Incorporating Theory into Practice: Reconceptualizing Exemplary Care Coordination Initiatives from the US Veterans Health Delivery System.

This perspective paper seeks to lay out an efficient approach for health care providers, researchers, and other stakeholders involved in interventions aimed at improving care coordination to partner in locating and using applicable care coordination theory. The objective is to learn from relevant theory-based literature about fit between intervention options and coordination needs, thereby bringing insights from theory to enhance intervention design, implementation, and troubleshooting. To take this idea from an abstract notion to tangible application, our workgroup on models and measures from the Veterans Health Administration (VA) State of the Art (SOTA) conference on care coordination first summarizes our distillation of care coordination theoretical frameworks (models) into three common conceptual domains-context of an intervention, locus in which an intervention is applied, and specific design features of the intervention. Then we apply these three conceptual domains to four cases of care coordination interventions ("use cases") chosen to represent various scopes and stages of interventions to improve care coordination for veterans. Taken together, these examples make theory more accessible and practical by demonstrating how it can be applied to specific cases. Drawing from theory offers one method to anticipate which intervention options match a particular coordination situation.

Medical Oncologists' Experiences in Using Genomic Testing for Lung and Colorectal Cancer Care.

PURPOSE: Genomic testing improves outcomes for many at-risk individuals and patients with cancer; however, little is known about how genomic testing for non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) is used in clinical practice. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In 2012 to 2013, we surveyed medical oncologists who care for patients in diverse practice and health care settings across the United States about their use of guideline- and non-guideline-endorsed genetic tests. Multivariable regression models identified factors that are associated with greater test use. RESULTS: Of oncologists, 337 completed the survey (participation rate, 53%). Oncologists reported higher use of guideline-endorsed tests (eg, KRAS for CRC; EGFR for NSCLC) than non-guideline-endorsed tests (eg, Onco typeDX Colon; ERCC1 for NSCLC). Many oncologists reported having no patients with CRC who had mismatch repair and/or microsatellite instability (24%) or germline Lynch syndrome (32%) testing, and no patients with NSCLC who had ALK testing (11%). Of oncologists, 32% reported that five or fewer patients had KRAS and EGFR testing for CRC and NSCLC, respectively. Oncologists, rather than pathologists or surgeons, ordered the vast majority of tests. In multivariable analyses, fewer patients in nonprofit integrated health care delivery systems underwent testing than did patients in hospital or office-based single-specialty group settings (all P < .05). High patient volume and patient requests (CRC only) were also associated with higher test use (all P < .05). CONCLUSION: Genomic test use for CRC and NSCLC varies by test and practice characteristics. Research in specific clinical contexts is needed to determine whether the observed variation reflects appropriate or inappropriate care. One potential way to reduce unwanted variation would be to offer widespread reflexive testing by pathology for guideline-endorsed predictive somatic tests.

The accuracy and completeness for receipt of colorectal cancer care using Veterans Health Administration administrative data.

BACKGROUND: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have established guidelines for the treatment and surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. Considering these guidelines, an accurate and efficient method is needed to measure receipt of care. METHODS: The accuracy and completeness of Veterans Health Administration (VA) administrative data were assessed by comparing them with data manually abstracted during the Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) quality improvement initiative for 618 patients with stage I-III CRC. RESULTS: The VA administrative data contained gender, marital, and birth information for all patients but race information was missing for 62.1% of patients. The percent agreement for demographic variables ranged from 98.1-100%. The kappa statistic for receipt of treatments ranged from 0.21 to 0.60 and there was a 96.9% agreement for the date of surgical resection. The percentage of post-diagnosis surveillance events in C4 also in VA administrative data were 76.0% for colonoscopy, 84.6% for physician visit, and 26.3% for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test. CONCLUSIONS: VA administrative data are accurate and complete for non-race demographic variables, receipt of CRC treatment, colonoscopy, and physician visits; but alternative data sources may be necessary to capture patient race and receipt of CEA tests.

Patient-reported quality of supportive care among patients with colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System.

PURPOSE: High-quality supportive care is an essential component of comprehensive cancer care. We implemented a patient-centered quality of cancer care survey to examine and identify predictors of quality of supportive care for bowel problems, pain, fatigue, depression, and other symptoms among 1,109 patients with colorectal cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with new diagnosis of colorectal cancer at any Veterans Health Administration medical center nationwide in 2008 were ascertained through the Veterans Affairs Central Cancer Registry and sent questionnaires assessing a variety of aspects of patient-centered cancer care. We received questionnaires from 63% of eligible patients (N = 1,109). Descriptive analyses characterizing patient experiences with supportive care and binary logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of receipt of help wanted for each of the five symptom categories. RESULTS: There were significant gaps in patient-centered quality of supportive care, beginning with symptom assessment. In multivariable modeling, the impact of clinical factors and patient race on odds of receiving wanted help varied by symptom. Coordination of care quality predicted receipt of wanted help for all symptoms, independent of patient demographic or clinical characteristics. CONCLUSION: This study revealed substantial gaps in patient-centered quality of care, difficult to characterize through quality measurement relying on medical record review alone. It established the feasibility of collecting patient-reported quality measures. Improving quality measurement of supportive care and implementing patient-reported outcomes in quality-measurement systems are high priorities for improving the processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.