Proceedings From a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Workshop to Control Hypertension.

Hypertension treatment and control prevent more cardiovascular events than management of other modifiable risk factors. Although the age-adjusted proportion of US adults with controlled blood pressure (BP) defined as <140/90 mm Hg, improved from 31.8% in 1999-2000 to 48.5% in 2007-2008, it remained stable through 2013-2014 and declined to 43.7% in 2017-2018. To address the rapid decline in hypertension control, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention convened a virtual workshop with multidisciplinary national experts. Also, the group sought to identify opportunities to reverse the adverse trend and further improve hypertension control. The workshop immediately preceded the Surgeon General's Call to Action to Control Hypertension, which recognized a stagnation in progress with hypertension control. The presentations and discussions included potential reasons for the decline and challenges in hypertension control, possible "big ideas," and multisector approaches that could reverse the current trend while addressing knowledge gaps and research priorities. The broad set of "big ideas" was comprised of various activities that may improve hypertension control, including: interventions to engage patients, promotion of self-measured BP monitoring with clinical support, supporting team-based care, implementing telehealth, enhancing community-clinical linkages, advancing precision population health, developing tailored public health messaging, simplifying hypertension treatment, using process and outcomes quality metrics to foster accountability and efficiency, improving access to high-quality health care, addressing social determinants of health, supporting cardiovascular public health and research, and lowering financial barriers to hypertension control.

Patient-Centered Approaches to Transitional Care Research and Implementation: Overview and Insights From Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Transitional Care Portfolio.

BACKGROUND: This Special Issue, Future Directions in Transitional Care Research, focuses on the approaches used and lessons learned by researchers conducting care transitions studies funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). PCORI's approach to transitional care research augments prior research by encouraging researchers to focus on head-to-head comparisons of interventions, the use of patient-centered outcomes, and the engagement of stakeholders throughout the research process. OBJECTIVES: This paper introduces the themes and topics addressed by the articles that follow, which are focused on opportunities and challenges involved in conducting patient-centered clinical comparative effectiveness research in transitional care. It provides an overview of the state of the care transitions field, a description of PCORI's programmatic objectives, highlights of the patient and stakeholder engagement activities that have taken place during the course of these studies, and a brief overview of PCORI's Transitional Care Evidence to Action Network, a learning community designed to foster collaboration between investigators and their research teams and enhance the collective impact of this body of work. CONCLUSIONS: The papers in this Special Issue articulate challenges, lessons learned, and new directions for measurement, stakeholder engagement, implementation, and methodological and design approaches that reflect the complexity of transitional care comparative effectiveness research and seek to move the field toward a more holistic understanding of transitional care that integrates social needs and lifespan development into our approaches to improving care transitions.

Comparative Clinical Effectiveness Research Focused on Community-Based Delivery of Palliative Care: Overview of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute's Funding Initiative.

Palliative care is a growing specialty that addresses the needs of individuals diagnosed with advanced illness and their caregivers. Although palliative care has been shown to improve a variety of patient- and caregiver-centered outcomes, access to comprehensive palliative care services for patients is often limited. There is a need to identify the most effective approaches to delivering palliative care to patients in community settings. In fiscal year 2017, based on extensive input from a diverse set of stakeholders, the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) funded nine multisite comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) trials focused on community-based delivery of palliative care for a total investment of $80 million. These studies, focusing on advance care planning and models of palliative care delivery, represent some of the largest most complex palliative care trials funded to date. Each study evaluates both patient and caregiver outcomes, and together, these trials include a broad range of health conditions, interventions, and settings of care. PCORI has also fostered a learning network of the funded awardees to facilitate the successful conduct of these CER studies and to support awardee efforts to develop collaborative products relevant to advancing the field of palliative care research and practice. The protocols of each of the nine trials, detailed in this issue, demonstrate the expansive reach of the investment PCORI has made in an effort to further the research agenda and provide substantive research evidence in stakeholder-identified areas of need in the field of palliative care.

Perceptions of Patients With Breast and Colon Cancer of the Management of Cancer-Related Pain, Fatigue, and Emotional Distress in Community Oncology.

PURPOSE: Pain, fatigue, and distress are common among patients with cancer but are often underassessed and undertreated. We examine the prevalence of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress among patients with cancer, as well as patient perceptions of the symptom care they received. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Seventeen Commission on Cancer-accredited cancer centers across the United States sampled patients with local/regional breast (82%) or colon (18%) cancer. We received 2,487 completed surveys (61% response rate). RESULTS: Of patients, 76%, 78%, and 59% reported talking to a clinician about pain, fatigue, and distress, respectively, and 70%, 61%, and 54% reported receiving advice. Sixty-one percent of patients experienced pain, 74% fatigue, and 46% distress. Among those patients experiencing each symptom, 58% reported getting the help they wanted for pain, 40% for fatigue, and 45% for distress. Multilevel logistic regression models revealed that patients experiencing symptoms were significantly more likely to have talked about and received advice on coping with these symptoms. In addition, patients who were receiving or recently completed curative treatment reported more symptoms and better symptom care than did those who were further in time from curative treatment. CONCLUSION: In our sample, 30% to 50% of patients with cancer in community cancer centers did not report discussing, getting advice, or receiving desired help for pain, fatigue, or emotional distress. This finding suggests that there is room for improvement in the management of these three common cancer-related symptoms. Higher proportions of talk and advice among those experiencing symptoms imply that many discussions may be patient initiated. Lower rates of talk and advice among those who are further in time from treatment suggest the need for more assessment among longer-term survivors, many of whom continue to experience these symptoms. These findings seem to be especially important given the high prevalence of these symptoms in our sample.

Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE): A Cluster-Randomized Pragmatic Trial of a Multifactorial Fall Injury Prevention Strategy: Design and Methods.

Background: Fall injuries are a major cause of morbidity and mortality among older adults. We describe the design of a pragmatic trial to compare the effectiveness of an evidence-based, patient-centered multifactorial fall injury prevention strategy to an enhanced usual care. Methods: Strategies to Reduce Injuries and Develop Confidence in Elders (STRIDE) is a 40-month cluster-randomized, parallel-group, superiority, pragmatic trial being conducted at 86 primary care practices in 10 health care systems across United States. The 86 practices were randomized to intervention or control group using covariate-based constrained randomization, stratified by health care system. Participants are community-living persons, ≥70 years, at increased risk for serious fall injuries. The intervention is a comanagement model in which a nurse Falls Care Manager performs multifactorial risk assessments, develops individualized care plans, which include surveillance, follow-up evaluation, and intervention strategies. Control group receives enhanced usual care, with clinicians and patients receiving evidence-based information on falls prevention. Primary outcome is serious fall injuries, operationalized as those leading to medical attention (nonvertebral fractures, joint dislocation, head injury, lacerations, and other major sequelae). Secondary outcomes include all fall injuries, all falls, and well-being (concern for falling; anxiety and depressive symptoms; physical function and disability). Target sample size was 5,322 participants to provide 90% power to detect 20% reduction in primary outcome rate relative to control. Results: Trial enrolled 5,451 subjects in 20 months. Intervention and follow-up are ongoing. Conclusions: The findings of the STRIDE study will have important clinical and policy implications for the prevention of fall injuries in older adults.

Cancer Care Coordination: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Over 30 Years of Empirical Studies.

BACKGROUND: According to a landmark study by the Institute of Medicine, patients with cancer often receive poorly coordinated care in multiple settings from many providers. Lack of coordination is associated with poor symptom control, medical errors, and higher costs. PURPOSE: The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to (1) synthesize the findings of studies addressing cancer care coordination, (2) describe study outcomes across the cancer continuum, and (3) obtain a quantitative estimate of the effect of interventions in cancer care coordination on service system processes and patient health outcomes. METHODS: Of 1241 abstracts identified through MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library, 52 studies met the inclusion criteria. Each study had US or Canadian participants, comparison or control groups, measures, times, samples, and/or interventions. Two researchers independently applied a standardized search strategy, coding scheme, and online coding program to each study. Eleven studies met the additional criteria for the meta-analysis; a random effects estimation model was used for data analysis. RESULTS: Cancer care coordination approaches led to improvements in 81 % of outcomes, including screening, measures of patient experience with care, and quality of end-of-life care. Across the continuum of cancer care, patient navigation was the most frequent care coordination intervention, followed by home telehealth; nurse case management was third in frequency. The meta-analysis of a subset of the reviewed studies showed that the odds of appropriate health care utilization in cancer care coordination interventions were almost twice (OR = 1.9, 95 % CI = 1.5-3.5) that of comparison interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This review offers promising findings on the impact of cancer care coordination on increasing value and reducing healthcare costs in the USA.

The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP): Sustaining Quality and Reducing Disparities in Guideline-Concordant Breast and Colon Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot was designed to improve quality of cancer care and reduce disparities at community hospitals. The NCCCP's primary intervention was the implementation of the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS). The RQRS is a hospital-based data collection and evaluation system allowing near real-time assessment of selected breast and colon cancer quality of care measures. Building on previous NCCCP analyses, this study examined whether improvements in quality cancer care within NCCCP hospitals early in the program were sustained and whether improvements were notable for minority or underserved populations. METHODS: We compared changes in concordance with three breast and two colon cancer quality measures approved by the National Quality Forum for patients diagnosed at NCCCP hospitals from 2006 to 2007 (pre-RQRS), 2008 to 2010 (early-RQRS), and 2011 to 2013 (later-RQRS). Data were obtained from NCCCP sites participating in the Commission on Cancer Rapid Quality Reporting System. Logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors of concordance with breast and colon cancer quality measures. RESULTS: The sample included 13,893 breast and 5,546 colon cancer patients. After RQRS initiation, all five quality measures improved significantly and improvements were sustained through 2013. Quality of care measures showed sustained improvements for both breast and colon cancer patients and for vulnerable patient subgroups including black, uninsured, and Medicaid-covered patients. CONCLUSIONS: Quality improvements in NCCCP hospitals were sustained throughout the duration of the program, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. Because many individuals receive cancer treatment at community hospitals, facilitating high-quality care in these environments must be a priority. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Quality improvement programs often improve practice, but the methods are not maintained over time. The implementation of a real-time quality reporting system and a network focused on improving quality of care sustained quality improvement at select community cancer centers. The NCCCP pilot increased numbers of patients receiving guideline-concordant care for breast and colon cancer in community settings, and initial improvements noted in earlier years of RQRS were sustained into later years, both overall and among minority and underserved patients. National initiatives that improve care for diverse patient groups are important for reducing and eliminating barriers to care.

Revisiting the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results Cancer Registry and Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (SEER-MHOS) Linked Data Resource for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research in Older Adults with Cancer.

Researchers and clinicians are increasingly recognizing the value of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data to better characterize people's health and experiences with illness and care. Considering the rising prevalence of cancer in adults aged 65 and older, PRO data are particularly relevant for older adults with cancer, who often require complex cancer care and have additional comorbid conditions. A data linkage between the Surveillance Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) cancer registry and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey (MHOS) was created through a partnership between the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that created the opportunity to examine PROs in Medicare Advantage enrollees with and without cancer. The December 2013 linkage of SEER-MHOS data included the linked data for 12 cohorts, bringing the number of individuals in the linked data set to 95,723 with cancer and 1,510,127 without. This article reviews the features of the resource and provides information on some descriptive characteristics of the individuals in the data set (health-related quality of life, body mass index, fall risk management, number of unhealthy days in the past month). Individuals without (n=258,108) and with (n=3,440) cancer (1,311 men with prostate cancer, 982 women with breast cancer, 689 with colorectal cancer, 458 with lung cancer) were included in the current descriptive analysis. Given increasing longevity, advances in effective therapies and earlier detection, and population growth, the number of individuals aged 65 and older with cancer is expected to reach more than 12 million by 2020. SEER-MHOS provides population-level, self-reported, cancer registry-linked data for person-centered surveillance research on this growing population.

The rationale for patient-reported outcomes surveillance in cancer and a reproducible method for achieving it.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measure quality of life, symptoms, patient functioning, and patient perceptions of care; they are essential for gaining a full understanding of cancer care and the impact of cancer on people's lives. Repeatedly captured facility-level and/or population-level PROs (PRO surveillance) could play an important role in quality monitoring and improvement, benchmarking, advocacy, policy making, and research. This article describes the rationale for PRO surveillance and the methods of the Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms and Side Effects Study (PROSSES), which is the first PRO study to use the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer's Rapid Quality Reporting System to identify patients and manage study data flow. The American Cancer Society, the National Cancer Institute, the Commission on Cancer, and RTI International collaborated on PROSSES. PROSSES was conducted at 17 cancer programs that participated in the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program among patients diagnosed with locoregional breast or colon cancer. The methods piloted in PROSSES were successful as demonstrated by high eligibility (93%) and response (61%) rates. Differences in clinical and demographic characteristics between respondents and nonrespondents were mostly negligible, with the exception that non-white individuals were somewhat less likely to respond. These methods were consistent across cancer centers and reproducible over time. If repeated and expanded, they could provide PRO surveillance data from patients with cancer on a national scale.

Validity and Reliability of the US National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

IMPORTANCE: To integrate the patient perspective into adverse event reporting, the National Cancer Institute developed a patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). OBJECTIVE: To assess the construct validity, test-retest reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE items. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of 975 adults with cancer undergoing outpatient chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy enrolled in this questionnaire-based study between January 2011 and February 2012. Eligible participants could read English and had no clinically significant cognitive impairment. They completed PRO-CTCAE items on tablet computers in clinic waiting rooms at 9 US cancer centers and community oncology practices at 2 visits 1 to 6 weeks apart. A subset completed PRO-CTCAE items during an additional visit 1 business day after the first visit. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary comparators were clinician-reported Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS) and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30). RESULTS: A total of 940 of 975 (96.4%) and 852 of 940 (90.6%) participants completed PRO-CTCAE items at visits 1 and 2, respectively. At least 1 symptom was reported by 938 of 940 (99.8%) participants. Participants' median age was 59 years; 57.3% were female, 32.4% had a high school education or less, and 17.1% had an ECOG PS of 2 to 4. All PRO-CTCAE items had at least 1 correlation in the expected direction with a QLQ-C30 scale (111 of 124, P<.05 for all). Stronger correlations were seen between PRO-CTCAE items and conceptually related QLQ-C30 domains. Scores for 94 of 124 PRO-CTCAE items were higher in the ECOG PS 2 to 4 vs 0 to 1 group (58 of 124, P<.05 for all). Overall, 119 of 124 items met at least 1 construct validity criterion. Test-retest reliability was 0.7 or greater for 36 of 49 prespecified items (median [range] intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.76 [0.53-.96]). Correlations between PRO-CTCAE item changes and corresponding QLQ-C30 scale changes were statistically significant for 27 prespecified items (median [range] r=0.43 [0.10-.56]; all P≤.006). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Evidence demonstrates favorable validity, reliability, and responsiveness of PRO-CTCAE in a large, heterogeneous US sample of patients undergoing cancer treatment. Studies evaluating other measurement properties of PRO-CTCAE are under way to inform further development of PRO-CTCAE and its inclusion in cancer trials.

Cancer Care Delivery Research: Building the Evidence Base to Support Practice Change in Community Oncology.

Understanding how health care system structures, processes, and available resources facilitate and/or hinder the delivery of quality cancer care is imperative, especially given the rapidly changing health care landscape. The emerging field of cancer care delivery research (CCDR) focuses on how organizational structures and processes, care delivery models, financing and reimbursement, health technologies, and health care provider and patient knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors influence cancer care quality, cost, and access and ultimately the health outcomes and well-being of patients and survivors. In this article, we describe attributes of CCDR, present examples of studies that illustrate those attributes, and discuss the potential impact of CCDR in addressing disparities in care. We conclude by emphasizing the need for collaborative research that links academic and community-based settings and serves simultaneously to accelerate the translation of CCDR results into practice. The National Cancer Institute recently launched its Community Oncology Research Program, which includes a focus on this area of research.

Patient Centeredness and Engagement in Quality-of-Care Oncology Research.

More than a decade after the Institute of Medicine (IOM) first studied the quality of cancer care, obstacles to achieving high-quality care remain, and studies suggest that cancer care is often not as patient centered, accessible, coordinated, or evidence based as it could be. Patients, their families, and clinicians face a wide range of complex and often confusing choices regarding their health and health care concerns and require trustworthy information to decide which options are best for them. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) strives to fund clinical comparative effectiveness research, guided by patients, caregivers, and the broader health care community, that will provide high-integrity, evidence-based information to help people make informed health care decisions. This mission is well aligned with the IOM's recent conceptual framework and corresponding recommendations that recognize that addressing the needs of patients with cancer and their families is the most important component of a high-quality cancer care delivery system. PCORI seeks the opportunity to partner with diverse interdisciplinary research teams who demonstrate a strong commitment to the inclusion and engagement of patients and stakeholders as they work to develop high-quality cancer care delivery systems. We see rich opportunities for such partnership in the cancer care community, given the wealth of well-established patient advocacy groups and organizations and cutting-edge research institutions, all of which are working toward the common goal of improving the quality of cancer care for patients and their families. This article and the project it describes provide an example of an avenue for advancing this goal.

