Enhancing global access to cancer medicines.

Globally, cancer is the second leading cause of death, with numbers greatly exceeding those for human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, tuberculosis, and malaria combined. Limited access to timely diagnosis, to affordable, effective treatment, and to high-quality care are just some of the factors that lead to disparities in cancer survival between countries and within countries. In this article, the authors consider various factors that prevent access to cancer medicines (particularly access to essential cancer medicines). Even if an essential cancer medicine is included on a national medicines list, cost might preclude its use, it might be prescribed or used inappropriately, weak infrastructure might prevent it being accessed by those who could benefit, or quality might not be guaranteed. Potential strategies to address the access problems are discussed, including universal health coverage for essential cancer medicines, fairer methods for pricing cancer medicines, reducing development costs, optimizing regulation, and improving reliability in the global supply chain. Optimizing schedules for cancer therapy could reduce not only costs, but also adverse events, and improve access. More and better biomarkers are required to target patients who are most likely to benefit from cancer medicines. The optimum use of cancer medicines depends on the effective delivery of several services allied to oncology (including laboratory, imaging, surgery, and radiotherapy). Investment is necessary in all aspects of cancer care, from these supportive services to technologies, and the training of health care workers and other staff.

Respectful Maternity Care : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Severe maternal morbidity and mortality are worse in the United States than in all similar countries, with the greatest effect on Black women. Emerging research suggests that disrespectful care during childbirth contributes to this problem. PURPOSE: To conduct a systematic review on definitions and valid measurements of respectful maternity care (RMC), its effectiveness for improving maternal and infant health outcomes for those who are pregnant and postpartum, and strategies for implementation. DATA SOURCES: Systematic searches of Ovid Medline, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycInfo, and SocINDEX for English-language studies (inception to July 2023). STUDY SELECTION: Randomized controlled trials and nonrandomized studies of interventions of RMC versus usual care for effectiveness studies; additional qualitative and noncomparative validation studies for definitions and measurement studies. DATA EXTRACTION: Dual data abstraction and quality assessment using established methods, with resolution of disagreements through consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Thirty-seven studies were included across all questions, of which 1 provided insufficient evidence on the effectiveness of RMC to improve maternal outcomes and none studied RMC to improve infant outcomes. To define RMC, authors identified 12 RMC frameworks, from which 2 main concepts were identified: disrespect and abuse and rights-based frameworks. Disrespect and abuse components focused on recognizing birth mistreatment; rights-based frameworks incorporated aspects of reproductive justice, human rights, and antiracism. Five overlapping framework themes include freedom from abuse, consent, privacy, dignity, communication, safety, and justice. Twelve tools to measure RMC were validated in 24 studies on content validity, construct validity, and internal consistency, but lack of a gold standard limited evaluation of criterion validity. Three tools specific for RMC had at least 1 study demonstrating consistency internally and with an intended construct relevant to U.S. settings, but no single tool stands out as the best measure of RMC. LIMITATIONS: No studies evaluated other health outcomes or RMC implementation strategies. The lack of definition and gold standard limit evaluation of RMC tools. CONCLUSION: Frameworks for RMC are well described but vary in their definitions. Tools to measure RMC demonstrate consistency but lack a gold standard, requiring further evaluation before implementation in U.S. settings. Evidence is lacking on the effectiveness of implementing RMC to improve any maternal or infant health outcome. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (PROSPERO: CRD42023394769).

