Search

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.Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data from 2006 to 2016.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.We identified Medicare beneficiaries65 years of age with surgically resected breast, colorectal (CRC), or non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) stages I-III (n = 103,250).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.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.

Coordination of quality care for the growing population of cancer survivors with comorbidities remains poorly understood, especially among health disparity populations who are more likely to have comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis. This systematic review synthesized the literature from 2000 to 2022 on team-based care for cancer survivors with comorbidities and assessed team-based care conceptualization, teamwork processes, and outcomes. Six databases were searched for original articles on adults with cancer and comorbidity, which defined care team composition and comparison group, and assessed clinical or teamwork processes or outcomes. We identified 1,821 articles of which 13 met the inclusion criteria. Most studies occurred during active cancer treatment and nine focused on depression management. Four studies focused on Hispanic or Black cancer survivors and one recruited rural residents. The conceptualization of team-based care varied across articles. Teamwork processes were not explicitly measured, but teamwork concepts such as communication and mental models were mentioned. Despite team-based care being a cornerstone of quality cancer care, studies that simultaneously assessed care delivery and outcomes for cancer and comorbidities were largely absent. Improving care coordination will be key to addressing disparities and promoting health equity for cancer survivors with comorbidities.

PURPOSE: Sixty percent of adults have multiple chronic conditions at cancer diagnosis. These patients may require a multidisciplinary clinical team-of-teams, or a multiteam system (MTS), of high-complexity involving multiple specialists and primary care, who, ideally, coordinate clinical responsibilities, share information, and align clinical decisions to ensure comprehensive care needs are managed. However, insights examining MTS composition and complexity among individuals with cancer and comorbidities at diagnosis using US population-level data are limited. METHODS: Using SEER-Medicare data (2006-2016), we identified newly diagnosed patients with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer who had a codiagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease and/or diabetes (n = 75,201). Zaccaro's theory-based classification of MTSs was used to categorize clinical MTS complexity in the 4 months following cancer diagnosis: high-complexity (≥ 4 clinicians from ≥ 2 specialties) and low-complexity (1-3 clinicians from 1-2 specialties). We describe the proportions of patients with different MTS compositions and quantify the incidence of high-complexity MTS care by patient groups. RESULTS: The most common MTS composition was oncology with primary care (37%). Half (50.3%) received high-complexity MTS care. The incidence of high-complexity MTS care for non-Hispanic Black and Hispanic patients with cancer was 6.7% (95% CI, −8.0 to −5.3) and 4.7% (95% CI, −6.3 to −3.0) lower than non-Hispanic White patients with cancer; 13.1% (95% CI, −14.1 to −12.2) lower for rural residents compared with urban; 10.4% (95% CI, −11.2 to −9.5) lower for dual Medicaid-Medicare beneficiaries compared with Medicare-only; and 16.6% (95% CI, −17.5 to −15.8) lower for colorectal compared with breast cancer. CONCLUSION: Incidence differences of high-complexity MTS care were observed among cancer patients with multiple chronic conditions from underserved populations. The results highlight the need to further understand the effects of and mechanisms through which care team composition, complexity, and functioning affect care quality and outcomes.

178 Background: Care coordination represents deliberate efforts to harmonize and organize patient care activities. This study examined sociodemographic and clinical predictors of patient-reported care coordination among Medicare beneficiaries older than 65 with a history of cancer. Methods: This study utilized the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results-Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (SEER-CAHPS) linked data, including SEER cancer registry data, Medicare CAHPS patient experience surveys, and Medicare claims. We identified Medicare beneficiaries who completed a CAHPS survey within ten years after their most recent cancer diagnosis and reported visiting a personal doctor within six months before their survey (n = 14,646). Multivariable regression models examined associations between cancer survivor characteristics and care coordination, with higher scores indicating better coordination (scale of 0-100). Results: Residing in a rural area at time of diagnosis (1.2-points greater score than urban; p= 0.04) and reporting > 4 visits with a personal doctor within 6 months (3.0-points greater than 1-2 visits; p< 0.001) were significantly associated with higher care coordination scores. Older age ( p< 0.001) and seeing more specialists ( p= 0.006) were associated with significantly lower care coordination scores. Patients with melanoma (women: 5.2-point difference, p< 0.001; men: 2.8 points, p= 0.01) and breast cancer (women: 2.4 points; p< 0.001) also reported significantly lower care coordination scores than did men with prostate cancer (reference group). Conclusions: Adult cancer survivors who are older, have a history of breast, lung, or melanoma cancers, or see more specialists report worse care coordination. Future research should explore and address the multilevel influences that lead to worse care coordination for older adult cancer survivors.

Cancer health care disparities are complex, involve patient, clinician and health care system factors, and are defined as adverse differences in cancer outcomes. This analysis describes NCI's Healthcare Delivery Research Program's (HDRP) portfolio of disparities-focused research and identifies future research opportunities. Grants through HDRP (fiscal years 2012 to 2016) focused on detecting, understanding, and/or intervening on disparities in or among health disparity populations were reviewed by co-authors. Forty-eight funded grants were identified, coded, and characterized. Descriptive analyses are reported. Most studies focused on racial/ethnic minorities and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups. Colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers were most frequently examined. Almost 40% of studies addressed the intervening phase of the disparities research continuum. Few studies focused on clinician-level factors or involved the community in the research design. A sustained disparities research emphasis is essential to addressing the determinants of and cancer burden among health disparity populations across the cancer care continuum.