Patient characteristics associated with the level of patient-reported care coordination among male patients with colorectal cancer in the Veterans Affairs health care system.

BACKGROUND: The current study was performed to determine whether patient characteristics, including race/ethnicity, were associated with patient-reported care coordination for patients with colorectal cancer (CRC) who were treated in the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system, with the goal of better understanding potential goals of quality improvement efforts aimed at improving coordination. METHODS: The nationwide Cancer Care Assessment and Responsive Evaluation Studies survey involved VA patients with CRC who were diagnosed in 2008 (response rate, 67%). The survey included a 4-item scale of patient-reported frequency ("never," "sometimes," "usually," and "always") of care coordination activities (scale score range, 1-4). Among 913 patients with CRC who provided information regarding care coordination, demographics, and symptoms, multivariable logistic regression was used to examine odds of patients reporting optimal care coordination. RESULTS: VA patients with CRC were found to report high levels of care coordination (mean scale score, 3.50 [standard deviation, 0.61]). Approximately 85% of patients reported a high level of coordination, including the 43% reporting optimal/highest-level coordination. There was no difference observed in the odds of reporting optimal coordination by race/ethnicity. Patients with early-stage disease (odds ratio [OR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.45-0.81), greater pain (OR, 0.97 for a 1-point increase in pain scale; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99), and greater levels of depression (OR, 0.97 for a 1-point increase in depression scale; 95% CI, 0.96-0.99) were less likely to report optimal coordination. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CRC in the VA reported high levels of care coordination. Unlike what has been reported in settings outside the VA, there appears to be no racial/ethnic disparity in reported coordination. However, challenges remain in ensuring coordination of care for patients with less advanced disease and a high symptom burden. Cancer 2015;121:2207-2213. © 2015 American Cancer Society.

Unveiling SEER-CAHPS®: a new data resource for quality of care research.

BACKGROUND: Since 1990, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) have collaborated to create linked data resources to improve our understanding of patterns of care, health care costs, and trends in utilization. However, existing data linkages have not included measures of patient experiences with care. OBJECTIVE: To describe a new resource for quality of care research based on a linkage between the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®) patient surveys and the NCI's Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) data. DESIGN: This is an observational study of CAHPS respondents and includes both fee-for-service and Medicare Advantage beneficiaries with and without cancer. The data linkage includes: CAHPS survey data collected between 1998 and 2010 to assess patient reports on multiple aspects of their care, such as access to needed and timely care, doctor communication, as well as patients' global ratings of their personal doctor, specialists, overall health care, and their health plan; SEER registry data (1973-2007) on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics; and longitudinal Medicare claims data (2002-2011) for fee-for-service beneficiaries on utilization and costs of care. PARTICIPANTS: In total, 150,750 respondents were in the cancer cohort and 571,318 were in the non-cancer cohort. MAIN MEASURES: The data linkage includes SEER data on cancer site, stage, treatment, death information, and patient demographics, in addition to longitudinal data from Medicare claims and information on patient experiences from CAHPS surveys. KEY RESULTS: Sizable proportions of cases from common cancers (e.g., breast, colorectal, prostate) and short-term survival cancers (e.g., pancreas) by time since diagnosis enable comparisons across the cancer care trajectory by MA vs. FFS coverage. CONCLUSIONS: SEER-CAHPS is a valuable resource for information about Medicare beneficiaries' experiences of care across different diagnoses and treatment modalities, and enables comparisons by type of insurance.

Walking in the shoes of patients, not just in their genes: a patient-centered approach to genomic medicine.

Genomic technologies are increasing the precision with which clinicians can assess an individual patient's risk for developing diseases and identify which patients are likely to benefit from specific treatments. Also advocating for a shift away from a one-size-fits-all approach is the growing emphasis on "patient-centered" care. Using examples from breast cancer, we make a case for why, in order to optimize patient health outcomes, genomic medicine will need to be practiced within a patient-centered framework. We present a six-function conceptual framework for patient-centered care and discuss findings from a national survey evaluating the patient-centeredness of care delivered in the USA.

Assessing the Development of Multidisciplinary Care: Experience of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007 with a goal of expanding cancer research and delivering quality care in communities. The NCCCP Quality of Care (QoC) Subcommittee was charged with developing and improving the quality of multidisciplinary care. An assessment tool with nine key elements relevant to MDC structure and operations was developed. METHODS: Fourteen NCCCP sites reported multidisciplinary care assessments for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer in June 2010, June 2011, and June 2012 using an online reporting tool. Each site evaluated their level of maturity (level 1 = no multidisciplinary care, level 5 = highly integrated multidisciplinary care) in nine elements integral to multidisciplinary care. Thematic analysis of open-ended qualitative responses was also conducted. RESULTS: The proportion of sites that reported level 3 or greater on the assessment tool was tabulated at each time point. For all tumor types, sites that reached this level increased in six elements: case planning, clinical trials, integration of care coordination, physician engagement, quality improvement, and treatment team integration. Factors that enabled improvement included increasing organizational support, ensuring appropriate physician participation, increasing patient navigation, increasing participation in national quality initiatives, targeting genetics referrals, engaging primary care providers, and integrating clinical trial staff. CONCLUSIONS: Maturation of multidisciplinary care reflected focused work of the NCCCP QoC Subcommittee. Working group efforts in patient navigation, genetics, and physician conditions of participation were evident in improved multidisciplinary care performance for three common malignancies. This work provides a blueprint for health systems that wish to incorporate prospective multidisciplinary care into their cancer programs.

Health-related quality of life in older adult survivors of selected cancers: data from the SEER-MHOS linkage.

BACKGROUND: Research on health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among older adult cancer survivors is mostly confined to breast cancer, prostate cancer, colorectal cancer, and lung cancer, which account for 63% of all prevalent cancers. Much less is known about HRQOL in the context of less common cancer sites. METHODS: HRQOL was examined with the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey, version 1, and the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey in patients with selected cancers (kidney cancer, bladder cancer, pancreatic cancer, upper gastrointestinal cancer, cancer of the oral cavity and pharynx, uterine cancer, cervical cancer, thyroid cancer, melanoma, chronic leukemia, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, and multiple myeloma) and in individuals without cancer on the basis of data linked from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results cancer registry system and the Medicare Health Outcomes Survey. Scale scores, Physical Component Summary (PCS) and Mental Component Summary (MCS) scores, and a utility metric (Short Form 6D/Veterans RAND 6D), adjusted for sociodemographic characteristics and other chronic conditions, were calculated. A 3-point difference in the scale scores and a 2-point difference in the PCS and MCS scores were considered to be minimally important differences. RESULTS: Data from 16,095 cancer survivors and 1,224,549 individuals without a history of cancer were included. The results indicated noteworthy deficits in physical health status. Mental health was comparable, although scores for the Role-Emotional and Social Functioning scales were worse for patients with most types of cancer versus those without cancer. Survivors of multiple myeloma and pancreatic malignancies reported the lowest scores, with their PCS/MCS scores less than those of individuals without cancer by 3 or more points. CONCLUSIONS: HRQOL surveillance efforts revealed poor health outcomes among many older adults and specifically among survivors of multiple myeloma and pancreatic cancer.

Quality improvement in the national cancer institute community cancer centers program: the quality oncology practice initiative experience.

PURPOSE: The National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) began in 2007; it is a network of community-based hospitals funded by the NCI. Quality of care is an NCCCP priority, with participation in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) playing a fundamental role in quality assessment and quality improvement (QI) projects. Using QOPI methodology, performance on quality measures was analyzed two times per year over a 3-year period to enhance our implementation of quality standards at NCCCP hospitals. METHODS: A data-sharing agreement allowed individual-practice QOPI data to be electronically sent to the NCI. Aggregated data with the other NCCCP QOPI participants were presented to the network via Webinars. The NCCCP Quality of Care Subcommittee selected areas in which to focus subsequent QI efforts, and high-performing practices shared voluntarily their QI best practices with the network. RESULTS: QOPI results were compiled semiannually between fall 2010 and fall 2013. The network concentrated on measures with a quality score of ≤ 0.75 and planned voluntary group-wide QI interventions. We identified 13 measures in which the NCCCP fell at or below the designated quality score in fall 2010. After implementing a variety of QI initiatives, the network registered improvements in all parameters except one (use of treatment summaries). CONCLUSION: Using the NCCCP as a paradigm, QOPI metrics provide a useful platform for group-wide measurement of quality performance. In addition, these measurements can be used to assess the effectiveness of QI initiatives.