bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025_split huggingface dataset:
Methodology and results of a pain-assessment process for patients receiving radiation therapy treatment.
Authors: McDuffie Angela , Harris Eleanor Elizabeth , Proctor Anita , Potter Leann , Barnes Timothy , Holloman Michael , Naves James 
Published: April 2017

105 Background: Patients receiving radiation therapy treatment often exhibit pain as a consequence of their cancer or treatment, and is a major factor affecting the patient’s quality of life and functional status. Accreditation standards require pain to be assessed and managed, which are key components in successful implementation of a radiation therapy plan of care. Multifactorial causes for cancer pain, the subjective nature of pain assessment, and the protracted nature of radiation delivery make it necessary to routinely evaluate patient pain using quantifiable metrics. These evaluations can then be used to develop and evaluate effectiveness of interventional strategies. Methods: Internal “spot check” chart review in early 2015 showed deficits in 16 of 37 charts (43.2%) reviewed for pain assessments, revealing documentation well below the required threshold (95%). As a result, the Department of Radiation Therapy revised the process for the accepted 10-point intensity scale to evaluate patient pain. This revised process included staff re-education, workflow adjustments, and nursing evaluation prior to, during, and the end of the radiation treatment course using a standardized pain scale form. Documentation was accomplished by means of vital sign template encounter tool used by Nursing at the time of initial consult, for weekly on-treatment visits (OTVs), and end of treatment (EOT) encounter. Results: Data were monitored for the period of April-June 2015 and reported as a continuous quality improvement (CQI) activity to the department’s Quality Committee. Amassed data showed a total of 186 unduplicated patients were treated during this period, and 181 (97.3%) were assessed for pain. Conclusions: Ongoing monitoring is an important strategy to assure complete evaluation, treatment and outcomes of patient pain while receiving radiation treatment. A clearly defined and quantifiable process is important to facilitate monitoring and ongoing pain management. Improvements in consistency of pain assessment and management promote enhanced focus on patient pain and contribute to delivery of care, and patient quality of life and performance status.
Should Cancer Centers start their own specialty pharmacy? Quality and economic data from the oral chemotherapy program at Smilow Cancer Hospital and Yale New Haven Health System.
Authors: Adelson Kerin B. , Stutsky Martha , Fradkin Monica , Harrison Michelle Renee , Abdelghany Osama , Morrow Bret , Smith Mandeep , Havriliak Renee , Kregling Stephanie , Lyons Catherine A. , Chiang Anne C. , Cohen Howard 
Published: April 2017

108 Background: Recent focus has shown that oral chemotherapy is high risk for medical error. Our QOPI certification process identified that oral oncologic processes were marked by: lack of documentation in the EMR, patients receiving refills from third party pharmacies after prescription discontinuation, incorrect self-administration of medications due to lack of education, delivery delays, high copays, and underuse of available patient assistance programs. Methods: A multidisciplinary task force developed a program to expedite drug access, standardize consent, and ensure clinical support including education, adherence and toxicity monitoring. We expanded an existing health-system pharmacy to provide specialty services. Treatment protocols were created for every oral oncologic drug, which are routed to a clinical oncology pharmacist and the specialty pharmacy. Nursing and pharmacist verify all orders. Medication Assistance Program for copay support. Day 1, 5 and 21 pharmacist to patient calls. Multidisciplinary flow sheet documentation. Results: Today, 80% of our patients receive medication within 72 hours. Specialty pharmacists monitor toxicity even for patients whose prescriptions are filled by other pharmacies. Pharmacists have prevented more than 400 prescription errors. Today, monthly revenue before cost for the oral chemotherapy program is nearly than $4 million. The total revenue since initiation in February 2015 is over $44 million, yielding an approximately $9 million margin after costs. Funding through the medication assistance program exceeded $1 million thus far in 2016, with an average of 140 patients receiving assistance each month. Conclusions: A patient-centered multidisciplinary model integrating clinical, operational, financial, and IT resources optimized care for patients receiving oral oncologic therapy. This project transferred revenue from for-profit third party pharmacies to our non-profit health system, and revenue is used to provide enhanced education, monitoring, and patient assistance. Our collaborative improvement model can be adapted to many practice settings.
Hematology and oncology patient perceptions of inpatient care coordination at an urban academic teaching center.
Authors: Chen Christopher , DeGregorio Sara , Soriano Margaret , Lennes Inga Tolin , Thompson Ryan , Ferris Timothy 
Published: April 2017

109 Background: Outpatient doctors increasingly defer inpatient care to hospital-based physicians. At academic medical centers, inpatient care coordination is further complicated by frequent handoffs between resident teams. Breaks in inpatient care continuity may disproportionately affect hematology and oncology patients, given their often complicated longitudinal histories and specialized problems. We sought to understand hematology and oncology patient perceptions of inpatient care coordination at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). Methods: Between July 2014 and June 2015, patients admitted to any MGH service were randomly selected to complete a survey about their perception of inpatient care coordination. In total, 1,783 patients responded. Of these, 158 were admitted to hematology or oncology. Hematology and oncology patient responses were compared to all MGH patient responses using chi-squared analysis, with p values less than or equal to 0.05 used as the threshold for statistical significance. Responses reflect the percentage of patients who chose the “top box” option. Results: Compared to all MGH patients, hematology and oncology patients were significantly more likely to recognize a clearly identified doctor responsible for their care while in the hospital (85% vs 74%, p = 0.003) and to perceive the presence of a responding clinician at all times (79% vs 66%, p = 0.001). Hematology/oncology patients were also much more likely to report seeing their longitudinal MGH doctors while admitted (77% vs 57%, p < 0.001). However, despite more frequent in-person visits by outpatient physicians, significantly fewer hematology/oncology patients reported perceiving that their outpatient doctor receives discharge information (47% vs 64%, p = 0.005). Conclusions: MGH hematology and oncology patients reported stronger inpatient care coordination and higher frequency of outpatient physician visits than MGH patients overall. Nevertheless, patients perceived less frequent coordination of discharge information with outpatient physicians. More research is needed to understand whether patient perceptions of care coordination correlates with clinical and utilization outcomes.
Implementation to optimization: A tailored, data-driven approach to improve provider efficiency in using the electronic medical record.
Authors: Kadish Sarah , Mayer Erica L. , Jackman David Michael , Pomerantz Mark , Brady Lauren , Dimitriadis Audra , Cleveland Jessica , Wagner Andrew J. 
Published: April 2017

123 Background: The increasing use of Electronic Medical Records (EMR) has been coupled with a growing focus on physician dissatisfaction. A recent study revealed physicians spend twice as much time working on the EMR and related tasks as they spend with patients. Physicians also spent time at night on EMR-related work. Nine months after the implementation of a new EMR at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, providers expressed frustration with the EMR burden. Following three group training sessions, providers requested individualized training. We sought to enhance efficiency in clinical review, documentation, placing orders and to reduce after hour use. Methods: Each provider was sent their EMR system usage by time of day and activity. Providers were also surveyed to elicit content for training and to gauge confidence. Prior to training, a trainer reviewed the survey results and system usage data. System usage data and a post training survey were utilized to quantify changes against baseline. Results: A total of 114 MDs, 37 NPs and 8 PAs completed training. Providers reported an increase in confidence across all activities. Almost all providers (98%) agreed the training enhanced their efficiency. Overall confidence rose from 58% to 94% strongly agree or agree post training. Overall time in system (TIS) per appointment and TIS reviewing a patient’s chart significantly improved. TIS spent on documentation, placing orders, or after hours did not significantly change. Conclusions: A tailored data-driven training approach improved overall efficiency and confidence. While changes to TIS were not significant across all activities or reduce after hour usage, ongoing training may continue to improve these measures. [Table: see text]
Optimizing formulary decisions.
Authors: Conter Henry Jacob 
Published: April 2017