PURPOSE: Identifying nontechnical, teamwork competencies (knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying coordination within and across the network of teams—or multiteam system (MTS) involved in cancer care is foundational to optimizing high-quality cancer care. METHODS: A multidisciplinary group of cancer care stakeholders refined an initial list of competency statements during three rounds of a web-based modified Delphi survey. RESULTS: Panelists reached consensus on a final list of four domains and 20 associated team-based competencies important for effective coordination in cancer care MTS. CONCLUSION: This study provides an initial foundation for testing, modifying, measuring and evaluating the impact of identified competencies on care coordination, outcomes, and costs, for people being screened, treated, or surviving cancer.

Objective: To examine perceptions of facilitators and barriers to quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs and differences by professional and leadership roles. Methods: We surveyed team members in diverse US and Canadian palliative care programs using a validated survey addressing teamwork and communication and constructs for educational support and training, leadership, infrastructure, and prioritization for quality measurement and improvement. We defined key facilitators as constructs rated ≥4 (agree) and key barriers as those ≤3 (disagree) on 1 to 5 scales. We conducted multivariable linear regressions for associations between key facilitators and barriers and (1) professional and (2) leadership roles, controlling for key program and respondent factors and clustering by program. Results: We surveyed 103 respondents in 11 programs; 45.6% were physicians and 50% had leadership roles. Key facilitators across sites included teamwork, communication, the implementation climate (or environment), and program focus on quality improvement. Key barriers included educational support and incentives, particularly for quality measurement, and quality improvement infrastructure such as strategies, systems, and skilled staff. In multivariable analyses, perceptions did not differ by leadership role, but physicians and nurse practitioners/nurses/physician assistants rated most constructs statistically significantly more negatively than other team members, especially for quality improvement (6 of the 7 key constructs). Conclusions: Although participants rated quality improvement focus and environment highly, key barriers included lack of infrastructure, especially for quality measurement. Building on these facilitators and measuring and addressing these barriers might help programs enhance palliative care quality initiatives’ acceptability, particularly for physicians and nurses.

Organizational characteristics, including organizational structures and processes, are important to understanding care delivery and health outcomes. However, organizational-level constructs present measurement challenges in care delivery research. This analysis aims to understand if, when, and how organizational characteristics are examined in a National Cancer Institute (NCI) research network conducting cancer care delivery research (CCDR). The NCI Community Oncology Research Program encourages consideration of organizational variables in CCDR studies. We conducted a cross-sectional thematic analysis to identify organizational characteristics examined in this portfolio of research. Organizational characteristics targeted, related measures, and analytic approach were abstracted by 2 study investigators using a coding framework adapted from 2 existing frameworks. A total of 78.9% of eligible study protocols included organizational characteristics. Structural characteristics were the most common, collected in all 15 included protocols, 14 examined at least 1 organizational process, and 12 examined organizational-level outcomes. Most studies proposed descriptive practice-level analyses or multilevel analyses using random effects to account for clustering of patients and staff within practices. Few (n = 5) specified that organizational variables would be modeled as effects of interest (vs covaried out) or proposed analytic approaches that could more robustly examine effects of targeted organizational characteristics on primary outcomes. Inclusion of organizational variables is common in CCDR conducted through the NCI Community Oncology Research Program, NCI’s national network charged with bringing cancer clinical trials to people in their communities. Nonetheless, opportunities remain to improve the use of theory to guide organizational construct selection, operationalization, measurement, and incorporation into study hypotheses and analyses.

Background To prevent patient harm, health care organizations are adopting practices from other complex work environments known as high-reliability organizations (HRO). Purpose The purpose was to explore differences in manifestations of HRO principles on hospital units with high and low safety performance. Methods Focus groups were conducted on units scoring high or low on safety measures. Themes were identified using a grounded theory approach, and responses were compared using qualitative thematic analysis. Results High performers indicated proactive responses to safety issues and expressed understanding of systems-based errors, while low performers were more reactive and often focused on individual education to address issues. Both groups experienced communication challenges, although they employed different methods of speaking up. Conclusion Some HRO principles were present in the language used by our participants. High performers exhibited greater manifestations of HRO, although HRO alone was insufficient to describe our results. Mindful organizing, which expands on HRO, was a better fit.

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.

Background Cancer Centers have a responsibility to help patients manage the costs of their cancer treatment. This article describes the availability of financial navigation services within the National Cancer Institute (NCI)-Designated Cancer Centers. Methods Data were obtained from the NCI Survey of Financial Navigation Services and Research, an online survey administered to NCI-Designated Cancer Centers from July to September 2019. Of the 62 eligible Centers, 57 completed all or most of the survey, for a response rate of 90.5%. Results Nearly all Cancer Centers reported providing help with applications for pharmaceutical assistance programs and medical discounts (96.5%), health insurance coverage (91.2%), assistance with non-medical costs (96.5%), and help understanding medical bills and out-of-pocket costs (85.9%). Although other services were common, in some cases they were only available to certain patients. These services included direct financial assistance with medical and non-medical costs and referrals to outside organizations for financial assistance. The least common services included medical debt management (63.2%), detailed discussions about the cost of treatment (54.4%), and guidance about legal protections (50.1%). Providing treatment cost transparency to patients was reported as a common challenge: 71.9% of Centers agreed or strongly agreed that it is difficult to determine how much a cancer patient’s treatment will cost and 70.2% of oncologists are reluctant to discuss financial issues with patients. Conclusions Cancer Centers provide many financial services and resources. However, there remains a need to build additional capacity to deliver comprehensive financial navigation services and to understand the extent to which patients are referred and helped by these services.

