The role of funded partnerships in working towards decreasing COVID-19 vaccination disparities, United States, March 2021-December 2022.

During the COVID-19 vaccination rollout from March 2021- December 2022, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention funded 110 primary and 1051 subrecipient partners at the national, state, local, and community-based level to improve COVID-19 vaccination access, confidence, demand, delivery, and equity in the United States. The partners implemented evidence-based strategies among racial and ethnic minority populations, rural populations, older adults, people with disabilities, people with chronic illness, people experiencing homelessness, and other groups disproportionately impacted by COVID-19. CDC also expanded existing partnerships with healthcare professional societies and other core public health partners, as well as developed innovative partnerships with organizations new to vaccination, including museums and libraries. Partners brought COVID-19 vaccine education into farm fields, local fairs, churches, community centers, barber and beauty shops, and, when possible, partnered with local healthcare providers to administer COVID-19 vaccines. Inclusive, hyper-localized outreach through partnerships with community-based organizations, faith-based organizations, vaccination providers, and local health departments was critical to increasing COVID-19 vaccine access and building a broad network of trusted messengers that promoted vaccine confidence. Data from monthly and quarterly REDCap reports and monthly partner calls showed that through these partnerships, more than 295,000 community-level spokespersons were trained as trusted messengers and more than 2.1 million COVID-19 vaccinations were administered at new or existing vaccination sites. More than 535,035 healthcare personnel were reached through outreach strategies. Quality improvement interventions were implemented in healthcare systems, long-term care settings, and community health centers resulting in changes to the clinical workflow to incorporate COVID-19 vaccine assessments, recommendations, and administration or referrals into routine office visits. Funded partners' activities improved COVID-19 vaccine access and addressed community concerns among racial and ethnic minority groups, as well as among people with barriers to vaccination due to chronic illness or disability, older age, lower income, or other factors.

A systematic review of the care coordination measurement landscape.

BACKGROUND: Care coordination has increasingly been recognized as an important aspect of high-quality health care delivery. Robust measures of coordination processes will be essential tools to evaluate, guide and support efforts to understand and improve coordination, yet little agreement exists among stakeholders about how to best measure care coordination. We aimed to review and characterize existing measures of care coordination processes and identify areas of high and low density to guide future measure development. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review of measures published in MEDLINE through April 2012 and identified from additional key sources and informants. We characterized included measures with respect to the aspects of coordination measured (domain), measurement perspective (patient/family, health care professional, system representative), applicable settings and patient populations (by age and condition), and data used (survey, chart review, administrative claims). RESULTS: Among the 96 included measure instruments, most relied on survey methods (88%) and measured aspects of communication (93%), in particular the transfer of information (81%). Few measured changing coordination needs (11%). Nearly half (49%) of instruments mapped to the patient/family perspective; 29% to the system representative and 27% to the health care professionals perspective. Few instruments were applicable to settings other than primary care (58%), inpatient facilities (25%), and outpatient specialty care (22%). CONCLUSIONS: New measures are needed that evaluate changing coordination needs, coordination as perceived by health care professionals, coordination in the home health setting, and for patients at the end of life.

Hospital characteristics associated with timeliness of care in veterans with lung cancer.

RATIONALE: Timeliness is one of six important dimensions of health care quality recognized by the Institute of Medicine. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate timeliness of lung cancer care and identify institutional characteristics associated with timely care within the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system. METHODS: We used data from a VA nation-wide retrospective chart review and an independent audit of VA cancer programs to examine the association between time to first treatment and potentially explanatory institutional characteristics (e.g., volume of lung cancer patients) for 2,372 veterans diagnosed with lung cancer between 1 January 2002 and 1 September 2005 at 127 VA medical centers. We developed linear mixed effects models to control for clustering of patients within hospitals and we stratified analyses by stage. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Median time to treatment varied widely between (23 to 182 d) and within facilities. Median time to treatment was 90 days in patients with stage I or II cancer and 52 days in those with more advanced disease (P < 0.0001). Factors associated with shorter times to treatment included a nonacademic setting and the existence of a specialized diagnostic clinic (in patients with limited-stage disease), performing a patient flow analysis (in patients with advanced disease), and leadership beliefs about providing timely care (in both groups). However, institutional characteristics explained less than 1% of the observed variation in treatment times. CONCLUSIONS: Time to lung cancer treatment in U.S. veterans is highly variable. The numerous institutional characteristics we examined explained relatively little of this variability, suggesting that patient, clinician, and/or unmeasured institutional characteristics may be more important determinants of timely care.

