Patient and Caregiver Considerations and Priorities When Selecting Hospitals for Complex Cancer Care.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare policies have focused on centralizing care to high-volume centers in an effort to optimize patient outcomes; however, little is known about patients' and caregivers' considerations and selection process when selecting hospitals for care. We aim to explore how patients and caregivers select hospitals for complex cancer care and to develop a taxonomy for their selection considerations. METHODS: This was a qualitative study in which data were gathered from in-depth interviews conducted from March to November 2019 among patients with hepatopancreatobiliary cancers who were scheduled to undergo a pancreatectomy (n = 20) at a metropolitan, urban regional, or suburban medical center and their caregivers (n = 10). RESULTS: The interviews revealed six broad domains that characterized hospital selection considerations: hospital factors, team characteristics, travel distance to hospital, referral or recommendation, continuity of care, and insurance considerations. The identified domains were similar between participants seen at the metropolitan center and urban/suburban medical centers, with the following exceptions: participants receiving care specifically at the metropolitan center noted operative volume and access to specific services such as clinical trials in their hospital selection; participants receiving care at urban/suburban centers noted health insurance considerations and having access to existing medical records in their hospital selection. CONCLUSIONS: This study delineates the many considerations of patients and caregivers when selecting hospitals for complex cancer care. These identified domains should be incorporated into the development and implementation of centralization policies to help increase patient access to high-quality cancer care that is consistent with their priorities and needs.

Description and Impact of a Comprehensive Multispecialty Multidisciplinary Intervention to Decrease Opioid Prescribing in Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Diversion of excess prescription opioids contributes to the opioid epidemic. We sought to describe and study the impact of a comprehensive departmental initiative to decrease opioid prescribing in surgery. METHODS: A multispecialty multidisciplinary initiative was designed to change the culture of postoperative opioid prescribing, including: consensus-built opioid guidelines for 42 procedures from 11 specialties, provider-focused posters displayed in all surgical units, patient opioid/pain brochures setting expectations, and educational seminars to residents, advanced practice providers, residents and nurses. Pre- (April 2016-March 2017) versu post-initiative (April 2017-May 2018) analyses of opioid prescribing at discharge [median oral morphine equivalent (OME)] were performed at the specialty, prescriber, patient, and procedure levels. Refill prescriptions within 3 months were also studied. RESULTS: A total of 23,298 patients were included (11,983 pre-; 11,315 post-initiative). Post-initiative, the median OME significantly decreased for 10 specialties (all P values < 0.001), the percentage of patients discharged without opioids increased from 35.7% to 52.5% (P < 0.001), and there was no change in opioids refills (0.07% vs 0.08%, P = 0.9). Similar significant decreases in OME were observed when the analyses were performed at the provider and individual procedure levels. Patient-level analyses showed that the preinitiative race/sex disparities in opioid-prescribing disappeared post-initiative. CONCLUSION: We describe a comprehensive multi-specialty intervention that successfully reduced prescribed opioids without increase in refills and decreased sex/race prescription disparities.

The better colectomy project: association of evidence-based best-practice adherence rates to outcomes in colorectal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether adherence to evidence-based best practices in colorectal surgery predicts improved postoperative outcomes. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND DATA: Over a quarter of a million colon and rectal resections are performed annually in the United States. The average postoperative complication rate for these procedures approaches 30%. METHODS: A panel of colorectal and general surgeons from 3 hospitals (1 academic medical center and 2 community hospitals) was assembled to ascertain a set of 37 evidence-based practices that they felt were the most pertinent to the evaluation and management of a patient undergoing a colorectal resection. Fifteen of these practices were classified as "key processes" for the prevention of complications. We then retrospectively reviewed medical records for 370 consecutive patients undergoing colorectal resection at these institutions. We evaluated the association of best-practice adherence to complications in the subset of patients with outcome data available through the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program. RESULTS: Nonadherence rates exceeded 40% for 11 practices (including 2 key processes: avoidance of unnecessary blood transfusions and timely removal of central venous catheters). Among 198 patients with American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program outcomes data, 38 (19%) experienced complications, of which 31 (82%) involved postoperative infection. Nonadherence to key-processes significantly predicted the occurrence of a complication (P = 0.002). Each additional process missed increased the odds of a postoperative complication by 60% (odds ratio: 1.6; 95% confidence interval: 1.2­2.2). CONCLUSIONS: Failures of adherence with best practices in colorectal surgery is associated with an increased occurrence of complications. This study merits further research to confirm that improvement in compliance with perioperative best practices will reduce complication rates significantly.

Coding and reimbursement for weight loss surgery: best practice recommendations.

OBJECTIVE: To review the use and usefulness of billing codes for services related to weight loss surgery (WLS) and to examine third party reimbursement policies for these services. RESEARCH METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The Task Group carried out a systematic search of MEDLINE, the Internet, and the trade press for publications on WLS, coding, reimbursement, and coding and reimbursement policy. Twenty-eight articles were each reviewed and graded using a system based on established evidence-based models. The Massachusetts Dietetics Association provided reimbursement data for nutrition services. Three suppliers of laparoscopic WLS equipment provided summaries of coding and reimbursement information. WLS program directors were surveyed for information on use of procedure codes related to WLS. RESULTS: Recommendations focused on correcting or improving on the current lack of congruity among coding practices, reimbursement policies, and accepted clinical practice; lack of uniform coding and reimbursement data across institutions; inconsistent and/or inaccurate diagnostic and billing codes; inconsistent insurance reimbursement criteria; and inability to leverage reimbursement and coding data to track outcomes, identify best practices, and perform accurate risk-benefit analyses. DISCUSSION: Rapid changes in the prevalence of obesity, our understanding of its clinical impact, and the technologies for surgical treatment have yet to be adequately reflected in coding, coverage, and reimbursement policies. Issues identified as key to effective change include improved characterization of the risks, benefits, and costs of WLS; anticipation and monitoring of technological advances; encouragement of consistent patterns of insurance coverage; and promotion of billing codes for WLS procedures that facilitate accurate tracking of clinical use and outcomes.