Attention Among Health Care Professionals : A Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The concept of attention can provide insight into the needs of clinicians and how health systems design can impact patient care quality and medical errors. PURPOSE: To conduct a scoping review to 1) identify and characterize literature relevant to clinician attention; 2) compile metrics used to measure attention; and 3) create a framework of key concepts. DATA SOURCES: Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline (PubMed), and Embase (Ovid) from 2001 to 26 February 2024. STUDY SELECTION: English-language studies addressing health care worker attention in patient care. At least dual review and data abstraction. DATA EXTRACTION: Article information, health care professional studied, practice environment, study design and intent, factor type related to attention, and metrics of attention used. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 6448 screened articles, 585 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were descriptive (n = 469) versus investigational (n = 116). More studies focused on barriers to attention (n = 387; 342 descriptive and 45 investigational) versus facilitators to improving attention (n = 198; 112 descriptive and 86 investigational). We developed a framework, grouping studies into 6 categories: 1) definitions of attention, 2) the clinical environment and its effect on attention, 3) personal factors affecting attention, 4) relationships between interventions or factors that affect attention and patient outcomes, 5) the effect of clinical alarms and alarm fatigue on attention, and 6) health information technology's effect on attention. Eighty-two metrics were used to measure attention. LIMITATIONS: Does not synthesize answers to specific questions. Quality of studies was not assessed. CONCLUSION: This overview may be a resource for researchers, quality improvement experts, and health system leaders to improve clinical environments. Future systematic reviews may synthesize evidence on metrics to measure attention and on the effectiveness of barriers or facilitators related to attention. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

The Impact of Health Care Algorithms on Racial and Ethnic Disparities : A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing concern for the potential impact of health care algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities. PURPOSE: To examine the evidence on how health care algorithms and associated mitigation strategies affect racial and ethnic disparities. DATA SOURCES: Several databases were searched for relevant studies published from 1 January 2011 to 30 September 2023. STUDY SELECTION: Using predefined criteria and dual review, studies were screened and selected to determine: 1) the effect of algorithms on racial and ethnic disparities in health and health care outcomes and 2) the effect of strategies or approaches to mitigate racial and ethnic bias in the development, validation, dissemination, and implementation of algorithms. DATA EXTRACTION: Outcomes of interest (that is, access to health care, quality of care, and health outcomes) were extracted with risk-of-bias assessment using the ROBINS-I (Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions) tool and adapted CARE-CPM (Critical Appraisal for Racial and Ethnic Equity in Clinical Prediction Models) equity extension. DATA SYNTHESIS: Sixty-three studies (51 modeling, 4 retrospective, 2 prospective, 5 prepost studies, and 1 randomized controlled trial) were included. Heterogenous evidence on algorithms was found to: a) reduce disparities (for example, the revised kidney allocation system), b) perpetuate or exacerbate disparities (for example, severity-of-illness scores applied to critical care resource allocation), and/or c) have no statistically significant effect on select outcomes (for example, the HEART Pathway [history, electrocardiogram, age, risk factors, and troponin]). To mitigate disparities, 7 strategies were identified: removing an input variable, replacing a variable, adding race, adding a non-race-based variable, changing the racial and ethnic composition of the population used in model development, creating separate thresholds for subpopulations, and modifying algorithmic analytic techniques. LIMITATION: Results are mostly based on modeling studies and may be highly context-specific. CONCLUSION: Algorithms can mitigate, perpetuate, and exacerbate racial and ethnic disparities, regardless of the explicit use of race and ethnicity, but evidence is heterogeneous. Intentionality and implementation of the algorithm can impact the effect on disparities, and there may be tradeoffs in outcomes. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research.

NHS cancer services and systems-ten pressure points a UK cancer control plan needs to address.

In this Policy Review we discuss ten key pressure points in the NHS in the delivery of cancer care services that need to be urgently addressed by a comprehensive national cancer control plan. These pressure points cover areas such as increasing workforce capacity and its productivity, delivering effective cancer survivorship services, addressing variation in quality, fixing the reimbursement system for cancer care, and balancing of the cancer research agenda. These areas have been selected based on their relative importance to ensuring sustainable cancer services, persistence as key issues in the NHS, and their impact on delivering better and more equitable and affordable patient outcomes. Many of these pressure points are not acknowledged explicitly in any current discourse. The evidence we provide points to their impact on the ability to deliver world class cancer care, but also to their amenability to affordable solutions if given the relevant prioritisation and investment. The current narrative needs to move away from a technocentric approach to improving care, to one focused on understanding the complexity of cancer services and the wider health system to drive improvements in survival, quality of life, and experience for patients.