14 Background: As medication prices rise, the sustainability of health care systems has been increasingly questioned. Health technology assessment (HTA) could be employed to maximize value when budgets are limited. Methods: The pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) is an evidence-based, cancer drug review process that guides formulary decision-making. As of 10/30/16, data from all 93 reviews and economic guidances were abstracted for price of medication, total health care cost per patient, cost-utility provided by the submitter, and the re-analysis by pCODR. Regression analysis was employed to identify correlations. Expected use of therapy was estimated employing mortality data from the Canadian Cancer Society. An optimal formulary was then developed, with value for money as the primary concern. Results: Of the 93 reviews, 11 were not finalized, 3 were withdrawn, and 1 was suspended. 4 reviews were excluded since the base-case was ambiguous. Of included reviews, 13% were recommended for funding, 66% were recommended conditional on improved cost-effectiveness, and 22% were rejected. The median drug price per 28-day cycle was $7,567 (range $2,800-$18,435), with no annual difference from 2012-2016 (p=0.49). The median best-estimate of cost-utility was $188,537/QALY (IQR $127,399/QALY) with a median net increase in health system cost of $66,069/patient (IQR $90,466). The median difference between pCODR’s best estimate and the submitter’s was $61,240/QALY (IQR $73,656/QALY). The submitter’s estimate of cost effectiveness was correlated with pCODRs assessment (R² = 0.65, p<0.01). Cost per 28-day cycle was a weak predictor of value (R² = 0.01, p<0.01), and not of health system cost (R² = 0.17, p=0.11). In the Canadian context, funding all efficacious medications would require a total of $5.91 billion producing 31,705 QALYs, annually. Funding the system with $1.12 billion for new medicines by first-come-first-served principle, yields 5,966 QALYs over 16 drugs, annually. By prioritizing based on value, $1 billion allows for funding of 22 drugs producing 9,665 QALYs, annually. $2 billion would increase annual QALYs to 15,792 over 26 drugs. Conclusions: Price of medications should not be used as a heuristic for value. An optimized formulary requires practical deployment of HTA.
Decision support networks of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer.
Authors: Wallner Lauren P. , Li Yun , McLeod Chandler , Hamilton Ann S. , Ward Kevin C. , An Lawrence C. , Janz Nancy K. , Katz Steven J. , Hawley Sarah T. 
Published: April 2017

157 Background: Prior studies suggest that women often involve a network of family and friends in their cancer treatment decision making, yet very little is known about the size and characteristics of these decision support networks and whether their involvement leads to high-quality breast cancer treatment decisions. Methods: A weighted random sample of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,502, 70% response rate). Network size was estimated by asking women to list up to 3 of the most important decision support people (DSP) who helped them make their locoregional therapy decisions. Decision deliberation was measured using 4-items assessing degree to which patients thought through the decision, with higher scores reflecting more deliberative breast cancer treatment decisions. We compared the size of the network (0-3+ people) across patient-level characteristics and estimated the adjusted mean deliberation scores across levels of network size using multivariable linear regression. Results: Of the 2,502 women included in this analysis, 51% reported having at least 3 DSPs, 20% reported 2, 18% reported 1, and 10% reported not having any DSPs. Among women who were not partnered (N = 961), 51% had 3 DSPs, 18% had 2, 16% had 1 and 16% had 0 DSPs. Of the DSPs that the respondents identified, the majority were children (30%), followed by partners/spouses (23%), friends (15%), siblings (10%), other family members (6%), and parents (5%). Married/partnered women (p < 0.001), those younger than 45 years old (p < 0.001), those with more than 1 comorbidity (p < 0.001), and black women (p = 0.02) were all more likely to report larger networks on average. Larger support networks were associated with more deliberative surgical decisions (p < 0.001). Conclusions: In this population-based sample, the majority of women engaged DSPs in their treatment decision making and for non-partnered patients, DSPs still played a key role in decision making. Larger size decision support networks were associated with higher quality decisions, underscoring the importance of efforts to identify and engage DSPs in the breast cancer decision making process.
Worry about recurrence and patient preferences for provider roles in collaborative breast cancer care.
Authors: Wallner Lauren P. , Janz Nancy K. , Li Yun , Friese Christopher Ryan , Ward Kevin C. , Hamilton Ann S. , Katz Steven J. , Hawley Sarah T. 
Published: April 2017

