Clinical Oncology Practice 2015: Preparing for the Future

Author(s):  
Michael P. Kosty ◽  
Anupama Kurup Acheson ◽  
Eric D. Tetzlaff

The clinical practice of oncology has become increasingly complex. An explosion of medical knowledge, increased demands on provider time, and involved patients have changed the way many oncologists practice. What was an acceptable practice model in the past may now be relatively inefficient. This review covers three areas that address these changes. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) National Oncology Census defines who the U.S. oncology community is, and their perceptions of how practice patterns may be changing. The National Cancer Institute (NCI)-ASCO Teams in Cancer Care Project explores how best to employ team science to improve the efficiency and quality of cancer care in the United States. Finally, how physician assistants (PAs) and nurse practitioners (NPs) might be best integrated into team-based care in oncology and the barriers to integration are reviewed.

Author(s):  
Jamie Cairo ◽  
Mary Ann Muzi ◽  
Deanna Ficke ◽  
Shaunta Ford-Pierce ◽  
Katrina Goetzke ◽  
...  

According to ASCO, the number of practicing oncologists has remained stable despite growth demands, leading to an overall shortage in many areas of the country. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are advanced practice providers (APPs) who can assist in the provision of support and care to patients with cancer, but the role of the APP in the oncology setting has not been well defined. There exists a variety of different practice patterns for APPs who work in oncology, and the lack of role definition and absence of an established practice model are considered leading causes of APP attrition. According to the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, it has been well demonstrated that, when nurse practitioners are allowed to work to the full scope of their education and preparation, there are notable cost reductions and quality improvements in patient care. The focus of APP education and training is on health promotion, disease prevention, and primary care medical management, but most APPs have limited exposure to management of cancer in patients. With this in mind, Aurora Cancer Care developed a practice model for APPs who work in oncology. The goal of the model is to enhance the quality of care delivered to patients and provide a stimulating work environment that fosters excellent collaborative relationships with oncologist colleagues, supports professional growth, and allows APPs to practice to the full extent of their licensure.


1999 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 2614-2614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeanne S. Mandelblatt ◽  
Patricia A. Ganz ◽  
Katherine L. Kahn

ABSTRACT: Cancer is an important disease, and health care services have the potential to improve the quality and quantity of life for cancer patients. The delivery of these services also has recently been well codified. Given this framework, cancer care presents a unique opportunity for clinicians to develop and test outcome measures across diverse practice settings. Recently, the Institute of Medicine released a report reviewing the quality of cancer care in the United States and called for further development and monitoring of quality indicators. Thus, as we move into the 21st century, professional and regulatory agencies will be seeking to expand process measures and develop and validate outcomes-oriented measures for cancer and other diseases. For such measures to be clinically relevant and feasible, it is key that the oncology community take an active leadership role in this process. To set the stage for such activities, this article first reviews broad methodologic concerns involved in selecting measures of the quality of care, using breast cancer to exemplify key issues. We then use the case of breast cancer to review the different phases of cancer care and provide examples of phase-specific measures that, after careful operationalization, testing, and validation, could be used as the basis of an agenda for measuring the quality of breast cancer care in oncology practice. The diffusion of process and outcome measures into practice; the practicality, reliability, and validity of these measures; and the impact that these indicators have on practice patterns and the health of populations will be key to evaluating the success of such quality-of-care paradigms. Ultimately, improved quality of care should translate into morbidity and mortality reductions.


Author(s):  
Lawrence N. Shulman

Advanced practice professionals (APP), primarily nurse practitioners and physician assistants, are increasingly being integrated into oncology practices. The reasons are numerous, and models of care options are numerous as well. Models of care have developed without much forethought and are often the result of the relative interests of the physician, the APP, and the mutual “comfort” of practice style. The increasing complexity of oncology care, the pressures of the health care crisis and health care reform mean that it is necessary that we examine models of collaborative care in terms of both quality of care and productivity.


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 263-263
Author(s):  
Nafisa Abdelhafiez ◽  
Mona Mohamed Alshami ◽  
Mohammad Omar Al-Kaiyat ◽  
Tabrez Pasha ◽  
Nashmia Mutairi ◽  
...  

263 Background: To assess the quality of cancer care provided at our institution, we participated in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) of American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). However, our initial two rounds revealed lower score than required for QOPI Certification. Our goal was to implement interventions based on lessons learned from the initial rounds. Methods: Prior to the third round and using plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles, we identified and worked on three processes: clarifying and enhancing the function of the team, optimizing communication and improving documentation. We created QOPI multi-disciplinary team to include more members from different disciplines. We enhanced the knowledge of the team regarding our electronic health records system (EHRS) by conducting educational sessions and nominating super users who are very competent in EHRS and peer-to-peer support was created. Members were entering data in group sessions with the help of super users. We established double check system for records to be reviewed by two team members before submission. communication was assured among team members through weekly in person meetings and with ASCO QOPI team via virtual meetings to address queries. Documentation was improved by creating newer templates that conform with QOPI requirements including chemotherapy treatment plan, end of treatment summary and documentation of treatment consent. Results: The implementation of these interventions over three PDSA cycles made noticeable improvement in the previously unmet standards resulting in a score that exceeded the benchmark in fall of 2017 (score of 93%). This made our practice eligible for on-site certification visit by ASCO QOPI surveyors on May 2018 to assess practice compliance with QOPI standards. After addressing the unmet standards from the visit, our center became the first QOPI Certified Center in the Middle East and Asia in October/2018. Conclusions: Our journey towards QOPI Certification highlights the importance of fundamental principles in health care: coordinated multidisciplinary team, effective communication and proper documentation that captures essential and critical items reflecting better quality of care.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 75-75
Author(s):  
Bruce A. Feinberg ◽  
Yolaine Jeune-Smith ◽  
Stephanie Fortier ◽  
Ting-Chun Yeh ◽  
Jonathan Kish ◽  
...  

75 Background: In the value-based era, policymakers have begun incorporating quality of life (QoL) components into payment models, such as the Merit-based Incentive Payment System (MIPs), Oncology Care Model (OCM), and Accountable Care Organization (ACO), to increase accountability. This qualitative research study sought to understand how providers address their patients’ QoL issues in a value-based environment. Methods: A live meeting in September 2019 brought together community oncology healthcare providers (HCPs) from across the United States. Participants submitted their demographic information via a web-based pre-meeting survey and their responses pertaining to patient QoL via an audience response system during the live meeting. Participant responses and their practice demographics were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: 71 HCPs participated in this live market research program: 51 medical oncologists/hematologists (herein referred to as physicians) and 20 nurse practitioners or physician assistants (herein referred to as APPs). 50% of physicians and 25% of APPs were from privately owned community practices. Half of HCPs indicated that their practices are collecting and reporting QoL data through value-based programs: 28% of physicians and 60% of APPs were in OCM-participating practices. Regarding accountability, over 80% of HCPs strongly agreed that they have a role in improving patients’ QoL. However, 32% of physicians and 25% of APPs agreed that their payment should be tied to patients’ QoL improvement. According to HCPs, the top factor impacting patients’ QoL was symptom and symptom burden (83%). To address QoL in their patients, HCPs reported addressing patients’ psychosocial needs (78%), implementing survivorship care planning (76%), and using nurse navigators (69%). 70% of physicians and 95% of APPs were confident that their patients have reliable resources for managing their QoL issues. Conclusions: HCPs recognize their role in improving patients’ QoL, and their practices have made several transformations to improve patients’ QoL; they are confident that their patients have resources for managing QoL issues. However, many HCPs disagree with linking QoL improvements to their payment. Further studies are needed to understand QoL from patients’ perspectives in the value-based environment.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (25) ◽  
pp. 6233-6239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Neuss ◽  
Christopher E. Desch ◽  
Kristen K. McNiff ◽  
Peter D. Eisenberg ◽  
Dean H. Gesme ◽  
...  

Purpose The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported. Methods Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices. Results Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures. Conclusion Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.


2009 ◽  
Vol 27 (23) ◽  
pp. 3868-3874 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal J. Meropol ◽  
Deborah Schrag ◽  
Thomas J. Smith ◽  
Therese M. Mulvey ◽  
Robert M. Langdon ◽  
...  

Advances in early detection, prevention, and treatment have resulted in consistently falling cancer death rates in the United States. In parallel with these advances have come significant increases in the cost of cancer care. It is well established that the cost of health care (including cancer care) in the United States is growing more rapidly than the overall economy. In part, this is a result of the prices and rapid uptake of new agents and other technologies, including advances in imaging and therapeutic radiology. Conventional understanding suggests that high prices may reflect the costs and risks associated with the development, production, and marketing of new drugs and technologies, many of which are valued highly by physicians, patients, and payers. The increasing cost of cancer care impacts many stakeholders who play a role in a complex health care system. Our patients are the most vulnerable because they often experience uneven insurance coverage, leading to financial strain or even ruin. Other key groups include pharmaceutical manufacturers that pass along research, development, and marketing costs to the consumer; providers of cancer care who dispense increasingly expensive drugs and technologies; and the insurance industry, which ultimately passes costs to consumers. Increasingly, the economic burden of health care in general, and high-quality cancer care in particular, will be less and less affordable for an increasing number of Americans unless steps are taken to curb current trends. The American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) is committed to improving cancer prevention, diagnosis, and treatment and eliminating disparities in cancer care through support of evidence-based and cost-effective practices. To address this goal, ASCO established a Cost of Care Task Force, which has developed this Guidance Statement on the Cost of Cancer Care. This Guidance Statement provides a concise overview of the economic issues facing stakeholders in the cancer community. It also recommends that the following steps be taken to address immediate needs: recognition that patient-physician discussions regarding the cost of care are an important component of high-quality care; the design of educational and support tools for oncology providers to promote effective communication about costs with patients; and the development of resources to help educate patients about the high cost of cancer care to help guide their decision making regarding treatment options. Looking to the future, this Guidance Statement also recommends that ASCO develop policy positions to address the underlying factors contributing to the increased cost of cancer care. Doing so will require a clear understanding of the factors that drive these costs, as well as potential modifications to the current cancer care system to ensure that all Americans have access to high-quality, cost-effective care.


2009 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 188-192 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lori A. Buswell ◽  
Patricia Reid Ponte ◽  
Lawrence N. Shulman

Physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants often work in teams to deliver cancer care in ambulatory oncology practices. This is likely to become more prevalent as the demand for oncology services rises, and the number of providers increases only slightly.


Author(s):  
Anne C. Chiang

The nature and cost of cancer care is evolving, affecting more patients and often involving expensive treatment options. The upward cost trends also coincide with a national landscape of increasing regulatory mandates that may demand improved outcomes and value, but that often require significant up-front investment in infrastructure to achieve safety and quality. Oncology practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Institute for Quality’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) and the QOPI Certification Program (QCP) continue to grow in number and reflect changing demographics of the provision of cancer care. QOPI and QCP benchmarking can be used to achieve quality improvement and to build collaborative quality communities. These programs may be useful tools for oncology practices to comply with new legislation such as the Medicare Access and CHIP Reauthorization Act (MACRA).


2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (11) ◽  
pp. 1471-1477 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael N. Neuss ◽  
Jennifer L. Malin ◽  
Stephanie Chan ◽  
Pamela J. Kadlubek ◽  
John L. Adams ◽  
...  

Purpose The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) has provided a method for measuring process-based practice quality since 2006. We sought to determine whether QOPI scores showed improvement in measured quality over time and, if change was demonstrated, which factors in either the measures or participants were associated with improvement. Methods The analysis included 156 practice groups from a larger group of 308 that submitted data from 2006 to 2010. One hundred fifty-two otherwise eligible practices were excluded, most commonly for insufficient data submission. A linear regression model that controlled for varied initial performance was used to estimate the effect of participation over time and evaluate participant and measure characteristics of improvement. Results Participants completed a mean of 5.06 (standard deviation, 1.94) rounds of data collection. Adjusted mean quality scores improved from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.91) to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95). Overall odds ratio of improvement over time was 1.09 (P < .001). The greatest improvement was seen in measures that assessed newly introduced clinical information, in which the mean scores improved from 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.17) to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.91; P < .001). Many measures showed no change over time. Conclusion Many US oncologists have participated in QOPI over the past 6 years. Participation over time was highly correlated with improvement in measured performance. Greater and faster improvement was seen in measures concerning newly introduced clinical information. Some measures showed no change despite opportunity for improvement.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document