Quality indicators for evaluating cancer care in low-income and middle-income country settings: a multinational modified Delphi study.

This Policy Review sourced opinions from experts in cancer care across low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) to build consensus around high-priority measures of care quality. A comprehensive list of quality indicators in medical, radiation, and surgical oncology was identified from systematic literature reviews. A modified Delphi study consisting of three 90-min workshops and two international electronic surveys integrating a global range of key clinical, policy, and research leaders was used to derive consensus on cancer quality indicators that would be both feasible to collect and were high priority for cancer care systems in LMICs. Workshop participants narrowed the list of 216 quality indicators from the literature review to 34 for inclusion in the subsequent surveys. Experts' responses to the surveys showed consensus around nine high-priority quality indicators for measuring the quality of hospital-based cancer care in LMICs. These quality indicators focus on important processes of care delivery from accurate diagnosis (eg, histologic diagnosis via biopsy and TNM staging) to adequate, timely, and appropriate treatment (eg, completion of radiotherapy and appropriate surgical intervention). The core indicators selected could be used to implement systems of feedback and quality improvement.

Defining the quality of interdisciplinary care for patients with brain metastases: modified Delphi panel recommendations.

The value of interdisciplinary teams in improving outcomes and quality of care of patients with brain metastases remains uncertain, partly due to the lack of consensus on key indicators to evaluate interprofessional care. We aimed to obtain expert consensus across disciplines on indicators that evaluate the quality and value of brain metastases care. A steering committee of key opinion leaders curated relevant outcomes and process indicators from a literature review and a stakeholder needs assessment, and an international panel of physicians rated the outcomes and process indicators using a modified Delphi method. After three rounds, a consensus was reached on 29 indicators encompassing brain-directed oncological treatment, surgery, whole-brain radiotherapy, stereotactic radiosurgery, supportive or palliative care, and interdisciplinary team care. The Brain Metastases Quality-of-Care measure reflects the value and quality of brain metastases team-based care according to treatment modality and provides a benchmark of care for this under-studied patient population. The adoption, implementation, and sustainability of this set of indicators could help address the need expressed by patients with cancer, caregivers, and clinicians for more coordinated care across inpatient, outpatient, home, community, and tertiary academic settings.

Value-Based Payment for Clinicians Treating Cardiovascular Disease: A Policy Statement From the American Heart Association.

Clinician payment is transitioning from fee-for-service to value-based payment, with reimbursement tied to health care quality and cost. However, the overarching goals of value-based payment-to improve health care quality, lower costs, or both-have been largely unmet. This policy statement reviews the current state of value-based payment and provides recommended best practices for future design and implementation. The policy statement is divided into sections that detail different aspects of value-based payment: (1) key program design features (patient population, quality measurement, cost measurement, and risk adjustment), (2) the role of equity during design and evaluation, (3) adjustment of payment, and (4) program implementation and evaluation. Each section introduces the topic, describes important considerations, and lists examples from existing programs. Each section includes recommended best practices for future program design. The policy statement highlights 4 key themes for successful value-based payment. First, programs should carefully weigh the incentives between lowering cost and improving quality of care and ensure that there is adequate focus on quality of care. Second, the expansion of value-based payment should be a tool for improving equity, which is central to quality of care and should be a focal point of program design and evaluation. Third, value-based payment should continue to move away from fee for service toward more flexible funding that allows clinicians to focus resources on the interventions that best help patients. Last, successful programs should find ways to channel clinicians' intrinsic motivation to improve their performance and the care for their patients. These principles should guide the future development of clinician value-based payment models.

Health system assessment for access to care after injury in low- or middle-income countries: A mixed methods study from Northern Malawi.

