Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS: Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION: Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

Role of Adverse Events in Unscheduled Hospitalizations Among Patients With Solid Tumors Who Receive Medical Oncology Treatment.

PURPOSE: The development of strategies to prevent or mitigate cancer treatment-related adverse events (AEs) is necessary to improve patient experience, safety, and cost containment. To develop a strategy to easily identify and mitigate AEs, we sought to understand the frequency and severity of those that resulted in hospitalizations. METHODS: We retrospectively characterized hospitalizations of ambulatory adult patients with solid tumor cancers within 30 days of chemotherapy administration using medical record data abstraction. Hospitalizations were categorized as caused by cancer symptoms, a noncancer medical condition, or a medical oncology treatment-related AE. Severity of the treatment-related AE hospitalization was rated using the National Patient Safety Agency risk assessment matrix scale. RESULTS: Between May and October 2016, 116 patients experienced 197 hospitalizations (per-patient mean, 1.7 AEs; range, 1 to 7 AEs). Sixty-six percent (n = 130) of hospitalizations were related to cancer symptoms, whereas 19.3% (n = 38) were treatment-related AE hospitalizations. The median length of stay of hospitalizations that resulted from an AE was 6 days (interquartile range, 3 to 9 days), and 36.8% had more than 1 AE. GI symptoms accounted for 48.1% of AEs, and neutropenic fever accounted for 11.1%. Sixty-one percent of treatment-related AE hospitalizations were characterized as moderate severity. CONCLUSION: Hospitalizations in patients with solid tumors as a direct result of their medical oncology care treatment are not uncommon. These findings argue for novel approaches, such as automated trigger tools, to identify and manage complications of medical oncology treatment before hospitalization is needed. Improved outpatient management of cancer symptoms may have a dramatic impact on hospitalizations for patients with cancer.

Cost and Survival Analysis Before and After Implementation of Dana-Farber Clinical Pathways for Patients With Stage IV Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer.

PURPOSE: Increasing costs and medical complexity are significant challenges in modern oncology. We explored the use of clinical pathways to support clinical decision making and manage resources prospectively across our network. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We created customized lung cancer pathways and partnered with a commercial vendor to provide a Web-based platform for real-time decision support and post-treatment data aggregation. Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) Pathways for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) were introduced in January 2014. We identified all DFCI patients who were diagnosed and treated for stage IV NSCLC in 2012 (before pathways) and 2014 (after pathways). Costs of care were determined for 1 year from the time of diagnosis. RESULTS: Pre- and postpathway cohorts included 160 and 210 patients with stage IV NSCLC, respectively. The prepathway group had more women but was otherwise similarly matched for demographic and tumor characteristics. The total 12-month cost of care (adjusted for age, sex, race, distance to DFCI, clinical trial enrollment, and EGFR and ALK status) demonstrated a $15,013 savings after the implementation of pathways ($67,050 before pathways v $52,037 after pathways). Antineoplastics were the largest source of cost savings. Clinical outcomes were not compromised, with similar median overall survival times (10.7 months before v 11.2 months after pathways; P = .08). CONCLUSION: After introduction of a clinical pathway in metastatic NSCLC, cost of care decreased significantly, with no compromise in survival. In an era where comparative outcomes analysis and value assessment are increasingly important, the implementation of clinical pathways may provide a means to coalesce and disseminate institutional expertise and track and learn from care decisions.

2016 Updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards, Including Standards for Pediatric Oncology

Purpose: To update the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and to highlight standards for pediatric oncology. Methods: The ASCO/ONS Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards were first published in 2009 and updated in 2011 to include inpatient settings. A subsequent 2013 revision expanded the standards to include the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. A joint ASCO/ONS workshop with stakeholder participation, including that of the Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses and American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, was held on May 12, 2015, to review the 2013 standards. An extensive literature search was subsequently conducted, and public comments on the revised draft standards were solicited. Results: The updated 2016 standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include pediatric oncology and to introduce new standards: most notably, two-person verification of chemotherapy preparation processes, administration of vinca alkaloids via minibags in facilities in which intrathecal medications are administered, and labeling of medications dispensed from the health care setting to be taken by the patient at home. The standards were reordered and renumbered to align with the sequential processes of chemotherapy prescription, preparation, and administration. Several standards were separated into their respective components for clarity and to facilitate measurement of adherence to a standard. Conclusion: As oncology practice has changed, so have chemotherapy administration safety standards. Advances in technology, cancer treatment, and education and training have prompted the need for periodic review and revision of the standards. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/chemo-standards.

Characteristics Associated with In-Hospital Death among Commercially Insured Decedents with Cancer.