Cancer mortality rates are approximately 8% higher in rural populations and mortality rates are falling more slowly in rural communities, resulting in widening rural-urban health disparities in the United States. The NCI has a long history of supporting health disparities research, including research to understand the health needs, strengths, and opportunities in rural communities. However, the portfolio analysis described in this article underscores the need to significantly accelerate rural cancer control research in partnership with state and local communities. This commentary outlines NCI's efforts over the last four years to address gaps in rural cancer control research and improve cancer prevention, control, and care delivery in rural populations. Future directions, challenges, and opportunities are also discussed.

This study explored similarities and differences in the views on team membership and leadership held by nurses in formal unit leadership positions and direct care nurses. We used a mixed-methods approach and a maximum variance sampling strategy, sampling from units with both high and low safety behaviors and safety culture scores. We identified several key differences in mental models of care team membership and leadership between formal leaders and direct care nurses that warrant further exploration.

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.

Purpose: Newly diagnosed cancer patients with multi-morbidities require a clinical care team of higher complexity due to greater care coordination demands to simultaneously coordinate cancer care and chronic disease management. Whereas teams of lower complexity may streamline care needs by using one clinician or discipline type to manage all care needs. However, this requires clinicians to understand that they are assuming other clinical roles and responsibilities or else care needs go unmanaged leading to poor health outcomes. Given that chronic disease management drops off following the cancer diagnosis, we examined whether cancer patients identifying as non-Hispanic Black, with dual Medicaid coverage, more chronic diseases, and later cancer stage were more likely to have a clinical care team of higher complexity in the 4-months post cancer diagnosis. Methods: Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare data were used to identify patients with invasive breast, colorectal, or non-small cell lung cancer with a co-diagnosis of cardiopulmonary disease or diabetes (n=85,876). The data were linked with American Medical Association files to identify clinician's discipline (e.g., oncology, primary care, cardiology) from encounter claims. Using Zaccaro's classification of multi-team systems, we categorized the degree of complexity of the clinical care team: lower (1-2 disciplines and 1-3 clinicians) versus higher (2+ disciplines and 4+ clinicians). We used multivariable logistic regression to examine patient factors associated with having a clinical care team of higher complexity (compared with lower). Results: Among older cancer patients with multi-morbidities, the most common clinical care team composition was oncology with primary care (37%) followed by oncology, primary care, and medical subspecialty (34%). In the adjusted model, cancer patients were less likely to have a clinical care team of higher complexity if they were non-Hispanic Black compared to non-Hispanic White (OR: 0.88; 95% CI: 0.83, 0.93), dual Medicaid-Medicare covered compared with Medicare only (OR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.61, 0.65), and diagnosed with stage III cancer compared to stage I (OR: 0.87; 95% CI: 0.84, 0.90). Cancer patients were more likely to have a clinical care team of higher complexity if they had cardiopulmonary disease (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.68, 1.81) or diabetes (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.63,1.75) compared with hypertension only. Conclusion: Clinical care teams of lower complexity were associated with identifying as Black, Medicaid coverage, and later stage, which are known factors associated with poorer care outcomes. This warrants further investigation to examine whether clinicians are assuming other clinicians' roles and responsibilities for patient care or if cancer care is taking precedence over other chronic diseases. Future research to address cancer care disparities need to focus on clinical care teams and the healthcare organizational context that provide and optimize care coordination for newly diagnosed cancer patients with multi-morbidities. Citation Format: Michelle Doose, Dana Verhoeven, Janeth I. Sanchez, Veronica Chollette, Sallie J. Weaver. Care coordination for older cancer patients with multi-morbidities: Implications for addressing cancer health disparities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-072.

Purpose: Black women newly diagnosed with breast cancer and who have multiple comorbidities at the time of cancer diagnosis require greater care coordination to simultaneously manage cancer care and other chronic conditions. Care coordination may be complicated when multiple clinicians from diverse disciplines are involved in managing care and are located in different health systems, defined as care fragmentation. Given that Black women are disproportionately burdened by comorbidities and breast cancer, we examined the degree of care fragmentation and care coordination experienced by this group from a health system and care team perspective using two population-based cohorts. Methods: We analyzed data from two separate cohorts of Black women diagnosed with breast cancer who had diabetes and/or cardiovascular disease. In the first study we used the Women's Circle of Health Follow-Up Study (n=228) to examine types of practice setting for first primary care visit and primary breast surgery, and, through medical chart abstraction, identified whether care visit was within or outside the same health system. In a separate study, we identified women from the SEER-Medicare database (n=3,420) diagnosed with breast cancer and used encounter claims to examine the complexity and composition of the clinical care team. Results: Care fragmentation was experienced by 79% of Black women in the Women's Circle of Health Follow-Up Study, and individual-level factors (age, health insurance, cancer stage, and comorbidity count) were not associated with care fragmentation (p>.05). In the SEER-Medicare cohort, the most common clinical care team composition was oncology with primary care (45%) followed by oncology, primary care, and medical subspecialty (26%). In the adjusted model, Black women were more likely to have a clinical care team of higher complexity if they had cardiopulmonary disease (OR: 1.74; 95% CI: 1.68, 1.81) or diabetes (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.63,1.75) compared with hypertension only. Women were also less likely to have a complex care team if they were dual Medicaid-Medicare covered (OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.48, 0.65) compared with Medicare only, rural residents (OR: 0.54; 95% CI: 0.42, 0.65) compared with urban, or diagnosed with stage III cancer (OR: 0.59; 95% CI: 0.47, 0.75) compared with stage I. Conclusion: The majority of Black breast cancer survivors with comorbidities see multiple clinicians from diverse disciplines and in different health systems, illustrating high care coordination demands and care fragmentation. However, the impact of the health system and care team on care outcomes still need to be assessed, and this includes care transitions into survivorship. To address cancer care disparities experienced by Black women, future research should consider examining clinician's perspectives regarding roles and responsibilities for chronic disease management and cancer care, as well as address care fragmentation across diverse healthcare delivery settings. Citation Format: Michelle Doose, Janeth I. Sanchez, Dana Verhoeven, Veronica Chollette, Joel C. Cantor, Jesse J Plascak, Michael Steinberg, Chi-Chen Hong, Kitaw Demissie, Elisa Bandera, Jennifer Tsui, Sallie J. Weaver. Fragmentation of care among Black women who have breast cancer and multiple comorbidities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: 14th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2021 Oct 6-8. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2022;31(1 Suppl):Abstract nr IA-36.