158 Background: Prior studies have shown that worry about recurrence is a common problem during cancer treatment and survivorship and may be associated with symptom response and surveillance after primary treatment. However, whether worry about recurrence influences patient preferences for which provider to see for their continuing care remains unknown. Methods: A random sample of patients newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2014-15 as reported to the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,502, 70% response rate). Frequency of worry about recurrence was defined by asking women to indicate on a 5-pt scale how often they worried about their cancer coming back in the past month (not at all-always) and was then dichotomized as frequent worry (sometimes/often/almost always) vs. less worry (almost never/rarely). Patient preferences for which provider manages certain aspects of care after treatment were ascertained for: follow-up mammograms, screening for other cancers, general preventive care, and treatment of comorbidities. Response categories included primary care clinician (PCP), cancer doctors, either or both. The associations between patient-reported worry about recurrence with preferences for provider roles were assessed using multinomial logistic regression. Results: In this sample, 37% of women reported worrying frequently about recurrence. Controlling for patient and clinical factors, women who reported more frequent worry (vs. less worry) were more likely to prefer to see both clinicians (vs. PCP only) for mammograms (OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 3.6), screening for other cancers (OR: 2.3, 95%CI: 1.5, 3.5), general preventive care (OR: 1.6, 95%CI: 1.1, 2.3) and comorbidity care (OR: 1.5, 95%CI: 1.03, 2.2). Conclusions: Frequent worry about recurrence was common in this sample of women with favorable prognosis breast cancer. More frequent worry about breast cancer recurrence was associated with stronger preferences for seeing both PCPs and oncologists for continuing care after treatment. Assessing and managing worry about recurrence early in survivorship may improve collaborative cancer care and reduce duplicated services after treatment.
Evidence-based guidance for peer review “best practices” in radiation oncology.
Authors: Brundage Michael Donald , O'Donnell Jennifer , Hart Margaret , Divanbeigi Lorella Divanbeigi , Gutierrez Eric , Ang Michelle , Murray Elizabeth , Warde Padraig Richard 
Published: April 2017

180 Background: Peer review (PR) is an essential component of quality assurance in radiation oncology practice, endorsed by Canadian cancer agencies as a national standard of quality care. However, reported patterns of care studies indicate that PR practice varies considerably, including which contours (e.g., target volumes, organs at risk (OARs)), which dose parameters (e.g., OAR constraints, homogeneity criteria), which decision making points (e.g., decision to treat, selection of anatomical regions), and which treatment imaging parameters are included in the PR process. Both qualitative and quantitative evidence support the need for guidance on PR best practices. Here we report processes for the establishment of best-practice guidelines/minimal standards for PR. Methods: A comprehensive literature review was done to quantify PR findings for each of 3 cancer streams: head/neck, lung, and breast. This evidence summarized which aspects of radiotherapy plans were most frequently "flagged" at PR. A modified Delphi process was used to develop cancer site-specific PR guidance documents: appropriate stakeholders were first identified; a pre-meeting survey determined opinions on which plan elements are essential/important to review; a face-to-face meeting considered the evidence base and survey results to reach consensus. Parallel processes were conducted separately for each stream. Results: The literature findings were compiled to summarize the reported proportion of plans flagged by PR, and the nature of the flag (i.e. volumes, dose, OARs, other) for each cancer stream. Stakeholders included radiation oncologists, physicists, radiation therapists, and patients, specific to each stream. Draft guidance documents were created on the basis of stakeholder consensus regarding which components of PR were deemed essential; other important or “second tier” elements were also identified. Conclusions: Guidance documents including minimum standards for PR can be successfully created based on structured consensus development informed by available evidence. This guidance promises to reduce variation in PR thereby optimizing the efficiencies of PR processes, and increasing the quality of radiation treatment plans.
A priority educational program at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre.
Authors: Grant Jasmine , Sellmann Susanna , Gundry Julie , Degendorfer Pamela 
Published: April 2017

189 Background: The clinical research environment is consistently evolving with new methodology, complexity and regulatory stringency. With this evolution, the need for a well-educated clinical research team is critical. There are approximately 300 clinical research staff at Princess Margaret, 100 Principal investigators. The Cancer Clinical Research Unit (CCRU) is a support department within the Princess Margaret Cancer Program and provides two dedicated staff to implement and facilitate clinical research education across the program. Methods: CCRU Education currently offers 50 unique education sessions with an average of 45 sessions per quarter. Starting in 2010, 9275 attendees have attended 892 CCRU in-class sessions. Since 2015, 224 sessions have been attended by 25 sites through teleconference. The CCRU has implemented an “Orientation Pathway” for new clinical research staff to provide clear guidance on mandatory research training activities, as well as role and task-specific training activities. In 2016, CCRU has included more workshop-style courses, providing scenario-based learning models. The CCRU uses a blend of online, in-class, and case-based learning sessions to promote critical thinking and stimulate vibrant group discussion. Interactive sessions and evaluation ensure learning needs are met. Results: Since implementing the interactive sessions, and the Orientation Pathways, the CCRU Quality Assurance department has seen a reduction of insufficient documentation findings. To measure this, the total number of Quality Assurance Review (QAR) findings on insufficient and/or incomplete documentation of the consent process was averaged and compared in 2014 and 2015 and a 25% decrease was noted. In addition, staff feedback is regularly collected through an online methods and is reviewed by the CCRU Quality-Education committee for training quality improvement. Conclusions: Positive staff feedback and a reduction of QAR findings has encouraged CCRU Education to continue creating workshop-based training sessions that are interactive, timely and effective. Efforts will continue to include CCRU-QA findings in the development of new course content to ensure staff are well trained and overall quality continues to improve.
Multidisciplinary cancer conferences as a forum for early identification of patients who can benefit from a palliative approach to care: INTEGRATE quality improvement project.
Authors: Wright Frances Catriona , Buchman Sandy , MacKinnon Marnie , Arthurs Erin , Rajmohan Yanchini 
Published: April 2017

196 Background: Introducing palliative care early in the cancer journey results in a better quality of life, less aggressive care and longer survival compared to patients receiving standard care. The INTEGRATE project goal is to identify and manage patients who may benefit from palliative care earlier in their care. Multidisciplinary cancer conferences (MCCs) are scheduled meetings for oncology teams to prospectively discuss patient diagnostic tests and treatment options. In this study, we tested whether MCCs could be used as a forum to identify patients using the UK Gold Standards Framework Surprise Question (Would you be surprised if this person died within the next year?). Methods: Cancer centres volunteered to participate in a pilot project to test the efficacy of the Surprise Question at MCCs and implement a palliative model of care. Prior to initiation, a survey was completed to identify provider comfort in providing palliative care. All sites received primary level palliative care education by completing Pallium Canada’s LEAP Oncology module. Identified patients received Advance Care Planning, symptom management, referrals and standardized reporting to primary care. Results: A baseline survey showed over 50% of providers had no palliative care training. 157 providers participated in LEAP Oncology. Three MCC disease sites (Lung, GI and CNS) are participating in 3 academic and 1 non-academic cancer centres. Implementation of the Surprise Question began in February 2015 and by August 2016, 300 patients were identified out of 1086 total reviewed patients. At the CNS MCC, 100% of all glioblastoma patients were identified. The Lung and GI sites had lower identification rates (19% and 19%, respectively). Identified patients will have their healthcare utilization (community referrals, billing patterns, etc.) analyzed and final results will be synthesized by project completion in January 2017. Conclusions: MCCs appear to be an excellent forum for identifying patients who may benefit from a palliative approach to care within CNS, Lung and GI site groups. Further analysis will inform broader palliative care recommendations in Ontario.