BACKGROUND: Injuries represent a vast and relatively neglected burden of disease affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). While many health systems underperform in treating injured patients, most assessments have not considered the whole system. We integrated findings from 9 methods using a 3 delays approach (delays in seeking, reaching, or receiving care) to prioritise important trauma care health system barriers in Karonga, Northern Malawi, and exemplify a holistic health system assessment approach applicable in comparable settings. METHODS AND FINDINGS: To provide multiple perspectives on each conceptual delay and include data from community-based and facility-based sources, we used 9 methods to examine the injury care health system. The methods were (1) household survey; (2) verbal autopsy analysis; (3) community focus group discussions (FGDs); (4) community photovoice; (5) facility care-pathway process mapping and elucidation of barriers following injury; (6) facility healthcare worker survey; (7) facility assessment survey; (8) clinical vignettes for care process quality assessment of facility-based healthcare workers; and (9) geographic information system (GIS) analysis. Empirical data collection took place in Karonga, Northern Malawi, between July 2019 and February 2020. We used a convergent parallel study design concurrently conducting all data collection before subsequently integrating results for interpretation. For each delay, a matrix was created to juxtapose method-specific data relevant to each barrier identified as driving delays to injury care. Using a consensus approach, we graded the evidence from each method as to whether an identified barrier was important within the health system. We identified 26 barriers to access timely quality injury care evidenced by at least 3 of the 9 study methods. There were 10 barriers at delay 1, 6 at delay 2, and 10 at delay 3. We found that the barriers "cost," "transport," and "physical resources" had the most methods providing strong evidence they were important health system barriers within delays 1 (seeking care), 2 (reaching care), and 3 (receiving care), respectively. Facility process mapping provided evidence for the greatest number of barriers-25 of 26 within the integrated analysis. There were some barriers with notable divergent findings between the community- and facility-based methods, as well as among different community- and facility-based methods, which are discussed. The main limitation of our study is that the framework for grading evidence strength for important health system barriers across the 9 studies was done by author-derived consensus; other researchers might have created a different framework. CONCLUSIONS: By integrating 9 different methods, including qualitative, quantitative, community-, patient-, and healthcare worker-derived data sources, we gained a rich insight into the functioning of this health system's ability to provide injury care. This approach allowed more holistic appraisal of this health system's issues by establishing convergence of evidence across the diverse methods used that the barriers of cost, transport, and physical resources were the most important health system barriers driving delays to seeking, reaching, and receiving injury care, respectively. This offers direction and confidence, over and above that derived from single methodology studies, for prioritising barriers to address through health service development and policy.

Antenatal care quality and detection of risk among pregnant women: An observational study in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and South Africa.