Purpose To increase the proportion of adolescents with Medicaid who receive preventive care services in an urban pediatric clinic. Methods A quality improvement intervention was implemented at an urban pediatric primary care clinic between November 2013 and October 2014. The intervention systematically "flipped" acute visits into well-care visits for patients ages 12–21 years, when overdue. The primary process measure was the percentage of acute visits expanded to include well-care components out of total eligible opportunities. The primary outcome measure was adolescent well-care (AWC) completion in 2014 versus 2013 and 2012. Results Among 857 adolescents with Medicaid, 124 additional AWC visits were completed by October 2014 compared to 2013 and 71 additional visits compared to 2012. The gap to achieving Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set neutral zone targets for AWC was reduced by 59% compared to 2013 and by 54% compared to 2012. The mean proportion of eligible acute opportunities "flipped" monthly increased from 17% (range: 10%–21%) during the initial 3 months of implementation to 30% (range: 5%–50%) in the last 3 months. Conclusions Systematically flipping acute visits into well visits resulted in reaching Healthcare Effectiveness Data and Information Set quality targets for AWC, which had not previously been accomplished by this clinic. Incorporating staff and provider feedback strengthened intervention fidelity and buy-in despite time constraints in a busy, urban setting.

Residency is a crucial phase of medical training in which trainees acquire the skills and knowledge needed to practise medicine. It has been described as a challenging rite of passage, and in one survey 74% of resident physicians reported they would not recommend their job to their own friends.1 One explanation for this might be found in studies reporting that 76% of internal medicine (IM) resident physicians2 and 65% of emergency medicine (EM) resident physicians3 experience burn-out. Burn-out is defined by Maslach and Jackson (p99)4 as having three key components: ‘(1) increased feelings of emotional exhaustion’; (2) ‘the development of negative, cynical attitudes and feelings about one’s clients’ (eg, patients); and (3) ‘the tendency to evaluate oneself negatively’ (eg, perceptions of poor work performance). One important reason to address the high prevalence of burn-out among resident physicians is due to the association between burn-out with suboptimal patient care2 and patient safety.3 Thomas5 found in her review of 67 studies that the factors associated with burn-out among resident physicians could be divided into three major categories: (1) work-related, (2) demographic and (3) personal. However, almost all published studies have relied exclusively on quantitative survey methods to identify factors related to burn-out. Additionally, resident physicians have not been involved in selecting the interventions used to reduce burn-out. Including the perspective of resident physicians might help to …

Despite decades of investment in patient safety, unintentional patient harm remains a major challenge in the health care industry. Peer-to-peer assessment in the nuclear industry has been shown to reduce harm. The study team’s goal was to pilot and assess the feasibility of this approach in health care. The team developed tools and piloted a peer-to-peer assessment at 2 academic hospitals: Massachusetts General Hospital and Johns Hopkins Hospital. The assessment evaluated both the institutions’ organizational approach to quality and safety as well as their approach to reducing 2 specific areas of patient harm. Site visits were completed and consisted of semistructured interviews with institutional leaders and clinical staff as well as direct patient observations using audit tools. Reports with recommendations were well received and each institution has developed improvement plans. The study team believes that peer-to-peer assessment in health care has promise and warrants consideration for wider adoption.

Background: Multidisciplinary care (MDC) is an essential component of quality cancer care and includes the coordination of treatment provided by a team of 2+ multidisciplinary healthcare professionals. Although MDC is associated with improved health outcomes, it is still unclear if MDC is standard clinical practice among cancer patients or if disparities exist. This study assesses the multilevel (i.e., patient, provider, health system level, and neighborhood) factors associated with receipt of MDC. Methods: We used the Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)–Medicare data (2006-2016) to identify beneficiaries >65 years of age diagnosed with breast, colorectal, or lung cancer. We used multivariate analyses with random effects at the provider- and health system-level to assess the effect of multilevel factors on receipt of MDC. Results: From 2007 to 2015, receipt of MDC increased by 26.2%. Overall, 56.3% of patients received MDC within 2-months of a cancer diagnosis. Unadjusted analyses indicate that the odds of receiving MDC were 27% lower among Blacks compared to non-Hispanic Whites. Female, married, and dual Medicare-Medicaid coverage were significantly more likely to receive MDC (p Citation Format: Janeth I. Sanchez, Michelle Doose, Veronica Chollette, Sallie J. Weaver. Multidisciplinary cancer care among breast, colorectal, and lung cancer patients: A SEER-Medicare analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-003.

