Improving the Delivery of High-Quality Cancer Care in Medically Underserved Communities: A Formative Evaluation Method.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In 2015, the American Society of Clinical Oncology launched a new program: Improving Quality of Care in Underserved Communities with the overarching aim of serving patients with cancer who have traditionally had difficulty accessing the care they need. Cancer care requires intense coordination of complex services to provide safe, effective, timely, and equitable care. If chemotherapy and/or radiation is needed, patients must navigate a complex system of care many times, a formidable challenge for many disadvantaged patients. Many practices believe that these patients face such significant issues that it is almost impossible to provide high-quality care. A grant from the Stavros Niarchos Foundation allowed us to select 4 oncology practices serving high proportions of racial minorities and persons of low socioeconomic status to participate in the new American Society of Clinical Oncology program. The program had 2 objectives: (1) to improve the capacity and capability of the participating practices to provide evidence-based, high-quality care; and (2) to identify and disseminate lessons learned for improving quality of care among oncology practices serving underserved patients. METHODS: The program leveraged existing programs including the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative, which is a national performance measurement and improvement program that collects data about processes of care provided in the outpatient medical oncology setting, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Training Program, which provides training in how to apply the tools and methods of quality improvement in routine care settings. Training was provided in face-to-face and virtual meetings and participants were provided mentors throughout the program. At the conclusion, a formative evaluation method was used to assess whether the goals had been achieved. Objectives, activities, and desired outcomes were identified for each of the goals and thus became the framework for the evaluation. RESULTS: The program met the stated goals and objectives. The evaluation revealed many successes, some surprises, and a list of improvements that were incorporated in the next iteration of this program. Based on data from the evaluation, the Niarchos Foundation provided funds for an additional 10 practices to participate in a similar program in 2020. CONCLUSION: This article outlines the evaluation of a new program demonstrating that medical oncology practices can make improvements in the care of their underserved populations if provided with the proper tools, methods, and coaching. The use of formative evaluation methodology also identified opportunities for improvement and ultimately resulted in additional funding for more practices to participate in the program.

ASCO Quality Training Program: A Five-Year Review.

PURPOSE: ASCO introduced the Quality Training Program (QTP) in 2013 with the aim to train oncology professionals to design, implement, and lead successful quality improvement (QI) activities and assume leadership positions to champion culture change in their practices. METHODS: The QTP is a formal 6-month program taught by QI faculty and mentored by QI coaches over 5 days of in-person learning across 3 sessions and hands-on learning at the participants' practices. Sessions include seminars, case examples, and small-group exercises. Participants attend in multidisciplinary teams and focus on a problem they wish to solve in their practice. Scheduled conference calls with QI coaches are held between sessions. Participants complete pre- and post-QTP surveys (10-point Likert scale, with 1 = no knowledge/competence and 10 = complete knowledge/competence) and provide direct written feedback. RESULTS: Since its inception, QTP has had 15 courses (10 domestic and 5 international) with 120 teams and 544 total participants. QTP is led by an 8-member steering group with 16 faculty and coaches. All postsurvey items showed an increase in knowledge and competence. Each item's score was calculated as the mean difference between before and after scores. Participants stated an increase of 46%-84% (overall mean increase: knowledge, 38%; competence, 37%). The greatest increases were in methodology and practical tools to make changes in practice (writing an aim statement, implementing rapid improvement, using process analysis tools, flowcharting the process). The most common suggestion for improvement was allowing more time for the project. Participants are encouraged to write articles and present work in poster and plenary sessions. QTP courses have led to 7 manuscripts and 21 abstract presentations to national meetings. Six QTP alumni are now QI coaches and faculty. CONCLUSION: The QTP is a successful QI course for oncology professionals who need to measure performance, investigate quality and safety issues, and implement change. It is the only oncology-focused QI training, as all faculty and coaches are providers and QI specialists with oncology experience, which makes this a unique opportunity. The success will provide further momentum to offer QTP domestically and around the world.

A Novel Patient Safety Event Reporting Tool in Otolaryngology.

Objective To report the results of a preliminary analysis of a quality improvement initiative aimed to identify potential latent systems defects. Methods A pilot study of an anonymous, voluntary, event reporting system made available to all members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery was performed. The National Coordinating Council for Medication Error Reporting and Prevention (NCC MERP) index was used to classify error types. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize submissions to the database. Results In the 53 cases reported to the database over 22 months, the majority involved errors that had resulted in harm (n = 34, 64%), followed by errors that occurred and did not result in harm (n = 7, 13%). Errors occurred predominantly in the hospital (n = 23, 44%) and operating room (n = 19, 35%). Most entries were classified as either technical (n = 21, 39%) or related to postoperative care (n = 15, 30%). Discussion This preliminary descriptive analysis of a novel otolaryngology patient safety event reporting tool shows that this platform brings unique value to the identification of errors and adverse events in our specialty. Most reported events were classified as errors resulting in harm. The most common type of reported event was a technical error, most often resulting in a nerve injury. Implications for Practice This reporting tool will likely allow for identification and prioritization of improvement opportunities. This example may serve as a guide for other societies to create similar platforms as we strive for a standardized process for event reporting.