BACKGROUND: Antenatal care (ANC) is an essential platform to improve maternal and newborn health (MNH). While several articles have described the content of ANC in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), few have investigated the quality of detection and management of pregnancy risk factors during ANC. It remains unclear whether women with pregnancy risk factors receive targeted management and additional ANC. METHODS AND FINDINGS: This observational study uses baseline data from the MNH eCohort study conducted in 8 sites in Ethiopia, India, Kenya, and South Africa from April 2023 to January 2024. A total of 4,068 pregnant women seeking ANC for the first time in their pregnancy were surveyed. We built country-specific ANC completeness indices that measured provision of 16 to 22 recommended clinical actions in 5 domains: physical examinations, diagnostic tests, history taking and screening, counselling, and treatment and prevention. We investigated whether women with pregnancy risks tended to receive higher quality care and we assessed the quality of detection and management of 7 concurrent illnesses and pregnancy risk factors (anemia, undernutrition, obesity, chronic illnesses, depression, prior obstetric complications, and danger signs). ANC completeness ranged from 43% in Ethiopia, 66% in Kenya, 73% in India, and 76% in South Africa, with large gaps in history taking, screening, and counselling. Most women in Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa initiated ANC in second or third trimesters. We used country-specific multivariable mixed-effects linear regression models to investigate factors associated with ANC completeness. Models included individual demographics, health status, presence of risk factors, health facility characteristics, and fixed effects for the study site. We found that some facility characteristics (staffing, patient volume, structural readiness) were associated with variation in ANC completeness. In contrast, pregnancy risk factors were only associated with a 1.7 percentage points increase in ANC completeness (95% confidence interval 0.3, 3.0, p-value 0.014) in Kenya only. Poor self-reported health was associated with higher ANC completeness in India and South Africa and with lower ANC completeness in Ethiopia. Some concurrent illnesses and risk factors were overlooked during the ANC visit. Between 0% and 6% of undernourished women were prescribed food supplementation and only 1% to 3% of women with depression were referred to a mental health provider or prescribed antidepressants. Only 36% to 73% of women who had previously experienced an obstetric complication (a miscarriage, preterm birth, stillbirth, or newborn death) discussed their obstetric history with the provider during the first ANC visit. Although we aimed to validate self-reported information on health status and content of care with data from health cards, our findings may be affected by recall or other information biases. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we observed gaps in adherence to ANC standards, particularly for women in need of specialized management. Strategies to maximize the potential health benefits of ANC should target women at risk of poor pregnancy outcomes and improve early initiation of ANC in the first trimester.

Defining a Framework and Evaluation Metrics for Sustainable Global Surgical Partnerships: A Modified Delphi Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to use expert consensus to build a concrete and realistic framework and checklist to evaluate sustainability in global surgery partnerships (GSPs). BACKGROUND: Partnerships between high-resourced and low-resourced settings are often created to address the burden of unmet surgical need. Reflecting on the negative, unintended consequences of asymmetrical partnerships, global surgery community members have proposed frameworks and best practices to promote sustainable engagement between partners, though these frameworks lack consensus. This project proposes a cohesive, consensus-driven framework with accompanying evaluation metrics to guide sustainability in GSPs. METHODS: A modified Delphi technique with purposive sampling was used to build consensus on the definitions and associated evaluation metrics of previously proposed pillars (Stakeholder Engagement, Multidisciplinary Collaboration, Context-Relevant Education and Training, Bilateral Authorship, Multisource Funding, Outcome Measurement) of sustainable GSPs. RESULTS: Fifty global surgery experts from 34 countries with a median of 9.5 years of experience in the field of global surgery participated in 3 Delphi rounds. Consensus was achieved on the identity, definitions, and a 47-item checklist for the evaluation of the 6 pillars of sustainability in GSPs. In all, 29% of items achieved consensus in the first round, whereas 100% achieved consensus in the second and third rounds. CONCLUSIONS: We present the first framework for building sustainable GSPs using the input of experts from all World Health Organization regions. We hope this tool will help the global surgery community to find noncolonial solutions to addressing the gap in access to quality surgical care in low-resource settings.

Reformulating provider profiling by grouping providers treating similar patients prior to evaluating performance.

Standard approaches to comparing health providers' performance rely on hierarchical logistic regression models that adjust for patient characteristics at admission. Estimates from these models may be misleading when providers treat different patient populations and the models are misspecified. To address this limitation, we propose a novel profiling approach that identifies groups of providers treating similar populations of patients and then evaluates providers' performance within each group. The groups of providers are identified using a Bayesian multilevel finite mixture of general location models. To compare the performance of our proposed profiling approach to standard methods, we use patient-level data from 119 skilled nursing facilities in Massachusetts. We use simulated and observed outcome data to explore the performance of these profiling methods in different settings. In simulations, our proposed method classifies providers to groups with similar patients' admission characteristics. In addition, in the presence of limited overlap in patient characteristics across providers and misspecifications of the outcome model, the provider-level estimates obtained using our approach identified providers that under- and overperformed compared to the standard regression-based approaches more accurately.