Purpose: This study seeks to understand how the availability of genomic testing resources for cancer treatment vary by oncology practice setting and rurality. Background: Pervasive inequities in access to cancer care resources exist at the neighborhood and health system level. In particular, rurality and practice type have been linked to diminished access to care and poorer health outcomes. While these inequities persist, there have been many advancements in cancer care technology and oncologists are increasingly using genomic testing and next-generation sequencing technology to inform treatment decisions. Little is known about the availability of genomic testing resources in different oncology practice settings and at differing levels of rurality. Methods: This study used data from the National Survey of Precision Medicine in Cancer Treatment, the first nationally representative sample of oncologists (N=1,281) practicing in the United States. Oncologists were identified from the American Medical Association Masterfile for 2017 and were sampled by specialty, census region, metropolitan statistical area, sex, and age. The outcome, availability of genomic testing resources, was measured using one survey question asking oncologists if their primary practice has the following genomic testing resources: on-site pathology, contracts with outside labs, on-site genetic counselors, internal protocols for using genomic testing, electronic medical records (EMR) that alert providers when to order a genomic test, and molecular tumor boards. The predictor variables were rurality and practice type. Rurality was determined using Rural Urban Continuum Codes (RUCC) from 2013. Practice type was measured using the following six categories: solo practice academic, solo practice non-academic, single specialty group academic, single specialty group non-academic, multispecialty group academic, and multispecialty group non-academic. Descriptive statistics were presented, and chi-square tests were used to assess statistically significant difference. The weighted sampling design of the survey was accounted for using SAS statistical package version 9.4 (SAS, Cary NC). Results: Higher proportions of academic practices had genomic testing resources than non-academic practices. Higher proportions of multispecialty groups had genomic testing resources compared to single specialty group and solo practices. Compared to urban practices, lower proportions of rural practices had genomic testing resources for all except contracts with outside labs and EMR alerts. Conclusion: These data highlight the unequal distribution of genomic testing resources for cancer treatment by practice type and rurality. Future studies and interventions should strive to further assess factors affecting access to cancer care resources and explore health system level approaches to improve health equity. Citation Format: Brittany D. Gardner, Janeth Sanchez, Michelle Doose, Sallie J. Weaver, Shobha Srinivasan, Andrew Freedman, Janet S. de Moor. Distribution of genomic testing resources by oncology practice setting and rurality: A nationally representative analysis [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the AACR Virtual Conference: Thirteenth AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2020 Oct 2-4. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2020;29(12 Suppl):Abstract nr PO-210.

Few industries match the scale of health care. In the United States alone, an estimated 85% of the population has at least 1 health care encounter annually and at least one quarter of these people experience 4 to 9 encounters annually. A single visit requires collaboration among a multidisciplinary group of clinicians, administrative staff, patients, and their loved ones. Multiple visits often occur across different clinicians working in different organizations. Ineffective care coordination and the underlying suboptimal teamwork processes are a public health issue. Health care delivery systems exemplify complex organizations operating under high stakes in dynamic policy and regulatory environments. The coordination and delivery of safe, high-quality care demands reliable teamwork and collaboration within, as well as across, organizational, disciplinary, technical, and cultural boundaries. In this review, we synthesize the evidence examining teams and teamwork in health care delivery settings in order to characterize the current state of the science and to highlight gaps in which studies can further illuminate our evidence-based understanding of teamwork and collaboration. Specifically, we highlight evidence concerning (a) the relationship between teamwork and multilevel outcomes, (b) effective teamwork behaviors, (c) competencies (i.e., knowledge, skills, and attitudes) underlying effective teamwork in the health professions, (d) teamwork interventions, (e) team performance measurement strategies, and (f) the critical role context plays in shaping teamwork and collaboration in practice. We also distill potential avenues for future research and highlight opportunities to understand the translation, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based teamwork principles into practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

In this commentary, we discuss opportunities to explore issues related to care coordination at three points on the cancer care continuum: (1) screening, particularly coordinating follow-up for abnormal findings, (2) active treatment, particularly challenges for patients with multiple chronic conditions, and (3) survivorship, particularly issues related to facilitating shared care between oncology and primary care. For each point on the continuum, we briefly summarize some of the important coordination issues and discuss potential avenues for future research in the context of existing evidence.

