Adoption of Patient-Generated Health Data in Oncology: A Report From the NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group.

BACKGROUND: Collecting, monitoring, and responding to patient-generated health data (PGHD) are associated with improved quality of life and patient satisfaction, and possibly with improved patient survival in oncology. However, the current state of adoption, types of PGHD collected, and degree of integration into electronic health records (EHRs) is unknown. METHODS: The NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group formed a Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Workgroup to perform an assessment and provide recommendations for cancer centers, researchers, and EHR vendors to advance the collection and use of PGHD in oncology. The issues were evaluated via a survey of NCCN Member Institutions. Questions were designed to assess the current state of PGHD collection, including how, what, and where PGHD are collected. Additionally, detailed questions about governance and data integration into EHRs were asked. RESULTS: Of 28 Member Institutions surveyed, 23 responded. The collection and use of PGHD is widespread among NCCN Members Institutions (96%). Most centers (90%) embed at least some PGHD into the EHR, although challenges remain, as evidenced by 88% of respondents reporting the use of instruments not integrated. Forty-seven percent of respondents are leveraging PGHD for process automation and adherence to best evidence. Content type and integration touchpoints vary among the members, as well as governance maturity. CONCLUSIONS: The reported variability regarding PGHD suggests that it may not yet have reached its full potential for oncology care delivery. As the adoption of PGHD in oncology continues to expand, opportunities exist to enhance their utility. Among the recommendations for cancer centers is establishment of a governance process that includes patients. Researchers should consider determining which PGHD instruments confer the highest value. It is recommended that EHR vendors collaborate with cancer centers to develop solutions for the collection, interpretation, visualization, and use of PGHD.

COVID-19 and Cancer Center Operations: Lessons Learned From the NCCN Best Practices Committee.

The NCCN Best Practices Committee, which is composed of senior physician, nursing, and administrative leaders from NCCN Member Institutions, evaluated the status of cancer center operations after 1 year of operating during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two major initiatives stood out: the increase in the utilization of network sites, and the gains made in telemedicine operations and reimbursement. Experts from NCCN Member Institutions participated in a webinar series in June 2021 to share their experiences, knowledge, and thoughts on these topics and discuss the impact on the future of cancer care.

Preferences in Oncology History Documentation Styles Among Clinical Practitioners.

PURPOSE: Clinical notes function as the de facto handoff between providers and assume great importance during unplanned medical encounters. An organized and thorough oncology history is essential in care coordination. We sought to understand reader preferences for oncology history organization by comparing between chronologic and narrative formats. METHODS: A convenience sample of 562 clinicians from 19 National Comprehensive Cancer Network Member Institutions responded to a survey comparing two formats of oncology histories, narrative and chronologic, for the same patient. Both histories were consensus-derived real-world examples. Each history was evaluated using semantic differential attributes (thorough, useful, organized, comprehensible, and succinct). Respondents choose a preference between the two styles for history gathering and as the basis of a new note. Open-ended responses were also solicited. RESULTS: Respondents preferred the chronologic over the narrative history to prepare for a visit with an unknown patient (66% preference) and as a basis for their own note preparation (77% preference) (P < .01). The chronologic summary was preferred in four of the five measured attributes (useful, organized, comprehensible, and succinct); the narrative summary was favored for thoroughness (P < .01). Open-ended responses reflected the attribute scoring and noted the utility of content describing social determinants of health in the narrative history. CONCLUSION: Respondents of this convenience sample preferred a chronologic oncology history to a concise narrative history. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal structure and content of chronologic documentation for oncology patients and the provider effort to use this format.

National Comprehensive Cancer Network Infusion Efficiency Workgroup Study: Optimizing Patient Flow in Infusion Centers.

PURPOSE: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) formed an Infusion Efficiency Workgroup to determine best practices for operating efficient and effective infusion centers. METHODS: The Workgroup conducted three surveys that were distributed to NCCN member institutions regarding average patient wait time, chemotherapy premixing practices, infusion chair use, and premedication protocols. To assess chair use, the Workgroup identified and defined five components of chair time. RESULTS: The average patient wait time in infusion centers ranged from 25 to 102 minutes (n = 23; mean, 58 minutes). Five of 26 cancer centers (19%) routinely mix chemotherapy drugs before patient arrival for patients meeting specified criteria. Total planned chair time for subsequent doses of the same drug regimens for the same diseases varied greatly among centers, as follows: Administration of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide ranged from 85 to 240 minutes (n = 22); of FOLFIRINOX (folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan hydrochloride, and oxaliplation) ranged from 270 to 420 minutes (n = 22); of rituximab ranged from 120 to 350 minutes (n = 21); of paclitaxel plus carboplatin ranged from 255 to 380 minutes (n = 21); and of zoledronic acid ranged from 30 to 150 minutes (n = 22) for planned total chair time. Cancer centers were found to use different premedication regimens with varying administration routes that ranged in administration times from zero to 60 minutes. CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of variation among cancer centers in regard to planned chair time for the same chemotherapy regimens, providing opportunities for improved efficiency, increased revenue, and more standardization across centers. The NCCN Workgroup demonstrates potential revenue impact and provides recommendations for cancer centers to move toward more efficient and more standard practices.