bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Identifying areas for quality improvement through outpatient mortality review.
Authors: Gococo-Benore Denise , Kase Adam McLain , Majeed Umair , Alhaj Moustafa Muhamad , Chen Ruqin , Battu Sree , Kilpatrick Molly , Robinson Maisha , Cowart Jennifer , Moreno-Aspitia Alvaro , Jones Jeremy Clifton , Ailawadhi Sikander , Sher Taimur , Advani Pooja Prem 
Published: October 2020

230 Background: Inpatient mortality review is commonly used to improve patient care. Individual review of outpatient deaths is less common, yet 30-day mortality after hospital stay is an important quality metric. In this study, we sought to identify opportunities for care improvement by reviewing outpatient mortalities for cancer patients who died within 30 days of hospitalization. Methods: We identified 48 patients at Mayo Clinic Florida, with a hematologic (heme) or solid tumor (onc) cancer, who died within 30 days of an index hospital stay in 2018. We created a 32-question review survey to address quality of care around the hospital stay. The review team consisted of 1) heme or onc attendings, 2) heme/onc fellows, and 3) palliative care attendings. Each case was reviewed by one member of each of the 3 groups, split into heme or onc cases. Discrepancies in objective data points were resolved by the research team. Results: Of 143 surveys sent to 13 physicians (3 heme), 112 responses from 11 physicians (1 heme) for 47 patients were received. Twenty-one patients (45%) received cancer therapy within 30 days of death, and 23 (49%) were admitted >2 times in 2 months prior to death. For onc cases, attendings rated prognosis as discussed 83% of the time, vs 65% of fellows and 39% of palliative care; in heme cases, the attending rated prognosis as discussed 11% of the time, vs 86% of fellows and 50% of palliative care. In heme cases, the attending rated expected survival <3 months in 33% of cases vs 71% by fellows and 89% by palliative care; in onc cases, the reviews were more consistent (79% attending, 85% fellow, 93% palliative care). See Table for timing of prognosis discussions and palliative care involvement. Conclusions: The most common improvement opportunities identified by reviewing heme/onc patients who died within 30 days of a hospital stay included documented prognosis discussion and involvement of palliative care. Opportunities differed between heme and onc patients. Future directions include identifying and mitigating barriers that providers face in reaching these goals for their patients. [Table: see text]
Prognostic value of the “surprise question” among UPMC Hillman Cancer Center patients with select stage IV cancer diagnoses.
Authors: Gade Kristine , Spada Neal , Ormond Ellen , Bhatnagar Mamta , Guyette Maria , Brown Aaron , Cullison Kevin , Thomas Roby Antony 
Published: October 2020

25 Background: The “Surprise Question” — Would I be surprised if this patient died in the next 12 months? — was developed to help clinicians predict when patients are nearing the end of life. Limited data has shown that the “Surprise Question” is modestly predictive of mortality (CMAJ 2017 Apr 3;189(13):E484-E493), though its performance seems to be superior among cancer patients (Palliat Med 2014 Jul;28(7):959-964). Via Oncology Pathways, a platform used by UPMC Hillman Cancer Center and other institutions nationwide to guide treatment decisions, asks physicians the “Surprise Question” when a new treatment plan is implemented for patients with metastatic cancer. We assessed the “Surprise Question’s” ability to predict survival among Hillman Cancer Center patients with select stage IV diagnoses. Methods: We queried the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center Registry Information and Reporting Services for cases of colorectal, non-small cell lung, prostate, pancreatic, and breast cancer with clinic visits between 1/1/2016 and 12/31/2017 and residence in Allegheny County, the primary referral base for the UPMC Hillman Cancer Center network’s flagship facility. Results: The “Surprise Question” was completed for 1,584 patients with metastatic disease of the 5,330 patients that were screened. “No” was the response for 891 patients (56.3%). Mortality at 12 months for patients for whom the answer to the “Surprise Question” was “no” was 63.1%, compared to 32.5% for patients for whom the answer was “yes” (P < 0.0001). The sensitivity of the “Surprise Question” was 71.4% (95% CI 69.0 – 73.8%), and the specificity was 58.7% (95% CI 56.3 – 61.0%). The positive predictive value was 63.1% (95% CI 60.9 – 65.2%) and negative predictive value 67.5% (64.8% – 70.2%). Finally, the positive likelihood ratio was 1.73 (95% CI 1.58 – 1.89) and negative likelihood ratio 0.49 (0.43 – 0.55). Conclusions: While a “no” response to the “Surprise Question” for UPMC oncology patients with select stage IV diagnoses was more likely to predict 12-month mortality than a “yes” response, the “Surprise Question” was only modestly predictive of 12-month mortality. Future work will focus on determining if there are patient populations for whom the “Surprise Question” is more predictive and assessing the ability of the “Surprise Question” to predict other clinical outcomes, such as ED visits and hospitalizations.
Creation of a telehealth task force to improve successful use of telehealth to maintain patient access during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Authors: Bhatia Avnish K , Waldman Lauren , Hunt Melissa , Leader Amy , Palidora Janene , Sabonjian Megan , Selvan Preethi , Shimada Ayaka , Worster Brooke , Garber Gregory D. 
Published: October 2020

