Psychology Staffing at Cancer Centers: Data From National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions.

PURPOSE: The field of psycho-oncology is relatively undeveloped, with little information existing regarding the use of psychologists at cancer centers. Comprising 30 leading cancer centers across the United States, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) set out to understand the trends in its Member Institutions. METHODS: The NCCN Best Practices Committee surveyed NCCN Member Institutions regarding their use of psychologists. The survey was administered electronically in the spring/summer of 2017. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 18 cancer centers. Across institutions, 94% have psychologists appointed to provide direct care to their cancer center patients. The number of licensed psychologist full-time equivalents (FTEs) on staff who provide direct patient care ranged from < 1.0 FTE (17%) to 17.0-17.9 FTEs (6%). Regarding psychologist appointments, 41% have both faculty and staff appointments, 41% have all faculty appointments, and 18% have all staff appointments. Forty-three percent of institutions indicated that some licensed psychologists at their centers (ranging from 1%-65%) do not provide any direct clinical care, and 57% indicated that all licensed psychologist on staff devote some amount of time to direct clinical care. The percent of clinical care time that is spent on direct clinical care ranged from 15%-90%. CONCLUSION: There is great variability in psychology staffing, academic appointments, and the amount of direct patient care provided by on-staff psychologists at cancer centers.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Infusion Efficiency Workgroup Study: Optimizing Patient Flow in Infusion Centers.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. RESULTS: The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.