Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 7 de 7
Filter
1.
JCO Oncol Pract ; : OP2200130, 2022 Aug 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1987096

ABSTRACT

The Choosing Wisely (CW) campaign, launched in 2012, includes oncology-specific recommendations to promote evidence-based care and deimplementation of low-value practices. However, it is unclear to what extent the campaign has prompted practice change. We systematically reviewed the literature to evaluate the uptake of cancer-specific CW recommendations focusing on the period before the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. We used Grimshaw's deimplementation framework to thematically group the findings and extracted information on implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators from articles reporting on active implementation. In the 98 articles addressing 32 unique recommendations, most reported on passive changes in adherence pre-post publication of CW recommendations. Use of active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer and reduction in staging imaging for early breast cancer were the most commonly evaluated recommendations. Most articles assessing passive changes in adherence pre-post CW publication reported improvement. All articles evaluating active implementation (10 of 98) reported improved compliance (range: 3%-73% improvement). Most common implementation strategies included provider education and/or stakeholder engagement. Preconceived views and reluctance to adopt new practices were common barriers; common facilitators included the use of technology and provider education to increase provider buy-in. Given the limited uptake of oncology-specific CW recommendations thus far, more attention toward supporting active implementation is needed. Effective adoption of CW likely requires a multipronged approach that includes building stakeholder buy-in through engagement and education, using technology-enabled forced functions to facilitate change along with policy and reimbursement models that disincentivize low-value care. Professional societies have a role to play in supporting this next phase of CW.

2.
Curr Oncol ; 29(3): 1877-1889, 2022 03 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1742359

ABSTRACT

Emergency department (ED) use is a concern for surgery patients, physicians and health administrators particularly during a pandemic. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on ED use following cancer-directed surgeries. This is a retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing cancer-directed surgeries comparing ED use from 7 January 2018 to 14 March 2020 (pre-pandemic) and 15 March 2020 to 27 June 2020 (pandemic) in Ontario, Canada. Logistic regression models were used to (1) determine the association between pandemic vs. pre-pandemic periods and the odds of an ED visit within 30 days after discharge from hospital for surgery and (2) to assess the odds of an ED visit being of high acuity (level 1 and 2 as per the Canadian Triage and Acuity Scale). Of our cohort of 499,008 cancer-directed surgeries, 468,879 occurred during the pre-pandemic period and 30,129 occurred during the pandemic period. Even though there was a substantial decrease in the general population ED rates, after covariate adjustment, there was no significant decrease in ED use among surgical patients (OR 1.002, 95% CI 0.957-1.048). However, the adjusted odds of an ED visit being of high acuity was 23% higher among surgeries occurring during the pandemic (OR 1.23, 95% CI 1.14-1.33). Although ED visits in the general population decreased substantially during the pandemic, the rate of ED visits did not decrease among those receiving cancer-directed surgery. Moreover, those presenting in the ED post-operatively during the pandemic had significantly higher levels of acuity.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , COVID-19/epidemiology , Emergency Service, Hospital , Humans , Neoplasms/epidemiology , Neoplasms/surgery , Ontario/epidemiology , Pandemics , Retrospective Studies
3.
J Natl Compr Canc Netw ; : 1-9, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1662814

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Resource restrictions were established in many jurisdictions to maintain health system capacity during the COVID-19 pandemic. Disrupted healthcare access likely impacted early cancer detection. The objective of this study was to assess the impact of the pandemic on weekly reported cancer incidence. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was a population-based study involving individuals diagnosed with cancer from September 25, 2016, to September 26, 2020, in Ontario, Canada. Weekly cancer incidence counts were examined using segmented negative binomial regression models. The weekly estimated backlog during the pandemic was calculated by subtracting the observed volume from the projected/expected volume in that week. RESULTS: The cohort consisted of 358,487 adult patients with cancer. At the start of the pandemic, there was an immediate 34.3% decline in the estimated mean cancer incidence volume (relative rate, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.57-0.75), followed by a 1% increase in cancer incidence volume in each subsequent week (relative rate, 1.009; 95% CI, 1.001-1.017). Similar trends were found for both screening and nonscreening cancers. The largest immediate declines were seen for melanoma and cervical, endocrinologic, and prostate cancers. For hepatobiliary and lung cancers, there continued to be a weekly decline in incidence during the COVID-19 period. Between March 15 and September 26, 2020, 12,601 fewer individuals were diagnosed with cancer, with an estimated weekly backlog of 450. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that there is a large volume of undetected cancer cases related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Incidence rates have not yet returned to prepandemic levels.

