Search

Context can influence cancer-related outcomes. For example, health-care organization characteristics, including ownership, leadership, and culture, can affect care access, communication, and patient outcomes. Health-care organization characteristics and other contextual factors can also influence whether and how clinical discoveries reduce cancer incidence, morbidity, and mortality. Importantly, policy, market, and technology changes are transforming health-care organization design, culture, and operations across the cancer continuum. Consequently, research is essential to examine when, for whom, and how organizational characteristics influence person-level, organization-level, and population-level cancer outcomes. Understanding organizational characteristics—the structures, processes, and other features of entities involved in health care delivery—and their dynamics is an important yet understudied area of care delivery research across the cancer continuum. Research incorporating organizational characteristics is critical to address health inequities, test care delivery models, adapt interventions, and strengthen implementation. The field lacks conceptual grounding, however, to help researchers identify germane organizational characteristics. We propose a framework identifying organizational characteristics relevant for cancer care delivery research based on conceptual work in health services, organizational behavior, and management science and refined using a systematic review and key informant input. The proposed framework is a tool for organizing existing research and enhancing future cancer care delivery research. Following a 2012 Journal of the National Cancer Institute monograph, this work complements National Cancer Institute efforts to stimulate research addressing the relationship between cancer outcomes and contextual factors at the patient, provider, team, delivery organization, community, and health policy levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors reflect on updates in the adoption of team-based cancer care in the U.S. as promoted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). Also cited are how incentives from the Affordable Care Act promoted the adoption of care coordination and teamwork in oncology, and the need to integrate the teaming principles into care delivery to further improve care.

Objective: To assess changes in the prevalence of multidisciplinary cancer consultations (MDCc) over the last decade and examine patient, surgeon, hospital, and neighborhood factors associated with receipt of MDCc among individuals diagnosed with cancer. Data Source: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data from 2006 to 2016. Study Design: We used time‐series analysis to assess change in MDCc prevalence from 2007 to 2015. We also conducted multilevel logistic regression with random surgeon‐ and hospital‐level effects to assess associations between patient, surgeon, neighborhood, and health care organization‐level factors and receipt of MDCc during the cancer treatment planning phase, defined as the 2 months following cancer diagnosis. Data Collection/Extraction Methods: We identified Medicare beneficiaries >65 years of age with surgically resected breast, colorectal (CRC), or non‐small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I–III (n = 103,250). Principal Findings: From 2007 to 2015, the prevalence of MDCc increased from 35.0% to 61.2%. Overall, MDCc was most common among patients with breast cancer compared to CRC and NSCLC. Cancer patients who were Black, had comorbidities, had dual Medicare‐Medicaid coverage, were residing in rural areas or in areas with higher Black and Hispanic neighborhood composition were significantly less likely to have received MDCc. Patients receiving surgery at disproportionate payment‐sharing or rural‐designated hospitals had 2% (95% CI: −3.55, 0.58) and 17.6% (95% CI: −21.45, 13.70), respectively, less probability of receiving MDCc. Surgeon‐ and hospital‐level effects accounted for 15% of the variance in receipt of MDCc. Conclusions: The practice of MDCc has increased over the last decade, but significant geographical and health care organizational barriers continue to impede equitable access to and delivery of quality care across cancer patient populations. Multilevel and multicomponent interventions that target care coordination, health system, and policy changes may enhance equitable access to and receipt of MDCc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous teamwork competency frameworks are designed for co-located, procedure-driven teams delivering care in acute settings. Little is known about their applicability or evaluation among larger teams-of-teams, known as multiteam systems (MTS), involved in delivering care for complex chronic conditions like cancer. In this review we aimed to identify studies examining teamwork competencies or teamwork competency frameworks developed or tested in healthcare teams, identify the extent to which they have been applied or evaluated in cancer care, and understand their applicability to larger MTSs involved in coordinating cancer care. We identified 107 relevant original articles, consensus statements, and prior systematic reviews published from 2013–2019. Most original papers (n = 96) were intervention studies of inpatient acute care teams (52, 54%). Fifty-eight articles (60%) used existing frameworks to define competency domains. Four original articles and two consensus statements addressed teamwork competencies for cancer care. Few frameworks or interprofessional education (IPE) curricula specifically addressed teamwork among larger, distributed teams or examined competencies necessary to overcome care coordination challenges in cancer care MTSs. Research guiding the development of frameworks and IPE that consider challenges to effective coordination among larger MTSs and studies of their impact on patient and clinical outcomes is essential to optimal, high-quality care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Care coordination challenges for patients with cancer continue to grow as expanding treatment options, multimodality treatment regimens, and an aging population with comorbid conditions intensify demands for multidisciplinary cancer care. Effective teamwork is a critical yet understudied cornerstone of coordinated cancer care delivery. For example, comprehensive lung cancer care involves a clinical "team of teams"-or clinical multiteam