Timeliness of care in veterans with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Timeliness is an important dimension of quality of care for patients with lung cancer. METHODS: We reviewed the records of consecutive patients in whom non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) had been diagnosed between January 1, 2002, and December 31, 2003, at the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System. We used multivariable statistical methods to identify independent predictors of timely care and examined the effect of timeliness on survival. RESULTS: We identified 129 veterans with NSCLC (mean age, 67 years; 98% men; 83% white), most of whom had adenocarcinoma (51%) or squamous cell carcinoma (30%). A minority of patients (18%) presented with a solitary pulmonary nodule (SPN). The median time from the initial suspicion of cancer to treatment was 84 days (interquartile range, 38 to 153 days). Independent predictors of treatment within 84 days included hospitalization within 7 days (odds ratio [OR], 8.2; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.9 to 23), tumor size of > 3.0 cm (OR, 4.8; 95% CI, 1.8 to 12.4), the presence of additional chest radiographic abnormalities (OR, 3.0; 95% CI, 1.1 to 8.5), and the presence of one or more symptoms suggesting metastasis (OR, 2.6; 95% CI, 1.1 to 6.2). More timely care was not associated with better survival time (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.3 to 1.9). However, in patients with SPNs, there was a trend toward better survival time when the time to treatment was < 84 days. CONCLUSIONS: The time to treatment for patients with NSCLC was often longer than recommended. Patients with larger tumors, symptoms, and other chest radiographic abnormalities receive more timely care. In patients with malignant SPNs, survival may be better when treatment is initiated promptly.

Facility-level analysis of PET scanning for staging among US veterans with non-small cell lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: PET scanning has been shown in randomized trials to reduce the frequency of surgery without cure among patients with potentially resectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We examined whether more frequent use of PET scanning at the facility level improves survival among patients with NSCLC in real-world practice. METHODS: In this prospective cohort study of 622 US veterans with newly diagnosed NSCLC, we compared groups defined by the frequency of PET scan use measured at the facility level and categorized as low (<25%), medium (25%-60%), or high (>60%). RESULTS: The median age of the sample was 69 years. Ninety-eight percent were men, 36% were Hispanic or nonwhite, and 54% had moderate or severe comorbidities. At low-, medium-, and high-use facilities, PET scan was performed in 13%, 40%, and 72% of patients, respectively (P<.0001). Baseline characteristics were similar across groups, including clinical stage based on CT scanning. More frequent use of PET scanning was associated with more frequent invasive staging (P<.001) and nonsignificant improvements in downstaging (P=.13) and surgery without cure (P=.12). After a median of 352 days of follow-up, 22% of the sample was still alive, including 22% at low- and medium-use facilities and 20% at high-use facilities. After adjustment and compared with patients at low-use facilities, the hazard of death was greater for patients at high-use facilities (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.35; 95% CI, 1.05-1.74) but not different for patients at medium-use facilities (adjusted HR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.88-1.46). CONCLUSIONS: In this study of veterans with NSCLC, markedly greater use of PET scanning at the facility level was associated with more frequent use of invasive staging and possible improvements in downstaging and surgery without cure, but greater use of PET scanning was not associated with better survival.

Evaluating the state of quality-improvement science through evidence synthesis: insights from the closing the quality gap series.

CONTEXT: The Closing the Quality Gap series from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality summarizes evidence for eight high-priority health care topics: outcomes used in disability research, bundled payment programs, public reporting initiatives, health care disparities, palliative care, the patient-centered medical home, prevention of health care-associated infections, and medication adherence. OBJECTIVE: To distill evidence from this series and provide insight into the "state of the science" of quality improvement (QI). METHODS: We provided common guidance for topic development and qualitatively synthesized evidence from the series topic reports to identify cross-topic themes, challenges, and evidence gaps as related to QI practice and science. RESULTS: Among topics that examined effectiveness of QI interventions, we found improvement in some outcomes but not others. Implementation context and potential harms from QI activities were not widely evaluated or reported, although market factors appeared important for incentive-based QI strategies. Patient-focused and systems-focused strategies were generally more effective than clinician-focused strategies, although the latter approach improved clinician adherence to infection prevention strategies. Audit and feedback appeared better for targeting professionals and organizations, but not patients. Topic reviewers observed heterogeneity in outcomes used for QI evaluations, weaknesses in study design, and incomplete reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Synthesizing evidence across topics provided insight into the state of the QI field for practitioners and researchers. To facilitate future evidence synthesis, consensus is needed around a smaller set of outcomes for use in QI evaluations and a framework and lexicon to describe QI interventions more broadly, in alignment with needs of decision makers responsible for improving quality.