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study).

BACKGROUND: This study estimated the prevalence of evidence-based care received by a population-based sample of Australian residents in long-term care (LTC) aged ≥ 65 years in 2021, measured by adherence to clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations. METHODS: Sixteen conditions/processes of care amendable to estimating evidence-based care at a population level were identified from prevalence data and CPGs. Candidate recommendations (n = 5609) were extracted from 139 CPGs which were converted to indicators. National experts in each condition rated the indicators via the RAND-UCLA Delphi process. For the 16 conditions, 236 evidence-based care indicators were ratified. A multi-stage sampling of LTC facilities and residents was undertaken. Trained aged-care nurses then undertook manual structured record reviews of care delivered between 1 March and 31 May 2021 (our record review period) to assess adherence with the indicators. RESULTS: Care received by 294 residents with 27,585 care encounters in 25 LTC facilities was evaluated. Residents received care for one to thirteen separate clinical conditions/processes of care (median = 10, mean = 9.7). Adherence to evidence-based care indicators was estimated at 53.2% (95% CI: 48.6, 57.7) ranging from a high of 81.3% (95% CI: 75.6, 86.3) for Bladder and Bowel to a low of 12.2% (95% CI: 1.6, 36.8) for Depression. Six conditions (skin integrity, end-of-life care, infection, sleep, medication, and depression) had less than 50% adherence with indicators. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of adherence to evidence-based care for people in LTC using multiple conditions and a standardised method. Vulnerable older people are not receiving evidence-based care for many physical problems, nor care to support their mental health nor for end-of-life care. The six conditions in which adherence with indicators was less than 50% could be the focus of improvement efforts.

Defining the Denominator for Measuring Quality of End-of-Life Care in Children with Cancer: Results of a Nominal Group Technique.

OBJECTIVE: To determine which groups of children with cancer for whom to apply the newly developed quality measures (QMs) for end-of-life (EOL) care. STUDY DESIGN: In a series of nominal groups, panelists answered the question: "Which children, diagnoses, conditions, or prognoses should be included when examining the quality of EOL care for children with cancer?" In each group, individual panelists proposed answers to the question. After collating individual responses, each panelist ranked their 5 top answers and points were assigned (5 pts for the best answer, 4 pts the second best, etc.). A team of pediatric oncology and palliative care clinician-scientists developed and applied a coding structure for responses and associated themes and subthemes for responses. RESULTS: We conducted 5 nominal groups with a total of 44 participants. Most participants identified as female (88%) and non-Hispanic White (86%). Seventy-nine percent were clinicians, mainly in pediatric palliative care, pediatric oncology, or hospice; 40% were researchers and 12% were bereaved parents. Responses fell into 5 themes: (1) poor prognosis cancer; (2) specific treatment scenarios; (3) certain populations; (4) certain symptoms; and (5) specific utilization scenarios. Poor prognosis cancer and specific treatment scenarios received the most points (320 pts [49%] and 147 pts [23%], respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Participants developed a framework to identify which children should be included in EOL QMs for children with cancer. The deliberate identification of the denominator for pediatric QMs serves as a potent tool for enhancing quality, conducting research, and developing clinical programs.

