Clinical trial NCT02110758: Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care
Official title: Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care
Study type: OBSERVATIONAL
Overall status: COMPLETED
Conditions: Neoplasms
Keywords: Patient Care Management
Patient Care Planning
Patient-Centered Care
Patient Care Team
Advance Care Planning
Delivery of Health Care
Evidence-based Practice
Health Care Costs
Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation
Quality of Health Care
Neoplasms
Medical Oncology
Lead sponsor: National Committee for Quality Assurance
Sponsor class: OTHER
Collaborators: name: American Society of Clinical Oncology
name: Independence Blue Cross
name: National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship
name: Oncology Management Services
name: RAND
First posted: 2014-04-10
Enrollment: 125250
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: no
Observational model: COHORT
Time perspective: PROSPECTIVE
Sampling method: NON_PROBABILITY_SAMPLE
Study population: The study population consisted of patients with cancer who received their cancer care from oncology practices. We attributed patients to the study practices (pilot or comparison practices) based on the plurality of office visits for cancer diagnoses. We used sensitivity analyses to investigate other attribution rules, such as the majority of such office visits.

Brief summary: The National Committee for Quality Assurance has worked with the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Oncology Management Services, Independence Blue Cross, and RAND, as well as a broader multi-stakeholder advisory group, to define the Patient-Centered Oncology Care model. The purpose of this project was to pilot and evaluate this model. Specific research questions were:

1. Does Patient-Centered Oncology Care improve patient experiences and quality of care? Does it reduce undesirable events like emergency department visits and hospital stays?
2. How does adoption of Patient-Centered Oncology Care vary across a variety of practices and what factors affect adoption?

The demonstration occurred in oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania. Practices received implementation support during the 24-month demonstration period. They were evaluated using patient surveys, quality measures, and measures of emergency department and hospital use. Results from these practices were compared in two ways: 1) with their performance before they became oncology medical homes and 2) with other similar practices.

Detailed description: Background. Advances in cancer treatment mean that a growing number of Americans are living with cancer and experiencing it as a chronic, long-term condition. National panels led by consumers have identified the need for improved cancer care in the areas of communication between providers and patients and their families, care planning, attention to nonmedical needs, care coordination and provision of evidence-based treatment. The patient-centered medical home (PCMH) model of care is being widely adopted as a way to provide accessible, proactive, coordinated care and self-care through primary care practices. During active treatment for cancer, the oncology practice is often the primary setting supporting the patient and coordinating cancer treatment. By implementing the patient-centered medical home model, an innovative oncology practice in Pennsylvania has been able to improve access and reduce emergency department visits and hospitalizations for its patients.

Objectives. Building on these recommendations and experience, the National Committee for Quality Assurance has worked with the National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, the American Society of Clinical Oncology, Oncology Management Services, Independence Blue Cross, and RAND, as well as a broader multi-stakeholder advisory group, to define the Patient-Centered Oncology Care model. We sought PCORI support to pilot and evaluate this model. Specific research questions were:

1. Does Patient-Centered Oncology Care improve patient experiences and quality of care? Does it reduce undesirable events like emergency department visits and hospital stays?
2. How does adoption of Patient-Centered Oncology Care vary across a variety of practices and what factors affect adoption?

Methods. The demonstration occurred in 5 oncology practices in southeastern Pennsylvania. Practices received implementation support during the 24-month demonstration period. They were evaluated using patient surveys, quality measures, and measures of emergency department and hospital use. Results from these practices were compared in two ways: 1) with their performance before they became oncology medical homes and 2) with other similar practices. Patients, clinicians, and health plan leaders helped design the project, and disseminate results. The project used Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) resources efficiently by building on ongoing efforts. Our evaluation consisted of a retrospective, pre-post study design with a concurrent non-randomized control group of 18 local practices for the utilization and patient experience outcomes. We used difference-in-difference regression models that accounted for practice-level clustering and used functional forms appropriate to the dependent variables. For quality, we compared baseline and follow-up pilot practice performance to national and regional benchmark performance data.

Patient Outcomes. People with cancer are seeking high quality, coordinated and supportive care. The Patient-Centered Oncology Model has the potential to address current gaps in cancer care.

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria

Patients:

* Diagnosis of cancer
* Receives care at a pilot or comparison oncology practice located in southeastern Pennsylvania that accepts patients with Independence Blue Cross health insurance

Exclusion Criteria:

* Any person that does not meet any of the inclusion criteria

Primary outcomes:
measure: Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
timeFrame: At baseline and 24 months follow up
measure: Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
timeFrame: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow-up
measure: Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
timeFrame: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow up
Secondary outcomes:
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Washington
country: United States
facility: National Committee for Quality Assurance
state: District of Columbia
Study officials:
affiliation: National Committee for Quality Assurance
name: Sarah H Scholle, DrPH, MPH
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References: