Search

Objective: To examine how physical layouts and space in ambulatory oncology practices influence patient safety and clinician communication., Background: Ambulatory oncology practices face unique challenges in delivering safe care. With increasing patient volumes, these settings require additional attention to support patient safety and efficient clinical work processes., Methods: This study used a mixed methods design with sequential data collection. Eight ambulatory oncology practices (of 29 participating practices) participated in both the quantitative and qualitative phases. In surveys, clinicians ( n = 56) reported on safety organizing and communication satisfaction measures. Qualitative data included observations and semistructured interviews ( n = 46) with insight into how physical layout influenced care delivery. Quantitative analysis of survey data included descriptive and correlational statistics. Qualitative analysis used inductive and thematic content analysis. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated using side-by-side comparison tables for thematic analysis., Results: Safety organizing performance was positively correlated with clinician communication satisfaction, r (54 df ) = .414, p = .002. Qualitative analyses affirmed that the physical layout affected communication around chemotherapy infusion and ultimately patient safety. After data integration, safety organizing and clinician communication were represented by two themes: visibility of patients during infusion and the proximity of clinicians in the infusion center to clinicians in the clinic where providers see patients., Conclusions: Physical layouts of ambulatory oncology practices are an important factor to promote patient safety. Our findings inform efforts to construct new and modify existing infusion centers to enhance patient safety and clinician communication.

Optimizing the well-being of the oncology clinician has never been more important. Well-being is a critical priority for the cancer organization because burnout adversely impacts the quality of care, patient satisfaction, the workforce, and overall practice success. To date, 45% of U.S. ASCO member medical oncologists report experiencing burnout symptoms of emotional exhaustion and depersonalization. As the COVID-19 pandemic remains widespread with periods of outbreaks, recovery, and response with substantial personal and professional consequences for the clinician, it is imperative that the oncologist, team, and organization gain direct access to resources addressing burnout. In response, the Clinician Well-Being Task Force was created to improve the quality, safety, and value of cancer care by enhancing oncology clinician well-being and practice sustainability. Well-being is an integrative concept that characterizes quality of life and encompasses an individual's work- and personal health-related environmental, organizational, and psychosocial factors. These resources can be useful for the cancer organization to develop a well-being blueprint: a detailed start plan with recognized strategies and interventions targeting all oncology stakeholders to support a culture of community in oncology.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the factors influencing job satisfaction of nurses, physicians, and advanced practice providers in ambulatory oncology settings., Background: Job satisfaction is essential to clinician well-being and quality of care., Methods: In 2017, clinicians from 29 ambulatory medical oncology practices completed anonymous paper questionnaires that examined job satisfaction, clinician-to-clinician communication, and perceptions of patient safety. Linear regression, adjusted for clustered observations, examined the relationship between job satisfaction, clinician communication, and patient safety perceptions., Results: Of 280 respondents (response rate of 68%), 85% reported that they were satisfied or very satisfied with their current position. Patient safety and accuracy of clinician communication were positively and significantly associated with job satisfaction., Conclusions: Although most surveyed clinicians were satisfied, 15% were dissatisfied and reported communication and safety concerns. Leadership efforts to strengthen clinician communication actions and develop positive safety cultures are promising strategies to promote clinician well-being and high-quality cancer care., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To examine the feasibility of soliciting outcomes from adults who received chemotherapy treatment for cancer and describe the patterns and correlates of patient-reported toxicities., Data Sources: Patient survey data from 29 Michigan ambulatory oncology practices collected in 2017., Study Design: Secondary analysis of patient survey data. Descriptive statistics were generated at the patient and practice levels. Thematic analysis of open-text comments identified clusters of frequently reported toxicities., Data Collection Methods: Patients completed 11 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Using a 5-point Likert scale, patients rated the frequency of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain; the severity of nausea, vomiting, constipation, numbness/tingling, and pain; and how much numbness/tingling and pain interfered with usual or daily activities. Patients could also report two toxicities in open-text comments. Finally, patients reported unplanned health care service for toxicity or side effect management., Principal Findings: Of 3565 eligible patients, 2245 participated (63%) and 457 (20%) rated at least one toxicity as severe/very severe. Across practices, the proportion of patients who reported at least one severe/very severe toxicity ranged from 8% to 50%. Troubling toxicities included pain frequency (mean 2.3, SD 1.3), pain severity (2.1, 1.1), and diarrhea frequency (1.9, 1.0). From completed assessments, 1653 (74%) reported at least one toxicity in open-text comments; fatigue (n = 182), stomach discomfort (n = 53), and skin/nail changes (n = 41) were most frequently reported. Regarding consequences, 156 patients (7%) reported unplanned health care service use: 41 (26%) visited an emergency department and 32 (21%) were admitted to a hospital., Conclusions: Querying patients on chemotherapy treatment experiences and toxicities was feasible. Toxicity rates varied across practices, which informed quality improvement. Toxicity severity and service use incidence exceed previously published trial data, particularly for pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues. Open-text questions enabled exploration with newer treatment regimens., (© Health Research and Educational Trust.)