Introduction Simulation is a powerful learning tool for building individual and team competencies of frontline health care providers with demonstrable impact on performance. This article examines the impact of simulation in building strategic leadership competencies for patient safety and quality among executive leaders in health care organizations. Methods We designed, implemented, and evaluated a simulation as part of a larger safety leadership network meeting for executive leaders. This simulation targeted knowledge competencies of governance priority, culture of continuous improvement, and internal transparency and feedback. Eight teams of leaders in health care organizations-a total of 55 participants-participated in a 4-hour session. Each team performed collectively as a new chief executive officer (CEO) tasked with a goal of rescuing a hospital with a failing safety record. Teams worked on a modifiable simulation board reflecting the current dysfunctional organizational structure of the simulated hospital. They assessed and redesigned accountability structures based on information acquired in encounter sessions with confederates playing the role of internal staff and external consultants. Results Data were analyzed, and results are presented as qualitative themes arising from the simulation exercise, participant reaction data, and performance during the simulation. Key findings include high degrees of variability in solutions developed for the dysfunctional hospital system and generally positive learner reactions to the simulation experience. Conclusions This study illustrates the potential value of simulation as a mechanism for learning and strategy development for executive leaders grappling with patient safety issues. Future research should explore the cognitive or functional fidelity of organizational simulations and the use of custom scenarios for strategic planning.

The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care.We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality).Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success.Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

Article-at-a-Glance Background Collaborative improvement networks draw on the science of collaborative organizational learning and communities of practice to facilitate peer-to-peer learning, coaching, and local adaption. Although significant improvements in patient safety and quality have been achieved through collaborative methods, insight regarding how collaborative networks are used by members is needed. Improvement Strategy The Comprehensive Unit-based Safety Program (CUSP) Learning Network is a multi-institutional collaborative network that is designed to facilitate peer-to-peer learning and coaching specifically related to CUSP. Member organizations implement all or part of the CUSP methodology to improve organizational safety culture, patient safety, and care quality. Qualitative case studies developed by participating members examine the impact of network participation across three levels of analysis (unit, hospital, health system). In addition, results of a satisfaction survey designed to evaluate member experiences were collected to inform network development. Results Common themes across case studies suggest that members found value in collaborative learning and sharing strategies across organizational boundaries related to a specific improvement strategy. Conclusion The CUSP Learning Network is an example of network-based collaborative learning in action. Although this learning network focuses on a particular improvement methodology—CUSP—there is clear potential for member-driven learning networks to grow around other methods or topic areas. Such collaborative learning networks may offer a way to develop an infrastructure for longer-term support of improvement efforts and to more quickly diffuse creative sustainment strategies.

Objective Assess perceived barriers to speaking up and to provide recommendations for reducing barriers to reporting adverse events and near misses. Design, setting, participants, intervention A six-item survey was administered to critical care providers in 19 Intensive Care Units in Abu Dhabi as part of an organizational safety and quality improvement effort. Main outcome measures Questions elicited perspectives about influences on reporting, perceived barriers and recommendations for conveying patient safety as an organizational priority. Qualitative thematic analyses were conducted for open-ended questions. Results A total of 1171 participants were invited to complete the survey and 639 responded (response rate = 54.6%). Compared to other stakeholders (e.g. the media, public), a larger proportion of respondents 'agreed/strongly agreed' that corporate health system leadership and the health regulatory authority encouraged and supported error reporting (83%; 75%), and had the most influence on their decisions to report (81%; 74%). 29.5% of respondents cited fear of repercussion as a barrier, and 21.3% of respondents indicated no barriers to reporting. Barriers included perceptions of a culture of blame and issues with reporting procedures. Recommendations to establish patient safety as an organizational priority included creating supportive environments to discuss errors, hiring staff to advocate for patient safety, and implementing policies to standardize clinical practices and streamline reporting procedures. Conclusions Influences on reporting perceived by providers in the UAE were similar to those in the US and other countries. These findings highlight the roles of corporate leadership and regulators in developing non-punitive environments where reporting is a valuable and safe activity.

Context Although critical for improving patient outcomes, palliative care quality indicators are not yet widely used. Better understanding of facilitators and barriers to palliative care quality measurement and improvement might improve their use and program quality. Objectives Development of a survey tool to assess palliative care team perspectives on facilitators and barriers to quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. Methods We used the adapted Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to define domains and constructs to select instruments. We assembled a draft survey and assessed content validity through pilot testing and cognitive interviews with experts and frontline practitioners for key items. We analyzed responses using a constant comparative process to assess survey item issues and potential solutions. We developed a final survey using these results. Results The survey includes five published instruments and two additional item sets. Domains include organizational characteristics, individual and team characteristics, intervention characteristics, and process of implementation. Survey modules include Quality Improvement in Palliative Care, Implementing Quality Improvement in the Palliative Care Program, Teamwork and Communication, Measuring the Quality of Palliative Care, and Palliative Care Quality in Your Program. Key refinements from cognitive interviews included item wording on palliative care team members, programs, and quality issues. Conclusion This novel, adaptable instrument assesses palliative care team perspectives on barriers and facilitators for quality measurement and improvement in palliative care programs. Next steps include evaluation of the survey's construct validity and how survey results correlate with findings from program quality initiatives.

The issues of medical errors and medical malpractice have stimulated significant interest in establishing transparency in health care, in other words, ensuring that medical professionals formally report medical errors and disclose related outcomes to patients and families. However, research has amply shown that transparency is not a universal practice among physicians.A review of the literature was carried out using the search terms "transparency," "patient safety," "disclosure," "medical error," "error reporting," "medical malpractice," "doctor-patient relationship," and "physician" to find articles describing physician barriers to transparency.The current literature underscores that a complex Web of factors influence physician reluctance to engage in transparency. Specifically, 4 domains of barriers emerged from this analysis: intrapersonal, interpersonal, institutional, and societal.Transparency initiatives will require vigorous, interdisciplinary efforts to address the systemic and pervasive nature of the problem. Several ethical and social-psychological barriers suggest that medical schools and hospitals should collaborate to establish continuity in education and ensure that knowledge acquired in early education is transferred into long-term learning. At the institutional level, practical and cultural barriers suggest the creation of supportive learning environments and private discussion forums where physicians can seek moral support in the aftermath of an error. To overcome resistance to culture transformation, incremental change should be considered, for example, replacing arcane transparency policies and complex reporting mechanisms with clear, user-friendly guidelines.