Disparities in lung cancer staging with positron emission tomography in the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance (CanCORS) study.

INTRODUCTION: Disparities in treatment exist for nonwhite and Hispanic patients with non-small cell lung cancer, but little is known about disparities in the use of staging tests or their underlying causes. METHODS: Prospective, observational cohort study of 3638 patients with newly diagnosed non-small cell lung cancer from 4 large, geographically defined regions, 5 integrated health care systems, and 13 VA health care facilities. RESULTS: Median age was 69 years, 62% were men, 26% were Hispanic or nonwhite, 68% graduated high school, 50% had private insurance, and 41% received care in the VA or another integrated health care system. After adjustment, positron emission tomography (PET) use was 13% lower among nonwhites and Hispanics than non-Hispanic whites (risk ratio [RR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.77-0.97), 13% lower among those with Medicare than those with private insurance (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.76-0.99), and 24% lower among those with an elementary school education than those with a graduate degree (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.57-0.98). Disparate use of PET was not observed among patients who received care in an integrated health care setting, but the association between race/ethnicity and PET use was similar in magnitude across all other subgroups. Further analysis showed that income, education, insurance, and health care setting do not explain the association between race/ethnicity and PET use. CONCLUSIONS: Hispanics and nonwhites with non-small cell lung cancer are less likely to receive PET imaging. This finding is consistent across subgroups and not explained by differences in income, education, or insurance coverage.

Variation in experts' beliefs about lung cancer growth, progression, and prognosis.

INTRODUCTION: Little is known about the natural history of malignant solitary pulmonary nodules (SPN). Experts' beliefs may help fill these knowledge gaps and explain variation in clinical practices. METHODS: Using a modified Delphi process, we surveyed a group of lung cancer experts about tumor growth, disease progression, and prognosis in patients with malignant SPN. After completing the first survey, experts were given the opportunity during a second survey to revise their responses in light of their peers' beliefs. RESULTS: The response rate was 100% (14 of 14) for both surveys. There was consensus that disease progression depends on the tumor growth rate, that survival for patients with untreated lung cancer is approximated by a declining exponential function, and that treatment is delayed by approximately 1 tumor volume doubling time (TVDT) in patients who undergo a period of "watchful waiting." Just over half of experts (8 of 14) agreed that lung cancer progresses in three steps (from local to regional to distant disease), whereas 43% (6 of 14) preferred a 2-step model (from local to systemic disease). Likewise, 64% of experts (9 of 14) believed that malignant nodules grow exponentially, whereas 36% (5 of 14) believed that growth is slower than exponential. Experts' estimates of the risk of disease progression during a period of observation lasting 1 TVDT varied from 1 to 50%. Estimates of 5-year survival for patients in whom diagnosis and treatment were delayed by 1 TVDT varied between 40% and 80%. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial variability in experts' beliefs about the natural history of untreated, malignant SPN. Different beliefs may be partly responsible for variation in management practices.

Timeliness across the continuum of care in veterans with lung cancer.

INTRODUCTION: By providing timely care at all steps along the continuum of lung cancer care, providers may be able to limit disease progression before treatment and possibly improve clinical outcomes. This study examines the timeliness of key events in the process of care between initial radiograph and first treatment. METHODS: Dates of key events were extracted from the medical records of 2463 veterans receiving lung cancer care at 133 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities. After reviewing their site's abstraction results, facility leaders completed a survey on their perceptions of their local processes of lung cancer care. RESULTS: Median time from first radiography to first treatment was 71 days. The longest intermediate time interval examined was between first treatment referral and first treatment (median = 12 days). Time from first to last diagnostic test was most variable (interquartile range = 0-27 days). We found a significant trend indicating that the time interval from first radiograph to treatment was shorter for patients with more advanced disease. This effect was also significant within six of the seven intermediate time intervals we examined. Survey responses indicated that the chart review process stimulated improvement activity. CONCLUSIONS: Although patients with earlier stage disease benefit more from treatment, they do not proceed as quickly through the continuum of care as patients with more advanced disease. By measuring variability in timeliness of care at multiple steps in the lung cancer care process, facilities may identify opportunities for improvement.