Search

PURPOSE:To improve care coordination for complex cancers, it is critical to establish a more nuanced understanding of the types of providers involved. As the number of provider types increases, strategies to support cancer care coordination must adapt to a greater variety of information needs, communication styles, and treatment strategies. METHODS:We categorized providers into 11 types, using National Provider Identifier specialties. Using Medicare claims, we counted the number of unique combinations of provider types billed during preoperative, operative, and postdischarge care for colon cancer surgery and assessed how this count varies across hospitals. The study included 70,567 beneficiaries in fee-for-service Medicare A and B for 6 months before and 60 days after an admission for colectomy for colon cancer between 2008 and 2011. RESULTS:We observed 1,554 preoperative provider-type combinations, 975 operative combinations, and 1,571 postdischarge combinations. The three most common combinations in the preoperative phase were general medicine only, other medical specialists only, and general medicine and other medical specialists. In the operative phase, the three most common combinations were primary surgery, anesthesiology, and pathology; general medicine, other medical specialists, radiology, primary surgery, anesthesiology, and pathology; and other medical specialists, radiology, primary surgery, anesthesiology, and pathology. In the postdischarge phase, the three most common combinations were general medicine, general medicine and other medical specialists, and general medicine and oncology. On average, each hospital had 15 preoperative, 11 operative, and 15 postoperative combinations. High-volume, larger, teaching, urban, and noncritical access hospitals had more combinations in all phases. CONCLUSION:Many provider-type combinations are involved in colon cancer surgery care. Substantial variation exists across hospitals types, suggesting that certain hospitals need additional resources and more flexible infrastructure to coordinate care.

OBJECTIVES: To understand hospitals' approaches to spending reduction in commercial episode-based payment programs and inform incentive design. STUDY DESIGN: Qualitative arm of an explanatory sequential mixed-methods study involving semistructured interviews with hospital leaders participating in a statewide quality improvement collaborative with novel episode-based incentive payments introduced by the state's largest commercial payer. METHODS: We recruited 21 leaders from 8 purposively selected, diverse hospitals with both high and low performance. Video teleconference--based interviews followed a standardized protocol and addressed 4 domains: choice of clinical condition for evaluation, strategies for episode spending reduction, best practices for success in earning incentives, and barriers to achievement. Rapid qualitative analysis with purposeful data reduction was employed to generate a matrix of key themes within the study domains. RESULTS: Strategies were similar between high- and low-performing hospitals. When selecting conditions, some hospitals focused on areas of underperformance, aiming for improvement opportunities, whereas others chose conditions already achieving highest efficiency. Many tried to synergize with other ongoing improvement initiatives and clinical areas with established leaders and champions. Key strategies included data-driven improvement, care standardization, and protocol dissemination. Best practices for success included readmission prevention and postacute care spending containment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlighted hospitals' most common strategies and approaches, providing several insights into optimal design of commercial episode-based incentives: They must be lucrative enough to earn attention or consistent with larger federal programs; hospitals need opportunities to succeed through both improved performance and sustained excellence; and programs may incur malalignment between hospitals and credentialed physicians. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Cefazolin is the leading antibiotic used to prevent surgical site infections worldwide. Consensus guidelines recommend adjustment of the cefazolin dose above and below 120 kg without regard to body composition. Algorithms exist to repurpose radiologic data into body composition (morphomics) and inform dosing decisions in obesity. Objectives: To compare the current standard of body weight to morphomic measurements as covariates of cefazolin pharmacokinetics and aid dose stratification of cefazolin in patients with obesity undergoing colorectal surgery. Methods: This prospective study measured cefazolin plasma, fat, and colon tissue concentrations in colorectal surgery patients in order to develop a morphomics‐informed population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model to guide dose adjustments. A physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was also constructed to inform tissue partitioning in morbidly obese patients (n = 21, body mass index ≥35 kg/m2 with one or more co‐morbid conditions). Results: Morphomics and pharmacokinetic data were available in 58 patients with a median [min, max] weight and age of 95.9 [68.5, 148.8] kg and 55 [25, 79] years, respectively. The plasma‐to‐subcutaneous fat partition coefficient was predicted to be 0.072 and 0.060 by the PopPK and PBPK models, respectively. The estimated creatinine clearance (eCLcr) and body depth at the third lumbar vertebra (body depth_L3) were identified as covariates of cefazolin exposure. The probability of maintaining subcutaneous fat concentrations above 2 μg/mL for 100% of a 4‐h surgical period was below 90% when eCLcr ≥105 mL/min and body depth_L3 ≥ 300 mm and less sensitive to the rate of infusion between 5 and 60 min. Conclusions: Kidney function and morphomics were more informative than body weight as covariates of cefazolin target site exposure. Data from more diverse populations, consensus on target cefazolin exposure, and comparative studies are needed before a change in practice can be implemented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]