264 Background: In response to the COVID-19 National Emergency, the Sidney Kimmel Cancer Center (SKCC) medical oncology practice desired to greatly expand telehealth (TH) utilization to decrease patient risk while maintaining access to care. TH utilization requires resources (smart phones, internet) and there are disparities in digital media access in our patient population. A digital literacy survey performed at the SKCC in 2018 noted that 30% of patients used Android phones and > 60% of patients accessed the internet from a PC. Methods: In response to increased TH demand and need for support, the SKCC launched an oncology-dedicated Telehealth Task Force (TTF) to address barriers to TH access. The TTF team consisted of nine full-time individuals with digital and healthcare literacy to assist in telehealth and patient portal troubleshooting. Critical functions of TTF’s targeted patient solutions include; set-up and delivery of smartphones, creating email accounts, performing test visits, creating EHR patient portal accounts, real- time assistance during TH visits with implementation of this intervention beginning on April 3, 2020 with monitoring of patient interactions/touchpoints. Results: The SKCC medical oncology TTF noted increased interactions with patients immediately with a marked increase in the composite of medical oncology appointments completed by TH (51.0% in April 2020 compared to a prior level of 15.7% in March 2020). Additionally, there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of patients have an active patient portal EHR account during this same period (14.6%; 95% CI, 12.3% to 16.9%; p < 0.0001). Oncology infusion treatment appointments remained relatively consistent over time. Conclusions: The SKCC medical oncology practice experienced an exponential rise in TH utilization during an uncertain public health crisis. Disparity in digital literacy and resources essential for successful TH use were quickly appreciated as potential barriers to access. The creation of a dedicated Telehealth Task Force was critical in maintain access to care for oncology patients given their vulnerability to infection. Further investigation of TH supports to improve TH use are warranted. [Table: see text]
Barriers to telehealth: The patient perspective.
Authors: Bodine Charles Douglas , Das Devika Govind , Haywood Karice , Khan Morgan 
Published: October 2020

