Search

Background: National performance measurement programs used to improve quality and/or accountability are prevalent. Professional society-based programs largely assess practice or provider performance. We tested the limitations of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), a well-established program., Methods: We investigated the potential limitations of the QOPI limited sampling strategy and end-of-life (EOL) metrics through a retrospective review of all decedents meeting the QOPI eligibility criteria at a large three-site community oncology practice. Relative precision for each EOL metric was measured and simulated scenarios modeled via log-normal distributions were compared., Results: A total of 246 deaths were identified; only 14% of decedents were included in the QOPI limited sample. Important differences in relative precision between samples were evident. Chemotherapy administered at the EOL was 2.8 times greater among the full cohort compared to the sample., Conclusion: The limited sampling strategy demonstrated the lack of precision explained by sampling variability confounded in smaller sample sizes. Our analyses demonstrated that practices reporting the same metric may stem from very different underlying distributions, which limits the ability to understand complex practice patterns and improve care. These findings may be of significance to other performance measurement programs that utilize similar testing strategies.

Purpose: Studies have demonstrated that structured training programs can improve health professionals' skills in performing clinical care or research. We sought to develop and test a novel quality training program (QTP) tailored to oncology clinicians., Methods: The American Society of Clinical Oncology QTP consisted of three in-person learning sessions and four phases: prework, planning, implementation, and sustain and spread. We measured two primary outcomes: program feasibility and effectiveness. Feasibility was evaluated by recording participation. Effectiveness was measured using the Kirkpatrick model, which evaluates four outcomes: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. We collected qualitative feedback through a focus group of participants and mixed quantitative–qualitative results from a 6-month follow-up evaluation survey. Results are presented using descriptive statistics., Results: We received feedback from of 80% of participants who took part in 92% of in-person program days. QTP deliverables were completed by 100% of teams; none withdrew from the program. Regarding reaction, 100% of respondents expressed interest in actively contributing to future QTP courses. For learning, most teams continued to use the core methodology tools (eg, project charter, aims statements) after the program. Regarding behavior, when asked about intention to serve as a local quality improvement leader, a majority said they “definitely will” serve as: team leader on a specific project (75%), project champion or sponsor (75%), or teacher or trainer for others (64%). In evaluating outcomes, 50% reported applying learned methodology to new projects at their local institution., Conclusion: We demonstrate one of the first feasible and effective training programs to facilitate quality improvement learning for oncology clinicians., (Copyright © 2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: Routine prophylactic pegylated granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (pGCSF) administration for patients receiving chemotherapy regimens associated with low risk (< 10%) for neutropenic fever (LRNF) is not recommended. Inappropriate use of pGCSF increases patient morbidity and health care costs., Methods: A multidisciplinary team reviewed the charts of patients with non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) at the Taussig Cancer Institute in whom a new chemotherapy regimen was initiated from April through November 2013. pGCSF use was identified and deemed appropriate if prescribed for chemotherapy associated with high risk of neutropenic fever (> 20%) or intermediate risk (10% to 20%) if other risk factors for neutropenic fever were present. Use with LRNF chemotherapy was recorded as inappropriate., Results: One hundred eighty patients with NSCLC received a new chemotherapy regimen during the specified time period. Thirty-four of 119 patients (28%) treated with LRNF chemotherapy received pGCSF. Each patient received an average of 2.6 doses of pGCSF (total, 89 doses). We implemented three plan-do-study-act cycles: education of providers, development of Taussig Cancer Institute consensus guidelines for pGCSF in NSCLC, and removal of standing pGCSF orders from LRNF chemotherapy in the electronic medical record. Analysis during the change period revealed 4% of patients with NSCLC treated with LRNF chemotherapy received pGCSF. Cost analysis showed an 84% decrease in billed charges per month. No increase in neutropenic fever admissions was found., Conclusion: pGCSF was excessively prescribed for patients with NSCLC. Factors contributing to inappropriate use included provider lack of familiarity with guidelines and knowledge with regard to the risk of neutropenic fever for individual chemotherapy regimens, and electronic medical record chemotherapy templates that contain standing GCSF orders. Interventions to address these gaps quickly produced improved compliance with guidelines and led to significant cost savings., (Copyright © 2016 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.)

Purpose: To identify and characterize potentially avoidable hospitalizations in patients with GI malignancies., Patients and Methods: We compiled a retrospective series of sequential hospital admissions in patients with GI cancer. Patients were admitted to an inpatient medical oncology or palliative care service between December 2011 and July 2012. Practicing oncology clinicians used a consensus-driven medical record review process to categorize each hospitalization as "potentially avoidable" or "not avoidable." Patient demographic and clinical data were abstracted, and quantitative and qualitative analyses were performed to identify patient characteristics and outcomes associated with potentially avoidable hospitalizations., Results: We evaluated 201 hospitalizations in 154 unique patients. The median age was 62 years, and colorectal cancer was the most common diagnosis (32%). The majority of hospitalized patients had metastatic cancer (81%). In all, 53% of hospitalizations were attributable to cancer symptoms, and 28% were attributable to complications of cancer treatment. Medical oncologists identified 39 hospitalizations (19%) as potentially avoidable. Hospitalizations were more likely to be categorized as potentially avoidable for patients with the following characteristics: age ≥ 70 years (odds ratio [OR], 2.63; 95% CI, 1.15 to 6.02), receipt of an oncologist's advice to consider hospice (OR, 6.09; 95% CI, 2.54 to 14.58), or receipt of three or more lines of chemotherapy (OR, 2.68; 95% CI, 1.01 to 7.08). Ninety-day mortality was higher after avoidable hospitalizations compared with hospitalizations that were not avoidable (OR, 6.4; 95% CI, 1.8 to 22.3)., Conclusion: Potentially avoidable hospitalizations are common in patients with advanced GI cancer. The majority of potentially avoidable hospitalizations occurred in patients with advanced treatment-refractory cancers near the end of life.

Recognizing that each nurse approaches patient education differently, a team of nurses at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute satellite facilities employed quality improvement strategies to develop a standardized approach to patient education. The goal was to eliminate variation in teaching and improve patient satisfaction scores.