The Colocation Model in Community Cancer Care: A Description of Patient Clinical and Demographic Attributes and Referral Pathways.

PURPOSE: Cancer disparities are well documented among Black, Indigenous, and People of Color, yet little is known about the characteristics of programs that serve these populations. Integrating specialized cancer care services within community settings is important for addressing the needs of historically marginalized populations. Our National Cancer Institute-Designated Cancer Center initiated a clinical outreach program incorporating cancer diagnostic services and patient navigation within a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) to expedite evaluation and resolution of potential cancer diagnoses with the goal of collaboration between oncology specialists and primary care providers in a historically marginalized community in Boston, MA. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics were analyzed from patients who were referred to the program for cancer-related care between January 2012 and July 2018. RESULTS: The majority of patients self-identified as Black (non-Hispanic) followed by Hispanic (Black and White). Twenty-two percent of patients had a cancer diagnosis. Treatment and surveillance plans were established for those with and without cancer at a median time to diagnostic resolution of 12 and 28 days, respectively. The majority of patients presented with comorbid health conditions. There was a high prevalence of self-reported financial distress among patients seeking care through this program. CONCLUSION: These findings highlight the wide spectrum of cancer care concerns in historically marginalized communities. This review of the program suggests that integrating cancer evaluation services within community-based primary health care settings offers promise for enhancing the coordination and delivery of cancer diagnostic services among historically marginalized populations and could be a method to address clinical access disparities.

Expert Consensus on Currently Accepted Measures of Harm.

BACKGROUND: Twenty-five years after the seminal work of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the numbers and specific types of health care measures of harm have evolved and expanded. Using the World Café method to derive expert consensus, we sought to generate a contemporary list of triggers and adverse event measures that could be used for chart review to determine the current incidence of inpatient and outpatient adverse events. METHODS: We held a modified World Café event in March 2018, during which content experts were divided into 10 tables by clinical domain. After a focused discussion of a prepopulated list of literature-based triggers and measures relevant to that domain, they were asked to rate each measure on clinical importance and suitability for chart review and electronic extraction (very low, low, medium, high, very high). RESULTS: Seventy-one experts from 9 diverse institutions attended (primary acceptance rate, 72%). Of 525 total triggers and measures, 67% of 391 measures and 46% of 134 triggers were deemed to have high or very high clinical importance. For those triggers and measures with high or very high clinical importance, 218 overall were deemed to be highly amenable to chart review and 198 overall were deemed to be suitable for electronic surveillance. CONCLUSIONS: The World Café method effectively prioritized measures/triggers of high clinical importance including those that can be used in chart review, which is considered the gold standard. A future goal is to validate these measures using electronic surveillance mechanisms to decrease the need for chart review.

A comparison of cancer risk assessment and testing outcomes in patients from underserved vs. tertiary care settings.

In cancer genetics, technological advances (next generation sequencing) and the expansion of genetic test options have resulted in lowered costs and increased access to genetic testing. Despite this, the majority of patients utilizing cancer genetics services lack diversity of gender, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status. Through retrospective chart review, we compared outcomes of cancer genetics consultations at a tertiary cancer center and a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC) (58 tertiary and 23 FQHC patients) from 2013 to 2015. The two groups differed in race, ethnicity, use of translator services, and type of insurance coverage. There were also significant differences in completeness of family history information, with more missing information about relatives in the FQHC group. In spite of these differences, genetic testing rates among those offered testing were comparable across the two groups with 74% of tertiary patients and 60% of FQHC patients completing testing. Implementation of community-based cancer genetics outreach clinics represents an opportunity to improve access to genetic counseling services, but more research is needed to develop effective counseling models for diverse patient populations.