266 Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, the need for telehealth has come to the forefront of healthcare. In the right clinical context, telehealth is an easy and effective way for providers to deliver high quality care, while also taking away barriers to care access such as clinic inconvenience, distance traveled, financial toxicity, etc. An abundance of data exists regarding the benefits and potential of telehealth, but most data is from the perspective of the provider. Unfortunately, there is little information regarding the patient’s perspective and satisfaction; and even less regarding accessibility issues in terms of technology and cultural perception of telehealth. We postulate that there is a need for individualized grass root level understanding of the population being served to make sure telehealth adoption is sustained and equitable. We are studying this using a rapid cycle improvement project using a Plan Do Study Act format (PDSA), with a cohort of veterans in a medical oncology clinic in Birmingham, AL. Methods: We spoke with a pilot cohort of 67 patients in the medical oncology clinic at the VA Medical Center in Birmingham, AL. Surveys were done on all patients prior to their initial telehealth visit. Patients first agreed to participate, and then answered a 6-question survey regarding their perception of telehealth, their willingness to participate, and their perceived barriers to participation. We then identified barriers to intervene upon, with the plan to engage senior VA Leadership for the same. Results: 67 medical oncology patients in the Birmingham VA between May 1 and May 31, 2020, agreed to participate in a survey prior to their first telehealth appointment. We found that of the 67 patients surveyed, only 48 (71.6%) had a video capable phone and only 41 (61.2%) had high-speed internet or data to support that call. Interestingly 25 patients (37%) did not feel they could access the video on their own phone. While this presented one barrier to telehealth, we also found that 11 patients (16.4%) would not want to participate in telehealth even if they had a video capable device. Conclusions: This data, while not exhaustive, clearly captures some unique barriers to telehealth that may not have been previously studied or understood. Hearing the voice of the patient is critical in developing culturally competent forms of telehealth delivery. We will use this data to implement interventions that not only provide access of technology for our patients but will also make sure to specifically address the cultural/socioeconomic barriers to this form of healthcare distribution and how to overcome those barriers.
Real-world outcomes among patients with epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) mutated non-small cell lung cancer treated with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors versus immunotherapy or chemotherapy in first-line setting.
Authors: Simmons Daniel , DerSarkissian Maral , Shenolikar Rahul , Wang Min-Jung , Lax Angela , Muthukumar Aruna , Laliberté François , Duh Mei Sheng 
Published: October 2020

281 Background: While EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are the NCCN-recommended first-line (1L) therapy for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts) with EGFR mutation (EGFRm), many pts initiate immunotherapy (IO) + chemotherapy (chemo) prior to receiving EGFRm test results. This study assessed clinical outcomes associated with initiating EGFR-TKI vs other therapies in stage IV EGFRm NSCLC. Methods: A retrospective study was conducted in adults with stage IV EGFRm NSCLC who initiated 1L EGFR-TKI, IO (+ chemo), or chemo alone from 5/2017-12/2018, using Flatiron Health Electronic Health Record data. Treatment patterns were characterized with respect to timing of EGFRm test results. Kaplan-Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used to evaluate the median duration of therapy (DoT) and time to next therapy (TTNT), as proxies for progression-free survival. Adjusted hazards ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) representing the effect of 1L therapy on the risk of discontinuing treatment or death (DoT) and the risk of initiating second-line therapy or death (TTNT) were reported from multivariable Cox proportional hazards models controlling for differences in demographics, smoking history, histology, cancer stage, ECOG score, NCI index, time from diagnosis to 1L initiation, and year of 1L initiation, across treatment arms. Results: Among 593 study pts, mean age was 67.5 years and 65.4% were female. EGFR-TKI was used as 1L therapy for 77.2% of pts (n=458), IO in 13.3% (n=79) and chemo in 9.4% (n=56). 7.2% of EGFR-TKI pts, 54.4% of IO pts, and 57.1% of chemo pts initiated 1L before receiving EGFRm test results. Compared to pts on IO and chemo, pts on EGFR-TKI had longer median DoT (EGFR-TKI: 8.7 months [mo]; IO: 4.8 mo; chemo: 3.0 mo, p<0.01) and median TTNT (EGFR-TKI: 12.3 mo; IO: 6.5 mo; chemo: 4.0 mo, p<0.01). Adjusted analyses showed that compared to pts on IO or chemo, pts on EGFR-TKI had significantly lower risk of discontinuing therapy or death (DoT) and initiating second-line therapy or death (TTNT) (Table). Conclusions: Substantial numbers of pts initiated IO + chemo in 1L and EGFR-TKI was associated with better clinical outcomes than IO + chemo, suggesting the importance of adhering to NCCN-recommended therapy for stage IV EGFRm NSCLC pts. [Table: see text]
Development and implementation of an evidence-based malignant hematology clinical pathway program.
Authors: Brahim Amanda , Vargas Madueno Fernando Manuel , Wilkinson Robert , Hardwick Melissa , Deutsch Yehuda Ethan , Sandoval-Sus Jose David , Fernandez Hugo Francisco 
Published: October 2020

304 Background: Clinical pathways provide a means to maximize value-based care for cancer patients. They have been associated with decreased costs and outcome improvements. Our institution entered a transformative partnership with an NCI designated comprehensive cancer center for the treatment of hematologic malignancies. As part of the collaboration, a multidisciplinary task force was established to adapt clinical pathways within our system. Given the multiple new drug approvals for the treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), this was the first pathway created. Methods: The taskforce consisted of physicians, pharmacists, nurses, quality manager, and information technology staff. The group met weekly to draft algorithms in accordance with national guidelines, updated evidence and institutional preferences. Electronic Medical Record (EMR) treatment plans were reviewed in a secondary multidisciplinary workgroup and validated to ensure compliance with the AML pathway. When applicable, specific criteria for use were developed to aid in medication use optimization. The finalized pathway and treatment plans were presented and approved at our clinical standards committee meeting. A chart audit was performed one year after pathway implementation to assess adherence, with a goal of 80% or higher. The results were compared to an audit assessing adherence to best available clinical evidence for the year prior to implementation. Results: The group established a consensus on treatment, laboratory testing, and supportive care, including anti-emetic, anti-microbial, and tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) prophylaxis. Electronic order sets were created for bone marrow biopsies, transfusion support, TLS and febrile neutropenia. Thirty-two EMR treatment plans for AML were built and/or revised, while five were inactivated. A total of 88 patient charts were included in the pathway adherence audit (44 before and 44 after implementation). Pre and post pathway adherence was 64% and 89%, respectively (p=0.006). Deviations were categorized by type (table). Conclusions: AML pathway development and implementation resulted in standardization of treatment regimens, supportive care and higher adherence to institutional evidence based practices. [Table: see text]
Optimizing internal referrals within an academic breast oncology practice.
Authors: Carroll Jamie L , Amundson Stephanie L. , Haddad Tufia C. , Giridhar Karthik 
Published: October 2020

48 Background: Improving new patient access to medical oncology clinics is a priority. Unlike external referrals which undergo a review process, internal referrals (from any Mayo department or community-based, affiliated health system) are scheduled directly. At times, these internal referrals lack necessary clinical information, or may be more appropriate for electronic consultation (e-consult). This impacts the patient experience, provider satisfaction, and access to new patient visits. A pilot program was implemented in the Medical Oncology breast clinic to review new internal referrals prior to scheduling. Methods: In 2018, all internally referred patients to Medical Oncology breast clinic were reviewed by an advanced practice provider in breast oncology. Electronic medical records were reviewed to collect diagnosis, pathology, radiology information and treatment to date. Internal referrals were either accepted directly to medical oncology breast clinic, triaged to an internal medicine clinic for workup of a new breast mass, converted to an e-consult, or declined as no medical oncology need was identified. Results: 52 patients were referred internally to Medical Oncology breast clinic. Of these, 29 (55.8%) were accepted directly as new consultations, 8 (15.4%) were triaged to the Internal Medicine clinic, 6 (11.5%) were converted to e-consults, and 6 (11.5%) were declined as not requiring breast medical oncology input. Of the 8 patients that started in the IM clinic, 6 eventually required Medical Oncology breast clinic consults for invasive breast cancers. The most common e-consult was for extending adjuvant endocrine therapy (3/6). 1/6 e-consults required a follow up consultation. The most common reason for declining a consult was no diagnosis of an invasive breast cancer (4/6). A total of 16/52 referrals (30.2%) did not require a breast oncology new consultation. Conclusions: Review of internal referrals improved the efficiency of new breast cancer medical oncology consultations. This review process has been implemented across the entire Medical Oncology practice.
Improving the efficiency of same-day ill calls.
Authors: Bociek Gregory , Wells Mary Huerter , Schuldt Teri , Farrell Tracy , Phillips Duncan 
Published: October 2020

56 Background: Burnout is a syndrome whose manifestations include pervasive emotional and physical exhaustion, depersonalization, a lack of motivation and an inability to complete tasks efficiently. We sought to use quality improvement (QI) methodology to approach problems contributing to burnout and workplace stress in our oncology care team. Methods: Through a broad survey of cancer center team members, we identified the coordination of same-day outpatient visits for acutely ill oncology patients as a source of excessive stress for team members across various disciplines including case managers, infusion clinic nurses, advanced practice providers, and physicians. We used the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) framework to identify a feasible, appropriate intervention to reduce the time required to coordinate visits with the specific aim of reducing the time to schedule an ill patients by 25%. We generated a cause and effect diagram to map the elements involved in the ill call scheduling process, and used a priority/payoff matrix to evaluate possible countermeasures that could streamline the process by re-designing/improving the efficiency of the workflow for scheduling ill calls. Our initial workflow involved paging individual practitioners at three locations. The process led us to the creation of a HIPPA-compliant group text to simultaneously coordinate scheduling of an ill call among/between three campuses in a more collaborative/efficient manner. We tracked time from patient call to time of scheduled appointment pre- and post-test of change (Voalte group text). We also tracked quantity of phone calls required to arrange a visit and perceived frustration with the process. Results: After one PDSA cycle, we found case manager time required to arrange a visit had decreased by 21%, number of calls required by 59% and frustration with the process by 41%. Conclusions: While we did not meet our specific aim of decreasing scheduling time by 25%, we feel use of a QI approach led to an easily implemented, yet effective modification to streamline a previously inefficient and disruptive workflow. The use of QI methodology ensured we understood the baseline process and involved all stakeholders before implementing a change and also ensured we followed data to understand the impact of our intervention on team members. Viewing sources of burnout and workplace frustration through the lens of QI may lead to more consistently high-yield interventions than traditional wellness-based, administrative approaches.
Impact of oncology urgent care center on healthcare utilization.
Authors: Davella Christopher , Whooley Peter , Milano Emily , Egleston Brian L. , Edelman Martin , Helstrom James , Patrick Kenneth , Bauman Jessica Ruth 
Published: October 2020

7 Background: Studies suggest that many Emergency Department (ED) visits and hospitalizations for cancer patients may be preventable. CMS has made changes to the hospital outpatient reporting program (OP-35) targeting ED visits and admissions in treatment patients for preventable conditions. Oncologic urgent care centers aim to streamline care for this population. Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC) developed an urgent care center called the Direct Referral Unit (DRU) in July 2011. We sought to assess the impact of the DRU on care utilization. Methods: We abstracted visits to our adjacent hospital (Jeanes) ED and the DRU from January 2014-June 2018. Visit rates represent the ratio of visits over the total number of patients with a clinic visit at FCCC per year. ED and DRU visits were associated with both a cancer and visit diagnosis per the International Classification of Disease (ICD). Patient demographics were abstracted. We also analyzed visit charges, inpatient admission and 30-day therapy utilization (chemotherapy, immunotherapy, radiation). Results: A total of 13,210 visits were analyzed including 5,789 ED visits and 7,421 DRU visits. Visits to the Jeanes ED increased over time. The average age of patients at time of first visit was 63 and visits were most common in females and Caucasians. Hispanic and African American (AA) patients were more likely to visit the ED compared to the DRU (OR: 7.54 and 1.30). Patients with GI (27%) and thoracic (15%) malignancies had the most visits. Commercial insurance use was most common (48%) followed by Medicare (34%) and Medicaid (16%). DRU use was most frequent on Mondays (22%), while ED use occurred the most on Sundays (17%). The most common DRU visit diagnoses in order of prevalence were dehydration, nausea/vomiting, abdominal pain, fever, shortness of breath, fatigue, diarrhea, cellulitis/rash, constipation and anemia. Inpatient admission rates were similar between the two settings (p=.8176). Patients on active cancer treatment more frequently presented to the DRU in comparison to the ED (p<.0001). The average charges were $2226.22 for a DRU visit vs. $10,253.44 for an ED visit. Conclusions: The increase in ED visits over time as well the more frequent ED use in Hispanic and AA patients both suggest a need for greater urgent care access. Many of the most common visit diagnoses to the DRU align with CMS’s list of preventable conditions, demonstrating the DRU’s success as a triage center targeting these conditions. DRU visits were associated with considerable cost savings, supporting the use of cancer urgent care centers as a cost-effective method to reduce acute care.