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.

Effective teamwork and communication are central to successful, timely surgical care that is safe, of high quality, and patient centered. Effective teaming in the operating room and across the perioperative care continuum is related to clinical patient outcomes, patient perceptions of their care experience, care costs, and provider outcomes like burnout and job satisfaction. This chapter synthesizes core definitions of teams and teamwork, describes core models of team performance, presents practical principles for effective teaming, and highlights current evidence concerning interventions designed to develop and support effective teaming in surgery.

The seminal To Err is Human report spurred an explosion of growth in the science of patient safety and quality improvement in healthcare. Models and methods of improvement translated or adapted from the broader organizational change and research literature seeded the development of implementation sciences for healthcare delivery. Firm grounding in the evidence-based practices is critical for people in operational roles, while the practice of improving healthcare safety and quality continues to expand the current boundaries of the scientific knowledge base. This chapter synthesizes core definitions and describes key models of continuous improvement from the patient safety, care quality, and organizational research literature. We also summarize insights from research on high-reliability organizations (HROs). HROs excel at maintaining extremely low rates of error or harm despite operating in high-risk environments by building a strong culture of mindful organizing. Finally, we summarize practical principles for high-reliability organizing.

In a high-reliability organisation (HRO), safety and quality (SQ) is an organisational priority, and all workforce members are engaged, continuously learning and improving their work. To build organisational capacity for SQ work, we have developed a role-tailored capacity-building framework that we are currently employing at the Johns Hopkins Armstrong Institute for Patient Safety and Quality as part of an organisational strategy towards HRO. This framework considers organisation-wide competencies for SQ that includes all staff and faculty and is integrated into a broader organisation-wide operating management system for improving quality. In this framework, achieving safe, high-quality care is connected to healthcare workforce preparedness. Capacity-building efforts are tailored to the needs of distinct groups within the workforce that fall within three categories: (1) front-line providers and staff, (2) managers and local improvement personnel and (3) SQ leaders and experts. In this paper we describe this framework, our implementation efforts to date, challenges met and lessons learnt.

A national collaborative helped many hospitals dramatically reduce central line-associated bloodstream infections (CLABSIs), but some hospitals struggled to reduce infection rates. This article describes the development of a peer-to-peer assessment process (CLABSI Conversations) and the practical, actionable practices we discovered that helped intensive care unit teams achieve a CLABSI rate of less than 1 infection per 1000 catheter-days for at least 1 year. CLABSI Conversations was designed as a learning-oriented process, in which a team of peers visited hospitals to surface barriers to infection prevention and to share best practices and insights from successful intensive care units. Common practices led to 10 recommendations: executive and board leaders communicate the goal of zero CLABSI throughout the hospital; senior and unit-level leaders hold themselves accountable for CLABSI rates; unit physicians and nurse leaders own the problem; clinical leaders and infection preventionists build infection prevention training and simulation programs; infection preventionists participate in unit-based CLABSI reduction efforts; hospital managers make compliance with best practices easy; clinical leaders standardize the hospital's catheter insertion and maintenance practices and empower nurses to stop any potentially harmful acts; unit leaders and infection preventionists investigate CLABSIs to identify root causes; and unit nurses and staff audit catheter maintenance policies and practices.

We sought to develop a reliable and valid tool for measuring teamwork among emergency medical technician (EMT) partnerships.We adapted existing scales and developed new items to measure components of teamwork. After recruiting a convenience sample of 39 agencies, we tested a 122-item draft survey tool (EMT-TEAMWORK). We performed a series of exploratory factor analyses (EFAs) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) to test reliability and construct validity, describing variation in domain and global scores using descriptive statistics.We received 687 completed surveys. The EFAs identified a nine-factor solution. We labeled these factors 1) Team Orientation, 2) Team StructureLeadership, 3) Partner Communication, Team Support,Monitoring, 4) Partner Trust and Shared Mental Models, 5) Partner AdaptabilityBack-Up Behavior, 6) Process Conflict, 7) Strong Task Conflict, 8) Mild Task Conflict, and 9) Interpersonal Conflict. We tested a short-form (30-item SF) and long-form (45-item LF) version. The CFAs determined that both the SF and the LF possess positive psychometric properties of reliability and construct validity. The EMT-TEAMWORK-SF has positive internal consistency properties, with a mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient ≥0.70 across all nine factors (mean = 0.84; minimum = 0.78, maximum = 0.94). The mean Cronbach's alpha coefficient for the EMT-TEAMWORK-LF was 0.87 (minimum = 0.79, maximum = 0.94). There was wide variation in weighted scores across all nine factors and the global score for the SF and LF. Mean scores were lowest for the Team Orientation factor (48.1, standard deviation [SD] 21.5, SF; 49.3, SD 19.8, LF) and highest (more positive) for the Interpersonal Conflict factor (87.7, SD 18.1, for both SF and LF).We developed a reliable and valid survey to evaluate teamwork between EMT partners.

Missed, delayed, or wrong diagnoses can have a severe impact on patients, providers, and the entire health care system. One mechanism implicated in such diagnostic errors is the deterioration of cognitive diagnostic skills that are used rarely or not at all over a prolonged period of time. Existing evidence regarding maintenance of effective cognitive reasoning skills in the clinical education, organizational training, and human factors literatures suggest that continuing education plays a critical role in mitigating and managing diagnostic skill decay. Recent models also underscore the role of system level factors (eg, cognitive decision support tools, just-in-time training opportunities) in supporting clinical reasoning process. The purpose of this manuscript is to offer a multidisciplinary review of cognitive models of clinical decision making skills in order to provide a list of best practices for supporting continuous improvement and maintenance of cognitive diagnostic processes through continuing education.

Mobile devices (e.g., smartphones, personal digital assistants, and tablets) are evolving rapidly and growing exponentially in multiple facets around the globe. Specifically, mobile devices can be ...

The primary objective of this study was to assess user reactions and perceptions of usability regarding the Combat Medic Card Game (CMCG). The CMCG was designed to serve as a supplementary study tool for individuals completing Combat Medic training in order to support and reinforce learning of emergency medical care procedures (e.g., hemorrhage management). In addition to collecting reaction and usability data, an exploratory study of user learning compared learning outcomes achieved using two different modes of card use: game play versus flash cards. Results suggested that users in the flashcard group were more likely to report perceived learning compared to users in the game play condition. However, declarative knowledge scores were not significantly different between conditions.

As the U.S. health care system enters a new era, the importance of team-based care approaches grows. How is the health care community ensuring that providers and administrators are equipped with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) foundational for effective teamwork? Are these KSAs transferring into daily practice? This review summarizes the present state of practice for health care team training described in published literature. Drawing from empirical investigations of training effectiveness, the authors explore training design, implementation, and evaluation to provide insight into the shape, structure, and anatomy of team training in health care.A 2009 literature search yielded 40 peer-reviewed articles detailing health care team training evaluations. Guided by 11 focal questions, two trained raters extracted details regarding training design, implementation, evaluation metrics, and outcomes.Findings indicate that team training is being implemented across a wide spectrum of providers and is primarily targeting communication, situational awareness, leadership, and role clarity. Relatively few details indicate how training needs were established. Most studies collected data immediately posttraining; however, less than 30% collected data six months or more posttraining. Content analyses highlight the need for enhanced detail in published training evaluation reports.In many respects, health care team training implementation and evaluation align with best practices suggested from the science of training, adult learning, and human performance; however, opportunities for improvement exist. The authors suggest several mechanisms for furthering the health care team training evidence base to enhance patient safety and work environment quality for clinicians.

231 Background: Cancer is a complex disease that manifests differently. Quality care relies on the coordinated integration of many providers with varied background, experience, and expertise. Because care coordination spans across multiple processes (e.g., detection, diagnosis, and treatment), levels (e.g., individuals and teams), provider types (e.g., nurse and physician), specialties (e.g., surgery, radiology, and oncology), we argue that a team-based approach is necessary but solely insufficient. The current system provides care that is fragmented and evidence suggests such fragmentation is associated with missed opportunities, repetitive testing and increased costs. To mitigate fragmentation, effective cancer care requires the synthesis of multiple teams. A single team is characterized by two or more individuals working interdependently towards a shared goal. However, due to the complexity of cancer care, effective care coordination warrants multiple teams with collective, shared goals as well as potentially different, proximal goals. Effective multiteam systems (MTSs) need guidance, particularly for cancer care where this thinking is still relatively novel. With this in mind, the purpose of this paper is to contribute a theoretically grounded foundation and initial guiding principles that can inform efforts to mitigate the fragmentation in cancer care by providing insights on how to facilitate optimal MTSs. Methods: We culled the MTS literature to distill principles that are applicable for cancer care. Results: We offer seven recommendations that practitioners and healthcare delivery researchers can use to strengthen the integrated, coordinative efforts of cancer care: (1) Define the specific cancer care MTS & potential future component teams; (2) Determine critical interdependencies among the component teams; (3) Identify optimal boundary spanner(s); (4) Educate the boundary spanner on the role and responsibilities; (5) Explicate the shared and competing goals; (6) Establish a salient social identity; and (7) Incorporate pre-briefs and debriefs with ‘unlikely’ team members. Conclusions: We posit that a MTS approach is more accurate and more fruitful for examining and improving the delivery of cancer care across the cancer continuum.

As exploration of new frontiers continues, the need for team training in extreme environments grows. Operating in isolated, confined, and extreme environments (ICE) demands novel approaches to team performance measurement, as well as new strategies and methods for ensuring teams members are (1) equipped with the knowledge, skills, and attitudes critical for effective team performance over time, and (2) are supported by just-in-time training or other resources when breakdowns in performance inevitably occur. This panel brings together a range of experts in human performance in extreme environments to provide a comprehensive overview and discussion of the most current approaches and trends regarding team training and performance measurement in ICE environments.

Human expertise is limited by both cognitive workload and the boundaries of attention. With the spread and integration of healthcare informatics, cognitive decision support (CDS) technologies have been suggested as a means for improving the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare. The current panel brings together leading human factors and medical experts in the fields of decision-making, design, and human-system interaction to provide their insight and perspective on the following question: What contributions can human factors science bring to bear on (1) the design, (2) integration, and (3) training necessary for effective CDS implementation?