BACKGROUND: A majority of patients with poor-prognosis cancer express a preference for in-home death; however, in-hospital deaths are common. OBJECTIVE: We sought to identify characteristics associated with in-hospital death. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING/SUBJECTS: Commercially insured patients with cancer who died between July 2010 and December 2013 and who had at least two outpatient visits at a tertiary cancer center during the last six months of life. MEASUREMENTS: Patient characteristics, healthcare utilization, and in-hospital death (primary outcome) were ascertained from institutional records and healthcare claims. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were used to evaluate the association of in-hospital death with patient characteristics and end-of-life outcome measures. RESULTS: We identified 904 decedents, with a median age of 59 years at death. In-hospital death was observed in 254 patients (28%), including 110 (12%) who died in an intensive care unit. Hematologic malignancy was associated with a 2.57 times increased risk of in-hospital death (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.91-3.45, p < 0.001), and nonenrollment in hospice was associated with a 14.5 times increased risk of in-hospital death (95% CI 9.81-21.4, p < 0.001). Time from cancer diagnosis to death was also associated with in-hospital death (p = 0.003), with the greatest risk among patients dying within six months of cancer diagnosis. All significant associations persisted in multivariable analyses that were adjusted for baseline characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: In-hospital deaths are common among commercially insured cancer patients. Patients with hematologic malignancy and patients who die without receiving hospice services have a substantially higher incidence of in-hospital death.

2016 Updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards, Including Standards for Pediatric Oncology.

Purpose To update the ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards and to highlight standards for pediatric oncology. Methods The ASCO/ONS Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards were first published in 2009 and updated in 2011 to include inpatient settings. A subsequent 2013 revision expanded the standards to include the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy. A joint ASCO/ONS workshop with stakeholder participation, including that of the Association of Pediatric Hematology Oncology Nurses and American Society of Pediatric Hematology/Oncology, was held on May 12, 2015, to review the 2013 standards. An extensive literature search was subsequently conducted, and public comments on the revised draft standards were solicited. Results The updated 2016 standards presented here include clarification and expansion of existing standards to include pediatric oncology and to introduce new standards: most notably, two-person verification of chemotherapy preparation processes, administration of vinca alkaloids via minibags in facilities in which intrathecal medications are administered, and labeling of medications dispensed from the health care setting to be taken by the patient at home. The standards were reordered and renumbered to align with the sequential processes of chemotherapy prescription, preparation, and administration. Several standards were separated into their respective components for clarity and to facilitate measurement of adherence to a standard. Conclusion As oncology practice has changed, so have chemotherapy administration safety standards. Advances in technology, cancer treatment, and education and training have prompted the need for periodic review and revision of the standards. Additional information is available at http://www.asco.org/chemo-standards .

Defining High-Quality Palliative Care in Oncology Practice: An American Society of Clinical Oncology/American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine Guidance Statement.

PURPOSE: Integrated into routine oncology care, palliative care can improve symptom burden, quality of life, and patient and caregiver satisfaction. However, not all oncology practices have access to specialist palliative medicine. This project endeavored to define what constitutes high-quality primary palliative care as delivered by medical oncology practices. METHODS: An expert steering committee outlined 966 palliative care service items, in nine domains, each describing a candidate element of primary palliative care delivery for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden. Using modified Delphi methodology, 31 multidisciplinary panelists rated each service item on three constructs: importance, feasibility, and scope within medical oncology practice. RESULTS: Panelists endorsed the highest proportion of palliative care service items in the domains of End-of-Life Care (81%); Communication and Shared Decision Making (79%); and Advance Care Planning (78%). The lowest proportions were in Spiritual and Cultural Assessment and Management (35%) and Psychosocial Assessment and Management (39%). In the largest domain, Symptom Assessment and Management, there was consensus that all symptoms should be assessed and managed at a basic level, with more comprehensive management for common symptoms such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, dyspnea, and pain. Within the Appropriate Palliative Care and Hospice Referral domain, there was consensus that oncology practices should be able to describe the difference between palliative care and hospice to patients and refer patients appropriately. CONCLUSION: This statement describes the elements comprising high-quality primary palliative care for patients with advanced cancer or high symptom burden, as delivered by oncology practices. Oncology providers wishing to enhance palliative care delivery may find this information useful to inform operational changes and quality improvement efforts.

Novel Data Sharing Between a Comprehensive Cancer Center and a Private Payer to Better Understand Care at the End of Life.

CONTEXT: Understanding end-of-life (EOL) care patterns is a prerequisite to improving the experience for cancer patients. EOL measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum (NQF) have been examined in older patients using Medicare claims. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate EOL care for patients treated at a comprehensive cancer center, using private payer claims data. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI) patients who died between July 2010 and December 2012, and were insured by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts. Primary data sources included Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts claims information and DFCI administrative data. We assessed NQF-endorsed measures of EOL care related to emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and intensive care unit admissions in the last 30 days, chemotherapy in the last 14 days, hospice stay, and death in an acute care setting. Patterns of care by cancer type and service location were determined. RESULTS: Among 674 patients (mean age 58 years), event rates for NQF-endorsed EOL measures were similar to those reported using Medicare claims. Decedents with hematologic malignancies received significantly more intensive care and were less likely to have enrolled in hospice, compared to decedents with solid tumors. Thirty to 45% of EOL events occurred outside of DFCI and its affiliated hospitals. CONCLUSION: Data sharing between a private payer and a large cancer center proved feasible and informative. High rates of hospital service use outside of our sites of care were unexpected. The findings suggest opportunities to better manage care at the end of life.

