Network


Latest external collaboration on country level. Dive into details by clicking on the dots.

Hotspot


Dive into the research topics where Michael N. Neuss is active.

Publication


Featured researches published by Michael N. Neuss.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2005

A Process for Measuring the Quality of Cancer Care: The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Michael N. Neuss; Christopher E. Desch; Kristen K. McNiff; Peter D. Eisenberg; Dean H. Gesme; Joseph O. Jacobson; Mohammad Jahanzeb; Jennifer J. Padberg; John M. Rainey; Jeff J. Guo; Joseph V. Simone

PURPOSE The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a practice-based system of quality self-assessment sponsored by the participants and the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO). The process of quality evaluation, development of the pilot questionnaire, and preliminary results are reported. METHODS Physicians from seven oncology groups developed medical record abstraction measures based on practice guidelines and consensus-supported indicators of quality care. Each practice completed two rounds of records review and received practice and aggregate results. Mean frequencies of responses for each indicator were compared among practices. RESULTS Participants universally, if informally, find QOPI helpful, and results show statistically significant variation among practices for several indicators, including assessing pain in patients close to death, documentation of informed consent for chemotherapy, and concordance with granulocytic and erythroid growth factor administration guidelines. Measures with universally high concordance include the use of serotonin antagonist antiemetics according to the ASCO guideline; the presence of a pathology report in the record; the use of chemotherapy flow sheets; and adherence to standard chemotherapy recommendations for patients with certain stages of breast, colon, and rectal cancer. Concordance with quality indicators significantly changed between survey rounds for several measures. CONCLUSION Pilot results indicate that the QOPI process provides a rapid and objective measurement of practice quality that allows comparisons among practices and over time. It also provides a mechanism for measuring concordance with published guidelines. Most importantly, it provides a tool for practice self-examination that can promote excellence in cancer care.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2008

Improvement in Oncology Practice Performance Through Voluntary Participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Joseph O. Jacobson; Michael N. Neuss; Kristen K. McNiff; Pamela Kadlubek; Leroy R. Thacker; Frank Song; Peter D. Eisenberg; Joseph V. Simone

PURPOSE The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) became available to all American Society of Clinical Oncology member physicians in 2006 as a voluntary medical oncology practice-based quality measurement and improvement project. QOPI assesses practice performance for a series of evidence- and consensus-based process measures, relying on practices to complete structured chart reviews and submit data via a secure Web-based portal. METHODS This analysis focused on the 71 practices that participated in both the March and September 2006 data collections (7,624 charts abstracted in March and 10,240 in September). Among 33 measures common to both collections, five measures were closely correlated, and 28 are included in the final analysis. Composite scores were created for six different domains of care. Statistical significance was tested on both absolute changes and relative changes (relative failure reduction) of quality measures from baseline to follow-up and between the lower quartile and all other quartiles. RESULTS Practice performance on individual measures varied between 18.8% and 98.6%. Mean overall performance as measured by a composite score increased from 78.7% in March to 82.3% in September (P < .05). Improvement was most marked among practices originally performing in the bottom quartile. Using a composite score, the absolute and relative performance for the bottom quartile improved by 27% and 35%, respectively, statistically superior to that of all others. CONCLUSION Practices that participated in QOPI demonstrated improved performance in self-reported process measures, with the greatest improvement demonstrated in initially low-performing practices.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2009

Implementation of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative at a University Comprehensive Cancer Center

Douglas W. Blayney; Kristen K. McNiff; David A. Hanauer; Gretchen Miela; Denise Markstrom; Michael N. Neuss

PURPOSE The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) is a voluntary program developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) to aid oncology practices in quality self-assessment. Few academic cancer centers have been QOPI participants. METHODS We implemented the QOPI process at the University of Michigan Comprehensive Cancer Center, a large, hospital-based academic cancer center, and report our experience with five rounds of data collection. Patient medical records were selected using QOPI-specified procedures and abstracted locally; results were entered into an ASCO-maintained database and analyzed. RESULTS Abstractors who were not directly involved with patient care required an average of 62.3 minutes per medical record (4.7 minutes per data element) to abstract data. We found that compliance with quality measures was uniformly high when measures were structured into our electronic medical record. Results from other measures, including those measuring chemotherapy administration in the last 2 weeks of life, were initially markedly different from those reported by other QOPI participants. Our practice changed toward the QOPI national practice norm after a presentation of the results at a faculty research conference. We found that other measures were consistently greater than 90%, including disease-specific diagnosis and treatment measures. CONCLUSION Measuring and showing performance data to physicians was sufficient to change some aspects of physician behavior. Improvement in other measures requires structural practice changes. QOPI, an oncologist-developed system, can be adapted for use in practice improvement at an academic medical center.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2014

