Elizabeth Fortier

Performance of a Trigger Tool for Identifying Adverse Events in Oncology.

PURPOSE Although patient safety is a priority in oncology, few tools measure adverse events (AEs) beyond treatment-related toxicities. The study objective was to assemble a set of clinical triggers in the medical record and assess the extent to which triggered events identified AEs. METHODS We performed a retrospective cohort study to assess the performance of an oncology medical record screening tool at a comprehensive cancer center. The study cohort included 400 patients age 18 years or older diagnosed with breast (n = 128), colorectal (n = 136), or lung cancer (n = 136), observed as in- and outpatients for up to 1 year. RESULTS We identified 790 triggers, or 1.98 triggers per patient (range, zero to 18 triggers). Three hundred four unique AEs were identified from medical record reviews and existing AE databases. The overall positive predictive value (PPV) of the original tool was 0.40 for total AEs and 0.15 for preventable or mitigable AEs. Examples of high-performing triggers included return to the operating room or interventional radiology within 30 days of surgery (PPV, 0.88 and 0.38 for total and preventable or mitigable AEs, respectively) and elevated blood glucose (> 250 mg/dL; PPV, 0.47 and 0.40 for total and preventable or mitigable AEs, respectively). The final modified tool included 49 triggers, with an overall PPV of 0.48 for total AEs and 0.18 for preventable or mitigable AEs. CONCLUSION A valid medical record screening tool for AEs in oncology could offer a powerful new method for measuring and improving cancer care quality. Future improvements could optimize the tools efficiency and create automated electronic triggers for use in real-time AE detection and mitigation algorithms.

ReCAP: Detection of Potentially Avoidable Harm in Oncology From Patient Medical Records

PURPOSE Widespread consensus exists about the importance of addressing patient safety issues in oncology, yet our understanding of the frequency, spectrum, and preventability of adverse events (AEs) across cancer care is limited. METHODS We developed a screening tool to detect AEs across cancer care settings through medical record review. Members of the study team reviewed the scientific literature and obtained structured input from an external multidisciplinary panel of clinicians by using a modified Delphi process. RESULTS The screening tool comprises 76 triggers-readily identifiable findings to screen for possible AEs that occur during cancer care. Categories of triggers are general care, vital signs, medication related, laboratory tests, other orders, and consultations. CONCLUSION Although additional testing is required to assess its performance characteristics, this tool may offer an efficient mechanism for identifying possibly preventable AEs in oncology and serve as an instrument for quality improvement.

Preventable and mitigable adverse events in cancer care: Measuring risk and harm across the continuum

Patient safety is a critical concern in clinical oncology, but the ability to measure adverse events (AEs) across cancer care is limited by a narrow focus on treatment‐related toxicities. The objective of this study was to assess the nature and extent of AEs among cancer patients across inpatient and outpatient settings.

A head and neck cancer intervention for use in survivorship clinics: a protocol for a feasibility study

BackgroundHead and neck cancer survivors commonly experience severe long-term toxicities, late-occurring symptoms, and significant risks of the second primary malignancy and comorbid illnesses. With multiple simultaneous health issues, these complex cancer survivors often do not receive comprehensive health care that addresses their needs. A tool is needed to streamline and standardize comprehensive care for this cohort.Methods/designWe designed the Head and Neck Survivorship Tool: Assessment and Recommendations (HN-STAR) to address health care challenges for head and neck cancer survivors. HN-STAR is an electronic platform that aims to simplify the provision of personalized care in cancer survivorship clinics. It uses an algorithmic approach to integrate patient-reported outcomes, clinical details, and evidence-based guidelines to standardize comprehensive care provided in routine survivorship visits. It has four integrated components: (1) a simplified treatment summary, which pulls treatment details from a clinical database or can be completed manually using a streamlined form; (2) an online self-assessment for patients to report their own symptoms; (3) an interactive discussion guide presenting all relevant information to the provider during the clinic visit; and (4) a survivorship care plan generated at the end of each visit that reflects decisions made during the visit. By using a modifiable electronic platform, HN-STAR provides a method for incorporating survivorship care plans into clinical practice and for disseminating evidence on symptom management and preventive care.This is a study to assess the feasibility of a future multi-site, randomized clinical trial of HN-STAR. We will enroll head and neck cancer survivors who are followed in one of two nurse practitioner-led survivorship clinics. We will implement HN-STAR for one routine survivorship visits. We will assess (1) usability and feasibility outcomes of HN-STAR from the perspective of key stakeholders and (2) the planned outcomes intended for the larger trial. We will collect usability and feasibility data from online surveys of survivors and their providers. Our findings will inform whether it is feasible to advance HN-STAR to trial. If so, we will adapt HN-STAR and the study design of the trial in response to feedback from survivors and providers. The long-term goal is to determine if such an intervention will lead to improved and simplified comprehensive survivorship care.DiscussionThis feasibility study will evaluate implementation of HN-STAR into clinical practice in terms of usability, practicality, and clinical flow in two distinct clinical settings. This study will also provide critical baseline data to characterize this vulnerable population. Findings from this study will inform a multicenter randomized trial of HN-STAR, aimed at standardizing and streamlining the delivery of evidence-guided comprehensive care for head and neck cancer survivors. Ultimately, if found effective, the modular structure of HN-STAR could permit its expansion to survivors of other complex cancers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02571673

Incorporating Multiple Perspectives Into the Development of an Electronic Survivorship Platform for Head and Neck Cancer

PURPOSE To improve the care of survivors of head and neck cancer, we developed the Head and Neck Survivorship Tool: Assessment and Recommendations (HN-STAR). HN-STAR is an electronic platform that incorporates patient-reported outcomes into a clinical decision support tool for use at a survivorship visit. Selections in the clinical decision support tool automatically populate a survivorship care plan (SCP). We aimed to refine HN-STAR by eliciting and incorporating feedback on its ease of use and usefulness. METHODS Human-computer interaction (HCI) experts reviewed HN-STAR using think-aloud testing and the Nielsen Heuristic Checklist. Nurse practitioners (NPs) thought aloud while reviewing the clinical decision support tool and SCP and responded to an interview. Survivors used HN-STAR as part of a routine visit and were interviewed afterward. We analyzed themes from the feedback. We described how we addressed each theme to improve the usability of HN-STAR. RESULTS Five HCI experts, 10 NPs, and 10 cancer survivors provided complementary usability insight that we categorized into themes of improvements. For ease of use, themes included technical design considerations to enhance user interface, ease of completion of a self-assessment, streamlining text, disruption of the clinic visit, and threshold for symptoms to appear on the SCP. The theme addressing usefulness was efficiency and comprehensiveness of the clinic visit. For each theme, we report revisions to HN-STAR in response to the feedback. CONCLUSION HCI experts provided key technical design insights into HN-STAR, whereas NPs and survivors provided usability feedback and clinical perspectives. We incorporated the feedback into the preparation for additional testing of HN-STAR. This method can inform and improve the ease of use and usefulness of the survivorship applications.

Peers without fears? Barriers to effective communication among primary care physicians and oncologists about diagnostic delays in cancer

Objective Relatively little attention has been devoted to the role of communication between physicians as a mechanism for individual and organisational learning about diagnostic delays. This study’s objective was to elicit physicians’ perceptions about and experiences with communication among physicians regarding diagnostic delays in cancer. Design, setting, participants Qualitative analysis based on seven focus groups. Fifty-one physicians affiliated with three New York-based academic medical centres participated, with six to nine subjects per group. We used content analysis to identify commonalities among primary care physicians and specialists (ie, medical and surgical oncologists). Primary outcome measure Perceptions and experiences with physician-to-physician communication about delays in cancer diagnosis. Results Our analysis identified five major themes: openness to communication, benefits of communication, fears about giving and receiving feedback, infrastructure barriers to communication and overcoming barriers to communication. Subjects valued communication about cancer diagnostic delays, but they had many concerns and fears about providing and receiving feedback in practice. Subjects expressed reluctance to communicate if there was insufficient information to attribute responsibility, if it would have no direct benefit or if it would jeopardise their existing relationships. They supported sensitive approaches to conveying information, as they feared eliciting or being subject to feelings of incompetence or shame. Subjects also cited organisational barriers. They offered suggestions that might facilitate communication about delays. Conclusions Addressing the barriers to communication among physicians about diagnostic delays is needed to promote a culture of learning across specialties and institutions. Supporting open and honest discussions about diagnostic delays may help build safer health systems.