Creating Virtual Integration and Improved Oncology Care Quality Through a Co-Management Services Agreement.

PURPOSE: Implementation of a co-management services agreement (Co-MSA) creates agreed-upon cancer care delivery quality metrics, a forum for discussion of service line oversight, and virtually integrated care without institutional employment of oncologists. The goal of this project was to demonstrate that a Co-MSA improved predefined quality metrics and provided enhanced communications between a health system's oncology service line and a group of independent oncologists. METHODS: Iterative planning discussions were scheduled biweekly over an 18-month period. Contractual, quality, and clinical data with benchmarking were considered in the creation of the Co-MSA. Review of the first year's implementation occurred through examination of the metric achievements and qualitative themes that arose through committee meetings, clinical implementation processes, and cross-organizational discussions. RESULTS: Metrics designed for the Co-MSA included improved adherence to the breast cancer, colon cancer, and non-small-cell lung cancer level I pathways; improvement of the medical oncology physician communication component of the hospital system's Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems survey scores; and increased delivery of survivorship care plans to appropriate patients. Nonquantifiable themes from the first year of implementation included the need for technology to collect data, both organizations needing a wider understanding of quality improvement techniques, and a need for greater executive leadership involvement. CONCLUSION: In its first year, the Co-MSA resulted in improvement of the delivery of survivorship care plans and adherence to value pathways powered by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Improvement of Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores did not occur.

Second-line treatment outcomes after first-line sunitinib therapy in metastatic renal cell carcinoma.

This study was conducted to evaluate the treatment outcomes associated with common second-line targeted therapies given after first-line sunitinib for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). The sample comprised patients with mRCC (n = 257) who were receiving second-line everolimus, sorafenib, or temsirolimus between April 1, 2008, and February 29, 2011, after first-line sunitinib treatment. The patients were followed-up from the start of second-line treatment until treatment failure (defined as advancement to a third-line therapy or to mortality) or the last observation in the medical and pharmacy databases. Treatment failure was observed in 38.5% (n = 99) of cases: 20.2% of patients (n = 52) advanced a line of treatment; and 18.3% of patients (n = 47) died. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a statistical difference in time to treatment failure among the 3 second-line targeted therapies (log-rank test, P = .045). The estimated 1-year cumulative probabilities of treatment failure were 49.9% for everolimus, 68.4% for sorafenib, and 71.4% for temsirolimus. In a multivariate Cox proportional hazards model, a higher adjusted risk of treatment failure vs. everolimus was observed for both temsirolimus (hazard ratio [HR] 2.05 [95% CI, 1.26-3.35]; P = .004) and sorafenib (HR 1.77 [95% CI, 1.02-3.07]; P = .043). The results of this real-world data analysis suggest that the risk of second-line treatment failure after first-line sunitinib was significantly higher with temsirolimus and sorafenib compared with everolimus.

A financial counselor on the practice staff: a win-win.

Patients with cancer are often burdened by financial stresses during treatment. The presence of a financial counselor can help alleviate these concerns for both patients and providers.

Subspecialization in community oncology: option or necessity?

Specializing in a particular type of cancer is one way to manage the explosion of knowledge in oncology. What would subspecializing mean for practitioners, patients, and the community?

Performance appraisal: a tool for practice improvement.

Yours may be among the many oncology practices without an appropriate performance review system in place. Lack of an effective evaluation system increases the risk of inefficiency, poor office morale, and high turnover rates.

Strategic use of clinical pathways.

Clinical pathways are detailed, evidence-based processes for delivering cancer care for specific patient presentations. Some oncologists have embraced clinical pathways, while others resist.

Advance care planning with your patients.

Studies have shown that patients want their doctor to talk to them about their advance care plans, and they want that discussion sooner rather than later.

How to negotiate with health care plans.

With practice expenses increasing, boosting reimbursement from private payers is one way to stay in business. But successful negotiation is easier said than done.

Use of locum tenens physicians in oncology practice.

Who would step in to care for your patients if you had to be away from work for several weeks? Calling in a locum tenens oncologist may be a good solution.

Essentials of staff development and why you should care.

Physicians may reason that their energy, education, and training should be focused on patient care and research, whereas staff education should be the responsibility of practice managers. But physicians have an important role in staff development.

How to implement change in practice.

Learn what it takes to overcome the status quo and implement change because stagnation can jeopardize the future of your practice.

Expanding practice to provide integrated cancer care.

Specialists involved in cancer care are considering integrating their practices or have already done so. What's involved in forming a multispecialty practice? Could it work for you?

Survey of provider perspectives on patient assistance programs.

This survey attempts to quantify the costs of applying for patient assistance programs, which oncologists say too often involves weeks of paperwork, repeated telephone calls, and bureaucratic delays.

Factor structure and concurrent validity of the Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale for Cancer (SLDS-C).

The Satisfaction with Life Domains Scale for Cancer (SLDS-C) is a brief self-report measure of quality of life that uses a familiar and easily understood graphic response format of smiling and frowning faces. This article explores the factor structure and further examines the validity of the SLDS-C compared with another cancer specific quality-of-life measure, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Scale-General (FACT-G), in a sample of patients with a variety of cancer diagnoses. A self-administered questionnaire containing the SLDS-C and the FACT-G was completed by 352 adult cancer survivors who were at various points post diagnosis. Three SLDS-C factor subscales were derived from analyses of these data: "Life as a Whole," "Daily Activities," and "Social Relationships." Evidence for the concurrent validity of the SLDS-C is presented, including its correlation with the total score of the FACT-G (r = .76) and its correlation with subscale scores of this widely used cancer quality-of-life measure. The SLDS-C has a high level of internal consistency (alpha = .94), and differences in SLDS-C total scores were found for time since diagnosis, number of diagnoses, spread of disease, type of cancer, and treatment status.

A process for measuring the quality of cancer care: the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

PURPOSE: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported. METHODS: Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices. RESULTS: Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures. CONCLUSION: Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.

Assessing communication between oncology professionals and their patients.

BACKGROUND: Effective communication with cancer patients continues to be an elusive goal for health care professionals (HCPs) and cancer educators. METHODS: We posted a survey on the ConversationsInCare.com Web site to collect information from oncology HCPs regarding attitudes, effectiveness, and specific patient communication skills. RESULTS: The 291 respondents agreed that good communication enhances patient satisfaction (76%) and treatment compliance (88%). Only 34% of respondents felt comfortable discussing complementary or alternative therapies, and approximately half of all respondents felt they lack the skills to help patients maintain hope. CONCLUSIONS: Oncology HCPs believe that good communication is important and wish to improve their skills. Implications for cancer educators are discussed.

Is absolute amount or change in exercise more associated with quality of life in adult cancer survivors?

BACKGROUND: The present study examined the association between quality of life (QOL) in adult cancer survivors and the (a) absolute current amount of exercise and (b) change in exercise since cancer diagnosis. METHODS: Three hundred fifty-two (mean age = 59.6) adult cancer survivors recruited from outpatient clinics in four states (Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Georgia) and a minority support groups completed a survey including demographic, medical, exercise behavior, and QOL questions. RESULTS: Hierarchical multiple regression analyses controlling for important demographic and medical variables showed that adult cancer survivors who currently exercised three times per week had significantly higher QOL than those who did not (beta = 0.13, P < 0.05). Furthermore, compared to adult cancer survivors who exercised less since their cancer diagnosis, those who maintained (beta = 0.28, P < 0.08) or increased (beta = 0.24, P < 0.01) the amount of exercise they performed since their cancer diagnosis had significantly higher QOL. Finally, examination of the DeltaR(2)(adjusted) between the two exercise models showed that the absolute current amount of exercise explained an additional 1% (DeltaR(2)(adjusted) = 0.01 P < 0.05) of the variance in QOL whereas the change in exercise explained an additional 7% (DeltaR(2)(adjusted) = 0.07, P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Change in exercise since cancer diagnosis may be a more important correlate of QOL in adult cancer survivors than the absolute current amount of exercise.