ReCAP: Feasibility and Effectiveness of a Pilot Program to Facilitate Quality Improvement Learning in Oncology: Experience of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Training Program.

PURPOSE: Studies have demonstrated that structured training programs can improve health professionals' skills in performing clinical care or research. We sought to develop and test a novel quality training program (QTP) tailored to oncology clinicians. METHODS: The American Society of Clinical Oncology QTP consisted of three in-person learning sessions and four phases: prework, planning, implementation, and sustain and spread. We measured two primary outcomes: program feasibility and effectiveness. Feasibility was evaluated by recording participation. Effectiveness was measured using the Kirkpatrick model, which evaluates four outcomes: reaction, learning, behavior, and results. We collected qualitative feedback through a focus group of participants and mixed quantitative­qualitative results from a 6-month follow-up evaluation survey. Results are presented using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: We received feedback from of 80% of participants who took part in 92% of in-person program days. QTP deliverables were completed by 100% of teams; none withdrew from the program. Regarding reaction, 100% of respondents expressed interest in actively contributing to future QTP courses. For learning, most teams continued to use the core methodology tools (eg, project charter, aims statements) after the program. Regarding behavior, when asked about intention to serve as a local quality improvement leader, a majority said they "definitely will" serve as: team leader on a specific project (75%), project champion or sponsor (75%), or teacher or trainer for others (64%). In evaluating outcomes, 50% reported applying learned methodology to new projects at their local institution. CONCLUSION: We demonstrate one of the first feasible and effective training programs to facilitate quality improvement learning for oncology clinicians.

American Cancer Society Colorectal Cancer Survivorship Care Guidelines.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer and third leading cause of cancer death in both men and women and second leading cause of cancer death when men and women are combined in the United States (US). Almost two-thirds of CRC survivors are living 5 years after diagnosis. Considering the recent decline in both incidence and mortality, the prevalence of CRC survivors is likely to increase dramatically over the coming decades with the increase in rates of CRC screening, further advances in early detection and treatment and the aging and growth of the US population. Survivors are at risk for a CRC recurrence, a new primary CRC, other cancers, as well as both short-term and long-term adverse effects of the CRC and the modalities used to treat it. CRC survivors may also have psychological, reproductive, genetic, social, and employment concerns after treatment. Communication and coordination of care between the treating oncologist and the primary care clinician is critical to effectively and efficiently manage the long-term care of CRC survivors. The guidelines in this article are intended to assist primary care clinicians in delivering risk-based health care for CRC survivors who have completed active therapy.

A quality improvement framework for equity in cardiovascular care: results of a national collaborative.

Disparities in the quality of cardiovascular care provided to minorities have been well documented, but less is known about the use of quality improvement methods to eliminate these disparities. Measurement is also often impeded by a lack of reliable patient demographic data. The objective of this study was to assess the ability of hospitals with large minority populations to measure and improve the care rendered to Black and Hispanic patients. The Expecting Success: Excellence in Cardiac Care project utilized the standardized collection of self-reported patient race, ethnicity, and language data to generate stratified performance measures for cardiac care coupled with evidence-based practice tools in a national competitively selected sample of 10 hospitals with high cardiac volumes and largely minority patient populations. Main outcomes included changes in nationally recognized measures of acute myocardial infarction and heart failure quality of care and 2 composite measures, stratified by patient demographic characteristics. Quality improved significantly at 7 of the 10 hospitals as gauged by composite measures (p < .05), and improvements exceeded those observed nationally for all hospitals. Three of 10 hospitals found racial or ethnic disparities which were eliminated in the course of the project. Clinicians and institutions were able to join the standardized collection of self-reported patient demographic data to evidence-based measures and quality improvement tools to improve the care of minorities and eliminate disparities in care. This framework may be replicable to ensure equity in other clinical areas.

Assumed equity: early observations from the first hospital disparities collaborative.

Disparities in healthcare represent a failure in the equity domain of quality. Although disparities have been well documented, little has been written about how hospitals might use improved data collection and quality improvement techniques to eliminate disparities. This article describes early findings from the planning phase of the first hospital-based disparities collaborative. The authors also discuss the changes in policy and practice that may speed hospitals in placing disparities and equity on their quality agendas.