4.
BMJ ; 375: e066588, 2021 12 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1560914

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of remote proactive management of toxicities during chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer. DESIGN: Pragmatic, cluster randomised trial. SETTING: 20 cancer centres in Ontario, Canada, allocated by covariate constrained randomisation to remote management of toxicities or routine care. PARTICIPANTS: All patients starting adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for early stage breast cancer at each centre. 25 patients from each centre completed patient reported outcome questionnaires. INTERVENTIONS: Proactive, standardised, nurse led telephone management of common toxicities at two time points after each chemotherapy cycle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome, cluster level mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient during the whole course of chemotherapy treatment, was evaluated with routinely available administrative healthcare data. Secondary patient reported outcomes included toxicity, self-efficacy, and quality of life. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of participants were similar in the intervention (n=944) and control arms (n=1214); 22% were older than 65 years. Penetration (that is, the percentage of patients who received the intervention at each centre) was 50-86%. Mean number of visits to the emergency department or admissions to hospital per patient was 0.91 (standard deviation 0.28) in the intervention arm and 0.94 (0.40) in the control arm (P=0.94); 47% (1014 of 2158 patients) had at least one visit to the emergency department or a hospital admission during chemotherapy. Among 580 participants who completed the patient reported outcome questionnaires, at least one grade 3 toxicity was reported by 48% (134 of 278 patients) in the intervention arm and by 58% (163 of 283) in the control arm. No differences in self-efficacy, anxiety, or depression were found. Compared with baseline, the functional assessment of cancer therapy trial outcome index decreased by 6.1 and 9.0 points in the intervention and control participants, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Proactive, telephone based management of toxicities during chemotherapy did not result in fewer visits to the emergency department or hospital admissions. With the rapid rise in remote care because of the covid-19 pandemic, identifying scalable strategies for remote management of patients during cancer treatment is particularly relevant. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02485678.


Subject(s)
Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/administration & dosage , Breast Neoplasms/drug therapy , Monitoring, Ambulatory/methods , Outpatients , Telemedicine , Telephone , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols/adverse effects , Breast Neoplasms/psychology , COVID-19 , Chemotherapy, Adjuvant/adverse effects , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Emergency Service, Hospital/statistics & numerical data , Female , Humans , Middle Aged , Ontario , Pandemics , Quality of Life , SARS-CoV-2 , Surveys and Questionnaires , Treatment Outcome
5.
Int J Qual Health Care ; 33(2)2021 Jun 23.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1249305

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The disruption of health services due to coronavirus disease (COVID) is expected to dramatically alter cancer care; however, the implications for care quality and outcomes remain poorly understood. OBJECTIVE: We undertook a scoping review to evaluate what is known in the literature about how cancer treatment has been modified as a result of the COVID pandemic in patients receiving treatment for solid tumours, and what domains of quality of care are most impacted. METHODS: Citations were retrieved from MEDLINE and EMBASE (from 1 January 2019 to 28 October 2020), utilizing search terms grouped by the key concept (oncology, treatment, treatment modifications and COVID). Articles were excluded if they dealt exclusively with management of COVID-positive patients, modifications to cancer screening, diagnosis or supportive care or were not in English. Articles reporting on guidelines, consensus statements, recommendations, literature reviews, simulations or predictive models, or opinions in the absence of accompanying information on experience with treatment modifications in practice were excluded. Treatment modifications derived from the literature were stratified by modality (surgery, systemic therapy (ST) and radiotherapy) and thematically grouped. To understand what areas of quality were most impacted, modifications were mapped against the Institute of Medicine's quality domains. Where reported, barriers and facilitators were abstracted and thematically grouped to understand drivers of treatment modifications. Findings were synthesized into a logic model to conceptualize the inter-relationships between different modifications, as well as their downstream impacts on outcomes. RESULTS: In the 87 retained articles, reductions in outpatients visits (26.4%) and delays/deferrals were commonly reported across all treatment modalities (surgery: 50%; ST: 55.8% and radiotherapy: 56.7%), as were reductions in surgical capacity (57.1%), alternate systemic regimens with longer treatment intervals or use of oral agents (19.2%) and the use of hypofractionated radiotherapy regimens (40.0%). Delivery of effective, timely and equitable care was the quality domains found to be the most impacted. The most commonly reported facilitator of maintaining cancer care delivery levels was the shift to virtual models of care (62.1%), while patient-initiated deferrals and cancellations (34.8%), often due to fear of contracting COVID (60.9%), was a commonly reported barrier. CONCLUSIONS: As it will take a considerable amount of time for the cancer system to resume capacity and adjust models of care in response to the pandemic, these treatment delays and modifications will likely be prolonged and will negatively impact the quality of care and patient outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Neoplasms , Delivery of Health Care , Humans , Models, Theoretical , Neoplasms/therapy , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States
6.
JAMA Oncol ; 7(4): 597-602, 2021 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1012157

ABSTRACT

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.


Subject(s)
Ambulatory Care/organization & administration , COVID-19 , Cancer Care Facilities/organization & administration , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/organization & administration , Medical Oncology/organization & administration , Telemedicine/organization & administration , Tertiary Care Centers/organization & administration , Ambulatory Care/economics , Appointments and Schedules , Attitude of Health Personnel , Cancer Care Facilities/economics , Cost Savings , Cost-Benefit Analysis , Delivery of Health Care, Integrated/economics , Feasibility Studies , Health Care Costs , Health Expenditures , Humans , Medical Oncology/economics , Ontario , Patient Satisfaction , Program Development , Program Evaluation , Quality Indicators, Health Care/organization & administration , Telemedicine/economics , Tertiary Care Centers/economics , Time Factors , Workload
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL