six assessed ENDS use at every visit. A checkbox/drop-down menu rather than scripted text was used at 30 centers (73.2%) for assessing smoking status and at 18 centers (42.9%) for assessing ENDS use. Our findings underscore the gap in systematic ENDS use screening in cancer treatment settings. Requiring ENDS use measures in the EHR as part of quality measures and providing scripted text scripts to providers may increase rates of ENDS use assessment at more cancer centers. PREVENTION RELEVANCE: This study identifies a gap in the systematic assessment of ENDS use among patients seen at 42 NCI-Designated cancer centers. Requiring the systematic assessment of both ENDS use and use of other tobacco products can inform evidence-based treatment of tobacco dependence and lead to improved cancer treatment outcomes.

Preparing historically underrepresented trainees for biomedical cancer research careers at Huntsman Cancer Institute/University of Utah Health.

Given the well-documented inequities in health care outcomes by race, ethnicity, and gender, many health career pipeline programs have focused on supporting the development of a diverse and inclusive workforce. The State of Utah, is vast, but sparsely populated outside the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. More than 96% of our nearly 85,000 square miles is designated rural (<100 people/square mile) or frontier (<7 people/square mile). The Salt Lake City area is home to the Hunsman Cancer Institute, the only NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the region, also noted the limited diversity in the biomedical cancer research workforce. Our primary objective was to increase the number of underrepresented trainees who pursue higher education with the goal of a career in cancer research. PathMaker is a regional, competitive pipeline program that nurtures high school or undergraduate trainees from historically underrepresented backgrounds towards a career in cancer research. Our faculty and staff team collaboratively developed a cohort model curriculum that increased student awareness of research career options; provided academic and professional development, cultural and social support, evolutionary success strategies, active mentorship, and leadership skill development; and fostered an environment of continuous evaluation and improvement. Since pilot program initiation in May 2016, the PathMaker Research Program (PathMaker) has engaged a total of 44 underrepresented trainees in cancer research labs at Huntsman Cancer Institute, the majority still in college. Eleven trainees graduated college: five employed in STEM, one pursuing a PhD in STEM; two in medical school, and three are lost to follow-up. Alumni report high levels of satisfaction with PathMaker and will be followed and supported for academic success. PathMaker is a replicable model to increase diversity and inclusion in the biomedical cancer research workforce.

Disparate Practice Patterns and Survival Outcomes: The Impact of Centralization of Cancer Care for Adrenocortical Carcinoma in the United States.

PURPOSE: Adrenocortical carcinoma is a rare but aggressive malignancy. While centralization of care to referral centers improves outcomes across common urological malignancies, there exists a paucity of data for low-incidence cancers. We sought to evaluate differences in practice patterns and overall survival in patients with adrenocortical carcinoma across types of treating facilities. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified all patients diagnosed with adrenocortical carcinoma from 2004-2016 in the National Cancer Database. The Kaplan-Meier method was used to evaluate overall survival and multivariable Cox regression analysis was used to investigate independent predictors of overall survival. The chi-square test was used to analyze differences in practice patterns. RESULTS: We identified 2,886 patients with adrenocortical carcinoma. Median overall survival was 21.8 months (95% CI 19.8-23.8). Academic centers had improved overall survival versus community centers on unadjusted Kaplan-Meier analysis (p <0.05) and had higher rates of adrenalectomy or radical en bloc resection (p <0.001), performed more open surgery (p <0.001), administered more systemic therapy (p <0.001) and had lower rates of positive surgical margins (p=0.03). On multivariable analysis, controlling for treatment modality, academic centers were associated with significantly decreased risk of death (HR 0.779, 95% CI 0.631-0.963, p=0.021). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment of adrenocortical carcinoma at an academic center is associated with improved overall survival compared to community programs. There are significant differences in practice patterns, including more aggressive surgical treatment at academic facilities, but the survival benefit persists on multivariable analysis controlling for treatment modality. Further studies are needed to identify the most important predictors of survival in this at-risk population.

Gynecologic oncology treatment modifications or delays in response to the COVID-19 pandemic in a publicly funded versus privately funded North American tertiary cancer center.

OBJECTIVE: To compare gynecologic oncology surgical treatment modifications and delays during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic between a publicly funded Canadian versus a privately funded American cancer center. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of all planned gynecologic oncology surgeries at University Health Network (UHN) in Toronto, Canada and Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH) in Boston, USA, between March 22,020 and July 302,020. Surgical treatment delays and modifications at both centers were compared to standard recommendations. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to adjust for confounders. RESULTS: A total of 450 surgical gynecologic oncology patients were included; 215 at UHN and 235 at BWH. There was a significant difference in median time from decision-to-treat to treatment (23 vs 15 days, p < 0.01) between UHN and BWH and a significant difference in treatment delays (32.56% vs 18.29%; p < 0.01) and modifications (8.37% vs 0.85%; p < 0.01), respectively. On multivariable analysis adjusting for age, race, treatment site and surgical priority status, treatment at UHN was an independent predictor of treatment modification (OR = 9.43,95% CI 1.81-49.05, p < 0.01). Treatment delays were higher at UHN (OR = 1.96,95% CI 1.14-3.36 p = 0.03) and for uterine disease (OR = 2.43, 95% CI 1.11-5.33, p = 0.03). CONCLUSION: During the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic, gynecologic oncology patients treated at a publicly funded Canadian center were 9.43 times more likely to have a surgical treatment modification and 1.96 times more likely to have a surgical delay compared to an equal volume privately funded center in the United States.

Cancer and COVID-19 Experiences at African Cancer Centers: The Silver Lining.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic significantly disrupted cancer care in Africa, further exposing major health disparities. This paper compares and contrasts the experiences of 15 clinicians in six different African cancer centers to highlight the positive aspects (silver linings) in an otherwise negative situation. METHODS: Data are from personal experience of the clinicians working at the six cancer centers blended with what is available in the literature. RESULTS: The impact of COVID-19 on cancer care appeared to vary not only across the continent but also over cancer centers. Different factors such as clinic location, services offered, available resources, and level of restrictions imposed because of COVID-19 were associated with these variations. Collectively, delays in treatment and limited access to cancer care were commonly reported in the different regions. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of data on cancer patients with COVID-19 and online COVID-19 and cancer registries for Africa. Analysis of the available data, however, suggests a higher mortality rate for cancer patients with COVID-19 compared with those without cancer. Positive or silver linings coming out of the pandemic include the adoption of hypofractionated radiation therapy and teleoncology to enhance access to care while protecting patients and staff members. Increasing collaborations using online technology with oncology health professionals across the world are also being seen as a silver lining, with valuable sharing of experiences and expertise to improve care, enhance learning, and reduce disparities. Advanced information and communication technologies are seen as vital for such collaborations and could avail efforts in dealing with the ongoing pandemic and potential future crises.

The Impact of COVID-19 on Cancer Care in the Post Pandemic World: Five Major Lessons Learnt from Challenges and Countermeasures of Major Asian Cancer Centres.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically affected healthcare services around Asia. The Asian National Cancer Centres Alliance and the Asia-Pacific Organisation for Cancer Prevention collaborated to assess the mid- and long- term impact of COVID-19 to cancer care in Asia. METHODS: The two entities organised a combined symposium and post-meeting interactions among representatives of major cancer centres from seventeen Asian countries to outlining major challenges and countermeasures. RESULTS: Participating stakeholders distilled five big questions. 1) "Will there be an explosion of late-stage cancers after the pandemic?" To address and recover from perceived delayed prevention, screening, treatment and care challenges, collaboration of key stakeholders in the region and alignment in cancer care management, policy intervention and cancer registry initiatives would be of essential value. 2) "Operations and Finance" The pandemic has resulted in significant material and financial casualties. Flagged acute challenges (shortages of supplies, imposition of lockdown) as well as longer-standing reduction of financial revenue, manpower, international collaboration, and training should also be addressed. 3) "Will telemedicine and technological innovations revolutionize cancer care?" Deploying and implementing telemedicine such as teleconsultation and virtual tumour boards were considered invaluable. These innovations could become a new regular practice, leading to expansion of tele-collaboration through collaboration of institutions in the region. 4) "Will virtual conferences continue after the pandemic?" Virtual conferences during the pandemic have opened new doors for knowledge sharing, especially for representatives of low- and middle-income countries in the region, while saving time and costs of travel. 5) "How do we prepare for the next pandemic or international emergency?" Roadmaps for action to improve access to appropriate patient care and research were identified and scrutinised. CONCLUSION: Through addressing these five big questions, focused collaboration among members and with international organisations such as City Cancer Challenge will allow enhanced preparedness for future international emergencies.
.

A pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza vaccination quality improvement program for women receiving chemotherapy for gynecologic cancers at a major tertiary cancer Centre.

OBJECTIVE: International guidelines recommend pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza vaccination for all patients with solid organ malignancies prior to initiating chemotherapy. Baseline vaccination rates (March 2019) for pneumococcal pneumonia and influenza at our tertiary cancer centre were 8% and 40%, respectively. The aim of this study was to increase the number of gynecologic chemotherapy patients receiving pneumococcal and influenza vaccinations to 80% by March 2020. METHODS: We performed an interrupted time series study using structured quality improvement methodology. Three interventions were introduced to address vaccination barriers: an in-house vaccination program, a staff education campaign, and a patient care bundle (pre-printed prescription, information brochure, vaccine record booklet). Process and outcome data were collected by patient survey and pharmacy audit and analyzed on statistical process control charts. RESULTS: We identified 195 eligible patients. Pneumococcal and influenza vaccination rates rose significantly from 5% to a monthly mean of 61% and from 36% to a monthly mean of 67%, respectively. The 80% target was reached for both vaccines during one or more months of study. The in-house vaccination and staff education programs were major contributors to the improvement, whereas the information brochure and record booklet were minor contributors. CONCLUSIONS: Three interventions to promote pneumococcal and influenza vaccination among chemotherapy patients resulted in significantly improved vaccination rates. Lessons learned about promoting vaccine uptake may be generalizable to different populations and vaccine types. In response to the global COVID-19 pandemic, initiatives to expand the program to all chemotherapy patients at our centre are underway.

Early Outcomes of a National Cancer Center's Strategy Against COVID-19 Executed Through a Disease Outbreak Response Taskforce.

PURPOSE: We present the strategy of a comprehensive cancer center organized to make operations pandemic proof and achieve continuity of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Disease Outbreak Response (DORS) measures implemented at our center and its satellite clinics included strict infection prevention, manpower preservation, prudent resource allocation, and adaptation of standard-of-care treatments. Critical day-to-day clinical operations, number of persons screened before entry, staff temperature monitoring, and personal protection equipment stockpile were reviewed as a dashboard at daily DORS taskforce huddles. Polymerase chain reaction swab tests performed for patients and staff who met defined criteria for testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were tracked. Descriptive statistics of outpatient attendances and treatment caseloads from February 3 to May 23, 2020, were compared with the corresponding period in 2019. RESULTS: We performed COVID-19 swabs for 80 patients and 93 staff, detecting three cancer patients with community-acquired COVID-19 infections with no nosocomial transmission. Patients who required chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery and patients who are on maintenance treatment continued to receive timely treatment without disruption. The number of intravenous chemotherapy treatments was maintained at 97.8% compared with 2019, whereas that of weekly radiotherapy treatments remained stable since December 2019. All cancer-related surgeries proceeded without delay, with a 0.3% increase in workload. Surveillance follow-ups were conducted via teleconsultation, accounting for a 30.7% decrease in total face-to-face clinic consultations. CONCLUSION: Through the coordinated efforts of a DORS taskforce, it is possible to avoid nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmissions among patients and staff without compromising on care delivery at a national cancer center.

Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.

Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

Understanding a Diverse Cancer Center Catchment Area: A Qualitative Needs Assessment Built on a Theoretical Framework.

INTRODUCTION: Quantitative approaches to the cancer incidence and mortality of a geographic region may lack understanding of the human context in the region thereby affecting how relevant cancer prevention and control activities can best be targeted to a cancer center's catchment area. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to obtain and analyze qualitative data that described the barriers and facilitators in a cancer center's catchment area. A further objective was to use the assessment to plan a comprehensive approach to cancer prevention and control activities in the region. METHODS: Extensive qualitative data were gathered from 32 key informants in the 13 county catchment area. We used the Warnecke Model for Analysis of Population Health and Health Disparities to analyze the qualitative data. We coded factors affecting cancer prevention and control using a directed content analysis approach guided by the Warnecke Model. RESULTS: Four outcome types included fundamental barriers such as political environment and discrimination, gaps in resources, and lack of coordinated activities. Social and physical barriers included distrust, diverse language and cultures, and geographic distance. Individual barriers included lack of system negotiation, health literacy, and poverty. Biological barriers were disparate disease rates in specific groups. CONCLUSION: The analysis and assessment led to the creation of a catchment area wide coalition that used the results to formulate a comprehensive strategic plan to address the barriers in the region.