Market Factors, Not Quality, Influence Reimbursement for Pancreaticoduodenectomy in an Era of Price Transparency.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) price transparency rule tries to facilitate cost-conscious decision-making. For surgical services, such as pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD), factors mediating transparency and real-world reimbursement are not well described. METHODS: The Leapfrog Survey was used to identify United States hospitals performing PD. Financial and operational data were obtained from Turquoise Health and CMS Cost Reports. Chi-square tests and modified Poisson regression evaluated associations with reimbursement disclosure. Two-part logistic and gamma regression models estimated effects of hospital factors on commercial, Medicare, and self-pay reimbursements for PD. RESULTS: Of 452 Leapfrog hospitals, 295 (65%) disclosed PD hospital or procedure reimbursements. Disclosing hospitals were larger (beds > 200: 81.0% vs. 71.3%, p = 0.04), reported higher net margins (0.7% vs. - 2.1%, p = 0.04), more likely for-profit (26.1% vs. 6.4%, p < 0.001), and teaching-affiliated (82.0% vs. 65.6%, p < 0.001). Nonprofit status conferred hospitalization reimbursement increases of $8683-$12,329, while moderate market concentration predicted savings up to $5066. Teaching affiliation conferred reimbursement increases of $4589-$16,393 for hospitalizations and $644 for procedures. Top Leapfrog volume ratings predicted an increase of up to $7795 for only Medicare hospitalization reimbursement. CONCLUSIONS: Nondisclosure of hospital and procedural reimbursements for PD remains a major issue. Transparency was noted in hospitals with higher margins, size, and academic affiliation. Factors associated with higher reimbursement were non-profit status, academic affiliation, and more equitable market share. Reimbursement inconsistently tracked with PD quality or volume measures. Policy changes may be required to incentivize reimbursement disclosure and translate transparency into increased value for patients.

Comparison of Hospital Volume and Risk-Standardized Mortality Rate as a Proxy for Hospital Quality in Complex Oncologic Hepatopancreatobiliary Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Centralization of hepatopancreatobiliary procedures to more experienced centers has been recommended but remains controversial. Hospital volume and risk-stratified mortality rates (RSMR) are metrics for interhospital comparison. We compared facility operative volume with facility RSMR as a proxy for hospital quality. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients who underwent surgery for liver (LC), biliary tract (BTC), and pancreatic (PDAC) cancer were identified in the National Cancer Database (2004-2018). Hierarchical logistic regression was used to create facility-specific models for RSMR. Volume (high versus low) was determined by quintile. Performance (high versus low) was determined by RSMR tercile. Primary outcomes included median facility RSMR and RSMR distributions. Volume- and RSMR-based redistribution was simulated and compared for reductions in 90-day mortality. RESULTS: A total of 106,217 patients treated at 1282 facilities were included; 17,695 had LC, 23,075 had BTC, and 65,447 had PDAC. High-volume centers (HVC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-volume centers and low-volume centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). High-performance centers (HPC) had lower RSMR compared with medium-performance centers and low-performance centers for LC, BTC, and PDAC (all p < 0.001). Volume-based redistribution required 16.0 patients for LC, 11.2 for BTC, and 14.9 for PDAC reassigned to 15, 22, and 20 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. RSMR-based redistribution required 4.7 patients for LC, 4.2 for BTC, and 4.9 for PDAC reassigned to 316, 403, and 418 centers, respectively, per life saved within each US census region. CONCLUSIONS: HVC and HPC have the lowest overall and risk-standardized 90-day mortality after oncologic hepatopancreatobiliary procedures, but RSMR may outperform volume as a measure of hospital quality.

Immigration Status and Breast Cancer Surgery Quality of Care Metrics: A Population-Level Analysis.

INTRODUCTION: As immigrant women face challenges accessing health care, we hypothesized that immigration status would be associated with fewer women with breast cancer receiving surgery for curable disease, fewer undergoing breast conserving surgery (BCS), and longer wait time to surgery. METHODS: A population-level retrospective cohort study, including women aged 18-70 years with Stage I-III breast cancer diagnosed between 2010 and 2016 in Ontario was conducted. Multivariable analysis was performed to assess odds of undergoing surgery, receiving BCS and wait time to surgery. RESULTS: A total of 31,755 patients were included [26,253 (82.7%) Canadian-born and 5502 (17.3%) immigrant women]. Immigrant women were younger (mean age 51.6 vs. 56.1 years) and less often presented with Stage I/II disease (87.4% vs. 89.8%) (both p < .001). On multivariable analysis, there was no difference between immigrant women and Canadian-born women in odds of undergoing surgery [Stage I OR 0.93 (95% CI 0.79-1.11), Stage II 1.04 (0.89-1.22), Stage III 1.22 (0.94-1.57)], receiving BCS [Stage I 0.93 (0.82-1.05), Stage II 0.96 (0.86-1.07), Stage III 1.00 (0.83-1.22)], or wait time [Stage I 0.45 (-0.61-1.50), Stage II 0.33 (-0.86-1.52), Stage III 3.03 (-0.05-6.12)]. In exploratory analysis, new immigrants did not have surgery more than established immigrants (12.9% vs. 10.1%), and refugee women had longer wait time compared with economic-class immigrants (39.5 vs. 35.3 days). CONCLUSIONS: We observed differences in measures of socioeconomic disadvantage and disease characteristics between immigrant and Canadian-born women with breast cancer. Upon adjusting for these factors, no differences emerged in rate of surgery, rate of BCS, and time to surgery. The lack of disparity suggests barriers to accessing basic components of breast cancer care may be mitigated by the universal healthcare system in Canada.

Digital health as a tool for patient activation and improving quality of care for heart failure.

The clinical and economic impact of heart failure (HF) is immense and will continue to rise due to the increasing prevalence of the disease. Despite the availability of guideline-recommended medications that improve mortality, reduce hospitalizations, and enhance quality of life, there are major gaps in the implementation of such care. Quality improvement interventions have generally focused on clinicians. While certain interventions have had modest success in improving the use of heart failure medications, they remain insufficient in optimizing HF care. Here, we discuss how patient-facing interventions can add value and supplement clinician-centered interventions. We discuss how digital health can be leveraged to create patient activation tools that create a larger, sustainable impact. Small studies have suggested the promise of digital tools for patient engagement and self-care, but there are also important barriers to the adoption of such interventions that we describe. We share key principles and strategies around the design and implementation of digital health innovations to maximize patient participation and engagement. By uniquely activating patients in their own care, digital health can unlock the full potential of both existing and new quality improvement initiatives to drive forward high-quality and equitable heart failure care.

Home Health Agencies With High Quality of Patient Care Star Ratings Reduced Short-Term Hospitalization Rates and Increased Days Independently at Home.

BACKGROUND: Critics argue that Medicare's Quality of Patient Care home health star ratings are inaccurate. Valid ratings are essential to help patients find high-quality care. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether using the highest-rated home health agency available in a ZIP code improves outcomes. RESEARCH DESIGN: A retrospective study of 1,870,080 Medicare fee-for-service beneficiaries using home health care from July 2015 through July 2016 in the United States. An instrumental variables approach is used to address the endogeneity of agency choice, where the instrument is the differential proximity of the patient to the closest highest-rated and closest lower-rated agency. OUTCOMES: Days independently at home; health care setting-specific days and death; hospitalization, emergency department use, and institutionalization risk. RESULTS: Treatment by the highest-rated agencies available decreased risks (in percentage points) of hospitalization (-3.2; 95% CI, -4.1 to -2.3), emergency department use (-2.2; 95% CI, -3.2 to -1.1), and institutionalization (-0.9; 95% CI, -1.3 to -0.5) during the initial episode, and increased days independently at home by 2.6% or 3.75 (95% CI, 2.20-5.29) days in the 180 days after the end of the initial episode. Treatment effects were more pronounced for agencies that were above-average (6.51 d; 95% CI, 4.15-8.87), had ≥1 more star than the next-best agency (7.80 d; 95% CI, 4.13-11.47), and nonrural residents (4.57 d; 95% CI, 2.75-6.40). Effects were positive for both postacute (3.40; 95% CI, 1.80-5.00) and community-entry (5.60; 95% CI, 2.30-8.89) patients. CONCLUSIONS: Medicare's Quality of Patient Care star rating correlates with reduced short-term hospitalizations and emergency department use and increased days independently at home in the longer term.