Purpose: We know little about how increased technological sophistication of clinical practices affects safety of chemotherapy delivery in the outpatient setting. This study investigated to what degree electronic health records (EHRs), satisfaction with technology, and quality of clinician-to-clinician communication enable a safety culture., Methods: We measured actions consistent with a safety culture, satisfaction with practice technology, and quality of clinician communication using validated instruments among 297 oncology nurses and prescribers in a statewide collaborative. We constructed an index to reflect practice reliance on EHRs (1 = "all paper" to 5 = "all electronic"). Linear regression models (with robust SEs to account for clustering) examined relationships between independent variables of interest and safety. Models were adjusted for clinician age., Results: The survey response rate was 68% (76% for nurses and 59% for prescribers). The mean (standard deviation) safety score was 5.3 (1.1), with a practice-level range of 4.9 to 5.4. Prescribers reported fewer safety actions than nurses. Higher satisfaction with technology and higher-quality clinician communication were significantly associated with increased safety actions, whereas increased reliance on EHRs was significantly associated with lower safety actions., Conclusion: Practices vary in their performance of patient safety actions. Supporting clinicians to integrate technology and strengthen communication are promising intervention targets. The inverse relationship between reliance on EHRs and safety suggests that technology may not facilitate clinicians' ability to attend to patient safety. Efforts to improve cancer care quality should focus on more seamless integration of EHRs into routine care delivery and emphasize increasing the capacity of all care clinicians to communicate effectively and coordinate efforts when administering high-risk treatments in ambulatory settings.

Background: There is growing concern about overtreatment of breast cancer as outcomes have improved over time. However, little is known about how chemotherapy use and oncologists' recommendations have changed in recent years., Methods: We surveyed 5080 women (70% response rate) diagnosed with breast cancer between 2013 and 2015 and accrued through two Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results registries (Georgia and Los Angeles) about chemotherapy receipt and their oncologists' chemotherapy recommendations. We surveyed 504 attending oncologists (60.3% response rate ) about chemotherapy recommendations in node-negative and node-positive case scenarios. We conducted descriptive statistics of chemotherapy use and patients' report of oncologists' recommendations and used a generalized linear mixed model of chemotherapy use according to time and clinical factors. All statistical tests were two-sided., Results: The analytic sample was 2926 patients with stage I-II, estrogen receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative breast cancer. From 2013 to 2015, keeping other factors constant, chemotherapy use was estimated to decline from 34.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.8% to 38.3%) to 21.3% (95% CI = 19.0% to 23.7%, P < .001). Estimated decline in chemotherapy use was from 26.6% (95% CI = 23.0% to 30.7%) to 14.1% (95% CI = 12.0% to 16.3%) for node-negative/micrometastasis patients and from 81.1% (95% CI = 76.6% to 85.0%) to 64.2% (95% CI = 58.6% to 69.6%) for node-positive patients. Use of the 21-gene recurrence score (RS) did not change among node-negative/micrometastasis patients, and increasing RS use in node-positive patients accounted for one-third of the chemotherapy decline. Patients' report of oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined from 44.9% (95% CI = 40.2% to 49.7%) to 31.6% (95% CI = 25.9% to 37.9%), controlling for other factors. Oncologists were much more likely to order RS if patient preferences were discordant with their recommendations (67.4%, 95% CI = 61.7% to 73.0%, vs 17.5%, 95% CI = 13.1% to 22.0%, concordant), and they adjusted recommendations based on patient preferences and RS results., Conclusions: For both node-negative/micrometastasis and node-positive patients, chemotherapy receipt and oncologists' recommendations for chemotherapy declined markedly over time, without substantial change in practice guidelines. Results of ongoing trials will be essential to confirm the quality of this approach to breast cancer care.

To describe which providers provide breast cancer survivorship care, we conducted a longitudinal survey of nonmetastatic breast cancer patients identified by the SEER registries of Los Angeles and Detroit. Multinomial logistic regression examined the adjusted odds of surgeon compared with a medical oncologist follow-up or primary care provider compared with medical oncologist follow-up, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, insurance, tumor stage, receipt of chemotherapy, endocrine therapy use, and visit to a medical oncologist at the time of diagnosis. Results were weighted to account for sample selection and nonresponse. 844 women had invasive disease and received chemotherapy or endocrine therapy. 65.2 % reported medical oncologists as their main care provider at 4 years, followed by PCP/other physicians (24.3 %) and surgeons (10.5 %). Black women were more likely to receive their follow-up care from surgeons (OR 2.47, 95 % CI 1.16-5.27) or PCP/other physicians (OR 2.62, 95 % CI 1.47-4.65) than medical oncologists. Latinas were more likely to report PCP/other physician follow-up than medical oncologists (OR 2.33, 95 % CI 1.15-4.73). Compared with privately insured women, Medicaid recipients were more likely to report PCP/other physician follow-up (OR 2.52, 95 % CI 1.24-5.15). Women taking endocrine therapy 4 years after diagnosis were less likely to report surgeons or PCP/other physicians as their primary provider of breast cancer follow-up care. Different survivorship care patterns emerge on race/ethnicity and insurance status. Interventions are needed to inform patients and providers on the recommended sources of breast cancer follow-up.