system (MTS)-coordinating decisions and care across specialties, providers, and settings. The teamwork processes within and between these teams lay the foundation for coordinated care. Although the need to work as a team and coordinate across disciplinary, organizational, and geographic boundaries increases, evidence identifying and improving the teamwork processes underlying care coordination and delivery among the multiple teams involved remains sparse. This commentary synthesizes MTS structure characteristics and teamwork processes into a conceptual framework called the cancer MTS framework to advance future cancer care delivery research addressing evidence gaps in care coordination. Included constructs were identified from published frameworks, discussions at the 2016 National Cancer Institute-American Society of Clinical Oncology Teams in Cancer Care Workshop, and expert input. A case example in lung cancer provided practical grounding for framework refinement. The cancer MTS framework identifies team structure variables and teamwork processes affecting cancer care delivery, related outcomes, and contextual variables hypothesized to influence coordination within and between the multiple clinical teams involved. We discuss how the framework might be used to identify care delivery research gaps, develop hypothesis-driven research examining clinical team functioning, and support conceptual coherence across studies examining teamwork and care coordination and their impact on cancer outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Efforts to improve quality of care and patient safety have concentrated on provider practice and frontline care processes. Little attention has focused on understanding the role that leadership decisions play in creating risk within a health care system. The framework and tool described in this article builds on Reason's construct of latent organizational failure, by assessing the latent risks of leadership decisions, and identifying appropriate mitigation strategies before the implementation of a change. Stakeholders who will be involved in or impacted by the change are engaged in the assessment to more thoroughly explore both technical and cultural risks. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Patients are safer and receive higher quality care when providers work as a highly effective team. Investment in optimising healthcare teamwork has swelled in the last 10 years. Consequently, evidence regarding the effectiveness for these interventions has also grown rapidly. We provide an updated review concerning the current state of team-training science and practice in acute care settings. Methods A PubMed search for review articles examining team-training interventions in acute care settings published between 2000 and 2012 was conducted. Following identification of relevant reviews with searches terminating in 2008 and 2010, PubMed and PSNet were searched for additional primary studies published in 2011 and 2012. Primary outcomes included patient outcomes and quality indices. Secondary outcomes included teamwork behaviours, knowledge and attitudes. Results Both simulation and classroom-based team-training interventions can improve teamwork processes (eg, communication, coordination and cooperation), and implementation has been associated with improvements in patient safety outcomes. Thirteen studies published between 2011 and 2012 reported statistically significant changes in teamwork behaviours, processes or emergent states and 10 reported significant improvement in clinical care processes or patient outcomes, including mortality and morbidity. Effects were reported across a range of clinical contexts. Larger effect sizes were reported for bundled team-training interventions that included tools and organisational changes to support sustainment and transfer of teamwork competencies into daily practice. Conclusions Overall, moderate-to-high-quality evidence suggests team-training can positively impact healthcare team processes and patient outcomes. Additionally, toolkits are available to support intervention development and implementation. Evidence suggests bundled team-training interventions and implementation strategies that embed effective teamwork as a foundation for other improvement efforts may offer greatest impact on patient outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teamwork training constitutes one of the core approaches for moving healthcare systems toward increased levels of quality and safety, and simulation provides a powerful method of delivering this training, especially for face-paced and dynamic specialty areas such as Emergency Medicine. Team performance measurement and evaluation plays an integral role in ensuring that simulation-based training for teams (SBTT) is systematic and effective. However, this component of SBTT systems is overlooked frequently. This article addresses this gap by providing a review and practical introduction to the process of developing and implementing evaluation systems in SBTT. First, an overview of team performance evaluation is provided. Second, best practices for measuring team performance in simulation are reviewed. Third, some of the prominent measurement tools in the literature are summarized and discussed relative to the best practices. Subsequently, implications of the review are discussed for the practice of training teamwork in Emergency Medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Teamwork is integral to a working environment conducive to patient safety and care. Team training is one methodology designed to equip team members with the competencies necessary for optimizing teamwork. There is evidence of team training’s effectiveness in highly complex and dynamic work environments, such as aviation and health care. However, most quantitative evaluations of training do not offer any insight into the actual reasons why, how, and when team training is effective. To address this gap in understanding, and to provide guidance for members of the health care community interested in implementing team training programs, this article presents both quantitative results and a specific qualitative review and content analysis of team training implemented in health care. Based on this review, we offer eight evidence-based principles for effective planning, implementation, and evaluation of team training programs specific to health care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]