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.

High-priority topics for cancer quality measure development: results of the 2012 American Society of Clinical Oncology Collaborative Cancer Measure Summit.

PURPOSE: Most cancer quality measures focus on individual cancers, assess specific providers, and evaluate processes of care. Although important, these efforts are not sufficient. A more comprehensive measure set is needed to address gaps in care, focus on patients rather than providers, and assess the cross-cutting aspects of care that are relevant to all patients with cancer throughout the trajectory of their illness. METHODS: With the long-term goal of developing a more comprehensive oncology measure set, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) organized a collaborative measure summit that used an iterative consensus approach to identify priorities for the development of new cancer quality measures. The summit, which included professional societies and patient/consumer advocacy organizations, was held during the ASCO Quality Care Symposium in December 2012. RESULTS: This effort, which brought together 12 diverse stakeholders, identified 10 high-priority topics for cancer quality measure development that cross-cut cancer diagnoses and care settings and addressed patient-centered concerns. Topics of particular interest included planning and counseling before therapy, interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary coordinated care, comprehensive symptom assessment, patient experience of care, and use of palliative care and hospice services. CONCLUSION: This is an important first step in the development of patient-centered, cross-cutting cancer quality measures. Addressing the high-priority topics identified by this effort will help fill the gaps left by existing cancer quality measures, including care coordination and transitions, quality of life, safety, experience of care, and outcomes. More work will be needed to specify, implement, and validate measures based on these topics.

2013 updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards including standards for the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy.

In 2009, ASCO and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) published standards for the safe use of parenteral chemotherapy in the outpatient setting, including issues of practitioner orders, preparation, and administration of medication. In 2011, these were updated to include inpatient facilities. In December 2011, a multistakeholder workgroup met to address the issues associated with orally administered antineoplastics, under the leadership of ASCO and ONS. The workgroup participants developed recommended standards, which were presented for public comment. Public comments informed final edits, and the final standards were reviewed and approved by the ASCO and ONS Boards of Directors. Significant newly identified recommendations include those associated with drug prescription and the necessity of ascertaining that prescriptions are filled. In addition, the importance of patient and family education regarding administration schedules, exception procedures, disposal of unused oral medication, and aspects of continuity of care across settings were identified. This article presents the newly developed standards.

Qualitative analysis of practicing oncologists' attitudes and experiences regarding collection of patient-reported outcomes.

PURPOSE: There is growing interest in incorporating routine collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into cancer care. Practicing oncologists are a stakeholder group whose views are not well characterized. METHODS: We developed an interview guide after literature review and in-depth interviews with leaders in the field. We conducted 45-minute semistructured interviews with a diverse sample of medical oncologists identified through affiliation with the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative or a minority-based Community Clinical Oncology Program until thematic saturation. Multiple analysts independently reviewed and thematically coded verbatim transcripts. RESULTS: Seventeen interviews were conducted with oncologists from 15 states. Emergent themes included variable understanding and experience with PROs. There was enthusiasm for the potential of PROs to improve the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter. Fundamental concerns included information overload, possibility of identifying problems without access to intervention, depersonalization of the physician-patient encounter, cost, and inefficiency. Barriers identified included the need for buy-in from other stakeholders in the practice, lack of appropriate referral resources, staffing needs, and technology concerns. Few identified patient compliance, data sharing/privacy, or medical liability as a major barrier to implementation. CONCLUSION: Practicing oncologists had variable understanding of the details of PROs but, when introduced to the concept, recognized utility in improving the efficiency and thoroughness of the patient encounter if implemented properly. The time is right to begin pilot testing such measures with community oncologists so they can lend their expertise to national discussions on which measures to use and how best to use them.

2013 updated American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society chemotherapy administration safety standards including standards for the safe administration and management of oral chemotherapy.

In 2009, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) published standards for the safe use of parenteral chemotherapy in the outpatient setting, including issues of practitioner orders, preparation, and administration of medication. In 2011, these were updated to include inpatient facilities. In December 2011, a multistakeholder workgroup met to address the issues associated with orally administered antineoplastics, under the leadership of ASCO and ONS. The workgroup participants developed recommended standards, which were presented for public comment. Public comments informed final edits, and the final standards were reviewed and approved by the ASCO and ONS Boards of Directors. Significant newly identified recommendations include those associated with drug prescription and the necessity of ascertaining that prescriptions are filled. In addition, the importance of patient and family education regarding administration schedules, exception procedures, disposal of unused oral medication, and aspects of continuity of care across settings were identified. This article presents the newly developed standards.