An analysis of medical malpractice claims against medical oncologists from a national database: Implications for safer practice.

Malpractice claims data include valuable information about patient safety. We used mixed methods to analyze claims against medical oncologists (MO) from 2008 to 2019 using a national database. MO claims were compared to a group of other internal medicine subspecialties (OIMS). Logistic regression was used to examine correlates of closing with an indemnity payment. A subset of claims against MO were thematically analyzed using a validated safety incident taxonomy as a framework. 456 claims against MO were compared with 5771 claims against OIMS. MO claims closed with indemnity payments 29.8% of the time versus OIMS 30.3% (p = 0.87). Median MO and OIMS indemnity payments were similar ($190,591 vs. $233,432; p = 0.20). Correlates of MO claims closing with payment included patient assessment, communication among providers, and safety and security as contributing factors. Thematic analysis identified provider cognitive error, adverse drug events and relational problems as the most common safety incidents. MO malpractice claims have similar outcomes to OIMS. We demonstrate the proof-of-concept of applying a safety incident taxonomy to medical malpractice. Finding ways to reduce patient exposure to provider cognitive errors, adverse drug reactions, and communication breakdowns should be strategic priorities for safer cancer care.

Feasibility of Weekly Electronic Health Record-Embedded Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients Starting Oral Cancer-Directed Therapy.

PURPOSE: To examine the feasibility of integrating a symptom management platform into the electronic health record (EHR) using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) during oral cancer-directed therapy (OCDT) and explore the impact of prompting oncology nurse navigators (ONNs) to respond to severe symptomatic adverse events (SAEs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Adults prescribed OCDT at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute were consecutively invited to participate. Participants received weekly messages to complete ePROs. The first half enrolled in a passive (P) group where ePROs responses could be viewed anytime, but outreach was not expected. The second half enrolled in an active (A) group where severe SAEs prompted emails to ONNs for outreach within 1 business day. Feasibility was the proportion of participants completing ≥2 ePROs during the first 30 days. Participants were followed for up to 90 days. RESULTS: From June 25, 2019, to August 18, 2021, 100 participants enrolled, and 96 remained enrolled for at least 30 days. Overall, average age was 59 years, 80% female, and 9% used the platform in Spanish. Twenty-two A (45%) and 27 P (57%) participants met the feasibility threshold (P = .26). ePROs returned at 30 days were similar (P = .50): 0 ePROs 17 A, 13 P; 1 ePRO 10 A, 7 P; 2 ePROs 3 A, 5 P; 3 ePROs 1 A, 4 P; 4 ePROs 7 A, 8 P; and 5 ePROs 11 A, 10 P. Documented telephone encounters at 30 days were similar (109 A, 101 P; P = .86). CONCLUSION: EHR-embedded ePROs administered weekly for people on OCDT was feasible, although many went incomplete. ePRO completion was not clearly affected by nursing calls for severe SAEs. Future efforts will investigate improving engagement and addressing symptoms proactively.

Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With New Oral Chemotherapy Prescriptions at an Academic Site and a Community Site.

PURPOSE: Oral chemotherapy challenges providers' abilities to safely monitor patients' symptoms, adherence, and financial toxicity. COVID-19 has increased the urgency of caring for patients remotely. Collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated efficacy for patients on intravenous chemotherapy, but limited data support their use in oral chemotherapy. We undertook a pilot project to assess the feasibility of implementing an ePRO system for patients starting oral chemotherapy at our cancer center, which includes both an academic site and a community site. METHODS: Patients initiating oral chemotherapy were asked to participate. A five-question tool was built in REDCap. Concerning responses triggered outreach within one business day. The primary outcome was time to first symptom assessment. For comparison, we used a historical cohort of patients who had been prescribed oral chemotherapies by providers in the same disease groups at the cancer center. RESULTS: Twenty-five of 62 (40%) patients completed ePRO assessments. Fifty historical charts were reviewed. Time to first symptom assessment was 7 days (IQR, 4-14 days) in the historical group compared with 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days) in the ePRO group. Time to clinical action was 14 days (7-35 days) in the historical group compared with 8 days (4-19 days) in the ePRO group. No statistically significant differences were detected in 30-day emergency department visit or hospitalization (12% for both groups) or 90-day emergency department visit or hospitalization rates (historical 28% and ePRO 20%). CONCLUSION: An ePRO tool monitoring patient concerns about adherence, cost, and toxicities for patients with new oral chemotherapy regimens is feasible and improves time to symptom assessment. Further investigation is needed to improve patient engagement with ePROs and evaluate the long-term impacts for patients on oral chemotherapy.

Defining the Resident Continuity Clinic Panel Along Patient Outcomes: a Health Equity Opportunity.

BACKGROUND: Continuity clinics are a critical component of outpatient internal medicine training. Little is known about the population of patients cared for by residents and how these physicians perform. OBJECTIVES: To compare resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures. To identify potential associations with differences in performance, specifically medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Large academic primary care clinic caring for 40,000 patients. One hundred ten internal medicine residents provide primary care for 9,000 of these patients; the remainder are cared for by faculty. STUDY DESIGN: Descriptive analysis using review of the medical record and hospital administrative data. MAIN MEASURES: We compared resident and faculty performance on standard population health measures, including cancer screening rates, chronic disease care, acute and chronic medical complexity, psychosocial vulnerability, and rates of patient loss. We evaluated the success of resident transition by measuring rates of kept continuity visits 18 months after graduation. KEY RESULTS: Performance on all clinical outcomes was significantly better for faculty compared to residents. Despite similar levels of medical complexity compared to faculty patients, resident patients had significantly higher levels of psychosocial vulnerability across all measured domains, including health literacy, economic vulnerability, psychiatric illness burden, high-risk behaviors, and patient engagement. Resident patients experienced higher rates of patient loss than faculty patients (38.5 vs. 18.8%) with only 46.5% of resident patients with a kept continuity appointment in the practice 18 months after graduation. CONCLUSIONS: In this large academic practice, resident performance on standard population health measures was significantly lower than faculty. This may be explained in part by the burden of psychosocial vulnerability of their patients and systems that do not effectively transition patients after graduation. These findings present an opportunity to improve structural equity for these vulnerable patients and developing physicians.

Five Questions for Residency Leadership in the Time of COVID-19: Reflections of Chief Medical Residents From an Internal Medicine Program.

The COVID-19 pandemic has drastically affected the traditional methods residency programs use to train their residents. Chief residents serve a unique role as part of the residency leadership to foster the education and development of the residents. Given the rapid shift in demands on physicians in the face of the pandemic, the responsibilities of the chief residents have also shifted to help prepare the residents to meet these demands as frontline providers. There is not a precedent for how residency programs respond to this crisis while maintaining their primary role to develop and train physicians. The authors have identified 5 questions chief residents can ask to guide their program's response to the demands of COVID-19 during this uncertain time in health care.