Achieving a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the U.S. post-COVID era: What is the role of management?

In 2013, the Institute of Medicine already had declared the state of U.S. cancer care as "a delivery system in crisis." Beginning in early 2020, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has dramatically revealed the fragile nature of the U.S. health system. As a microcosm of that larger health system, cancer care can provide us with opportunities for innovative thinking and new solutions. This paper describes a series of public and private-sector cancer care initiatives that are the building blocks for a multilevel evidence-based approach to improve cancer care in the post-COVID era. Achieving these objectives requires significant managerial policy decisions, some risk taking, and the development of organizational strategies that involve collaboration within the managerial and clinical leadership. Such strategies should reflect adaptability to navigate the complex and changing science, policy and financing environment, while retaining the central values of patient-centered care. As suggested by Edward Deming, an early pioneer in quality-improvement initiatives, the problems are with the system, and the system belongs to management. Though future challenges are undefined and likely to be significant, the foundational elements of a multilevel, evidence-based approach for improving cancer care are established and able to be built upon and will offer application in the post-COVID era.

How vision and leadership shaped the U.S. National Cancer Institute's 50-year journey to advance the evidence base of cancer control and cancer care delivery research.

In 1971, Congress passed the National Cancer Act, landmark legislation that reorganized the National Institutes of Health's National Cancer Institute (NCI). The Act included a new focus on cancer control, including the requirement that the NCI award research grants and contracts, in collaboration with other public agencies and private industry, to conduct cancer control activities related to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of cancer. The requirement placed the NCI at the nexus of a rapidly changing science and a complex and dynamic healthcare delivery system and involved an evolutionary transformation to advance cancer control and cancer care delivery research along the cancer care continuum. Analysis is based on a qualitative ethnographic approach using historical records, oral histories, and targeted interviews. The multimethod approach provided the opportunity to describe the vision, leadership, and struggle to build an infrastructure, expand expertise, and forge collaboration with the NCI and a complex and changing healthcare system. As the 50th anniversary of the National Cancer Act approaches in 2021, the process and these achievements are at risk of being taken for granted or lost in the flow of history. Documenting the process, milestones, and key players provides insight and guidance for continuing to improve cancer care, advance research, and reduce cancer incidence and mortality. Cancer care is a microcosm of the larger healthcare system providing insight and lessons on the importance of developing and maintaining a research infrastructure and the role of multi-level collaboration and partnerships involving both the private and public sectors.

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.

The role of a public-private partnership: translating science to improve cancer care in the community.

Health reform is bringing about changes in the healthcare environment, but an equally significant transformation is occurring in science with the sequencing of the human genome and the increasing role of personalized medicine in the delivery of new cancer therapies. These changes directly affect the ability of hospitals to provide value-based, state-of-the-art care and represent major strategic decisions that must be made by management. In the United States, an estimated 85% of cancer patients receive care in community settings, but patients' outcomes are often not equivalent to those achieved in academic health centers. Care of cancer patients in the community is often fragmented, as most oncologists are in private practice and have limited access to formal mechanisms for coordinating care across specialties or with primary care physicians. Furthermore, genetic analysis, advanced diagnostic tests, and clinical trials are not always available to patients in these settings. The evolution of cancer care requires a reconfiguration of processes and investment in new services. In response, the National Cancer Institute launched the Community Cancer Centers Program in 2007 as a public-private partnership with 16 community hospitals. This article draws on the results of an external evaluation of the pilot program and assesses the role of such a partnership as a means of facilitating the translation of the developing science to the community setting, with reference to the role of management in the implementation of such partnerships.

Multilevel intervention research: lessons learned and pathways forward.

This summary reflects on this monograph regarding multilevel intervention (MLI) research to 1) assess its added value; 2) discuss what has been learned to date about its challenges in cancer care delivery; and 3) identify specific ways to improve its scientific soundness, feasibility, policy relevance, and research agenda. The 12 submitted chapters, and discussion of them at the March 2011 multilevel meeting, were reviewed and discussed among the authors to elicit key findings and results addressing the questions raised at the outset of this effort. MLI research is underrepresented as an explicit focus in the cancer literature but may improve implementation of studies of cancer care delivery if they assess contextual, organizational, and environmental factors important to understanding behavioral and/or system-level interventions. The field lacks a single unifying theory, although several psychological or biological theories are useful, and an ecological model helps conceptualize and communicate interventions. MLI research designs are often complex, involving nonlinear and nonhierarchical relationships that may not be optimally studied in randomized designs. Simulation modeling and pilot studies may be necessary to evaluate MLI interventions. Measurement and evaluation of team and organizational interventions are especially needed in cancer care, as are attention to the context of health-care reform, eHealth technology, and genomics-based medicine. Future progress in MLI research requires greater attention to developing and supporting relevant metrics of level effects and interactions and evaluating MLI interventions. MLI research holds an unrealized promise for understanding how to improve cancer care delivery.

Translating research into evidence-based practice: the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program.

The recent rapid acceleration of basic science is reshaping both our clinical research system and our healthcare delivery system. The pace and growing volume of medical discoveries are yielding exciting new opportunities, yet we continue to face old challenges to maintain research progress and effectively translate research into practice. The National Institutes of Health and individual government programs increasingly are emphasizing research agendas that involve evidence development, comparative-effectiveness research among heterogeneous populations, translational research, and accelerating the translation of research into evidence-based practice as well as building successful research networks to support these efforts. For more than 25 years, the National Cancer Institute Community Clinical Oncology Program has successfully extended research into the community and facilitated the translation of research into evidence-based practice. By describing its keys to success, this article provides practical guidance to cancer-focused, provider-based research networks as well as those in other disciplines.

Improving clinical research and cancer care delivery in community settings: evaluating the NCI community cancer centers program.

BACKGROUND: In this article, we describe the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) pilot and the evaluation designed to assess its role, function, and relevance to the NCI's research mission. In doing so, we describe the evolution of and rationale for the NCCCP concept, participating sites' characteristics, its multi-faceted aims to enhance clinical research and quality of care in community settings, and the role of strategic partnerships, both within and outside of the NCCCP network, in achieving program objectives. DISCUSSION: The evaluation of the NCCCP is conceptualized as a mixed method multi-layered assessment of organizational innovation and performance which includes mapping the evolution of site development as a means of understanding the inter- and intra-organizational change in the pilot, and the application of specific evaluation metrics for assessing the implementation, operations, and performance of the NCCCP pilot. The assessment of the cost of the pilot as an additional means of informing the longer-term feasibility and sustainability of the program is also discussed. SUMMARY: The NCCCP is a major systems-level set of organizational innovations to enhance clinical research and care delivery in diverse communities across the United States. Assessment of the extent to which the program achieves its aims will depend on a full understanding of how individual, organizational, and environmental factors align (or fail to align) to achieve these improvements, and at what cost.

Vision and strategy for ubiquitous health care: the end of business as we know it.

Health services and the clinical enterprise have entered a new era involving an increasing amount of economic, service and research activity across rather than within the boundaries of traditionally defined organizations. These new inter-organizational arrangements present unprecedented challenges and opportunities. How they are designed and managed will have profound consequences on the quality, safety and cost of health care. Building on knowledge gained from ongoing activities within health services as well as other sectors, but recognizing the unique challenges in the provision of health care, guidelines are presented that may be of benefit to those involved in emerging partnerships, networks and alliances.

Managing research partnerships: a commentary.

The PFQ projects' experience suggests that partnerships can help the research and practice communities jointly address quality, safety, cost, and outcomes.

The effects of managed care and competition on community-based clinical research.

BACKGROUND: The National Institutes of Health is developing practice-based clinical research networks (PBRNs) to expedite the pace of scientific discovery and improve care quality. Anecdotal evidence suggests managed care penetration and provider competition negatively affect PBRN clinical research. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to examine the effects of environmental factors on clinical research performance in the National Cancer Institute's Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP). RESEARCH DESIGN: This study examined 49 CCOPs in 34 states using longitudinal (1991-2001) generalized least-squares regression including fixed effects, using secondary data from the National Cancer Institute, Group Health Association of America, InterStudy, American Hospital Association, Area Resource Files, and the Current Population Survey. MEASURES: Performance was measured as CCOP-level accrual in treatment trials, cancer prevention and control (CP/C) trials, and all trials combined. HMO penetration served as a proxy for managed care penetration. Competition measures included both hospital competition and physician competition. RESULTS: Managed care penetration was positively associated with accrual in areas of low to moderate penetration and negative in the areas of high penetration. Compared with areas with 5% penetration, areas with 15% penetration had 21% more treatment accrual and 66% more CP/C accrual. Compared with areas with 40% penetration, areas with 50% penetration had 11% lower treatment accrual and 3% lower CP/C accrual. CP/C accrual was more positively affected than treatment accrual. Greater hospital competition was associated with a decline in trial enrollment. CONCLUSIONS: The healthcare environment appears to have a significant effect on accrual into community-based cancer treatment and CP/C clinical trials. Findings for treatment and CP/C accrual suggest each type of accrual is distinct and requires different strategies and administrative methods.

Disease coding errors by health care organizations: effects of a government quality intervention.

Disease coding errors in claims data can cause serious problems for financing, reimbursement systems, public health surveillance and health research. This study analysed a government intervention to improve coding accuracy of health care organizations in South Korea. The intervention was implemented in 1997 by 226 organizations that had submitted erroneous claims in 1996 for five selected diseases. In 1998, 94% of these organizations eliminated coding errors for these diseases. Those organizations least responsive to the intervention were tertiary hospitals, those publicly owned, and those with other complex organizational characteristics. Overall, this simple intervention appeared extremely effective, and wider adoption of such techniques should be explored.

Health Management Education.

Apresentação que aborda as principais questões da educação na área de educação em saúde nos Estados Unidos. Explica que o conceito americano de formação de um bom profissional de gestão começou com foco na administração hospitalar na década de 30 e hoje com o surgimento de programas de formação gerencial para profissionais, ficou evidente a institucionalização de temas gerenciais nas áreas de administração em saúde pública e na administração de serviços médicos, entre outros. Enfatiza a necessidade de se focalizar cada vez mais, o preparo do futuro administrador em saúde, no destaque de competências que ele deve ter para ser um bom gestor.