Quality of Cancer Family History and Referral for Genetic Counseling and Testing Among Oncology Practices: A Pilot Test of Quality Measures As Part of the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Marie Wood; Pamela Kadlubek; Trang Pham; Dana S. Wollins; Karen H. Lu; Jeffrey N. Weitzel; Michael N. Neuss; Kevin S. Hughes

PURPOSE Family history of cancer (CFH) is important for identifying individuals to receive genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies have demonstrated low rates of family history documentation and referral for GC/GT. METHODS CFH quality and GC/GT practices for patients with breast (BC) or colon cancer (CRC) were assessed in 271 practices participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative in fall 2011. RESULTS A total of 212 practices completed measures regarding CFH and GC/GT practices for 10,466 patients; 77.4% of all medical records reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in first-degree relatives, and 61.5% of medical records documented presence or absence of CFH in second-degree relatives, with significantly higher documentation for patients with BC compared with CRC. Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of medical records (BC, 45.2%; CRC, 35.4%; P ≤ .001). Referall for GC/GT occurred in 22.1% of all patients with BC or CRC. Of patients with increased risk for hereditary cancer, 52.2% of patients with BC and 26.4% of those with CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed, consent was documented 77.7% of the time, and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time. CONCLUSION We identified low rates of complete CFH documentation and low rates of referral for those with BC or CRC meeting guidelines for referral among US oncologists. Documentation and referral were greater for patients with BC compared with CRC. Education and support regarding the importance of accurate CFH and the benefits of proactive high-risk patient management are clearly needed.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2008

Measuring Supportive Care in Medical Oncology Practice: Lessons Learned From the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Kristen K. McNiff; Michael N. Neuss; Joseph O. Jacobson; Peter D. Eisenberg; Pamela Kadlubek; Joseph V. Simone

We provide a brief review of the use of quality measures to assess supportive care in the medical oncology office. Specifically, we discuss the development and implementation of supportive care measures in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), a voluntary quality measurement and improvement program of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. QOPI has demonstrated that medical oncologists voluntarily engage in self-assessment and often select measures related to supportive care for measurement and improvement. Results to date have demonstrated that there is room for improvement in this domain. Because supportive care measures appropriate for use through structured chart review in the outpatient oncology setting are not generally available in the published literature, measures have been developed and tested through the program. Additional measures are in development for implementation in QOPI in 2008.


Oncology Nursing Forum | 2013

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

Michael N. Neuss; Martha Polovich; Kristen K. McNiff; Peg Esper; Terry R. Gilmore; Kristine B. LeFebvre; Lisa Schulmeister; Joseph O. Jacobson

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.


Journal of Oncology Practice | 2011

Advancing Performance Measurement in Oncology: Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Participation and Quality Outcomes

Francis X. Campion; Leanne R. Larson; Pamela Kadlubek; Craig C. Earle; Michael N. Neuss

The American health care system, including the cancer care system, is under pressure to improve patient outcomes and lower the cost of care. Government payers have articulated an interest in partnering with the private sector to create learning communities to measure quality and improve the value of health care. In 2006, the American Society for Clinical Oncology (ASCO) unveiled the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI), which has become a key component of the measurement system to promote quality cancer care. QOPI is a physician-led, voluntary, practice-based, quality-improvement program, using performance measurement and benchmarking among oncology practices across the United States. Since its inception, ASCOs QOPI has grown steadily to include 973 practices as of November 2010. One key area that QOPI has addressed is end-of-life care. During the most recent data collection cycle in the Fall of 2010, those practices completing multiple data collection cycles had better performance on care of pain compared with sites participating for the first time (62.61% v 46.89%). Similarly, repeat QOPI participants demonstrated meaningfully better performance than their peers in the rate of documenting discussions of hospice and palliative care (62.42% v 54.65%) and higher rates of hospice enrollment. QOPI demonstrates how a strong performance measurement program can lead to improved quality and value of care for patients.


Journal of Clinical Oncology | 2012

Measuring the Improving Quality of Outpatient Care in Medical Oncology Practices in the United States

Michael N. Neuss; Jennifer Malin; Stephanie Chan; Pamela Kadlubek; John L. Adams; Joseph O. Jacobson; Douglas W. Blayney; Joseph V. Simone

PURPOSE The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) has provided a method for measuring process-based practice quality since 2006. We sought to determine whether QOPI scores showed improvement in measured quality over time and, if change was demonstrated, which factors in either the measures or participants were associated with improvement. METHODS The analysis included 156 practice groups from a larger group of 308 that submitted data from 2006 to 2010. One hundred fifty-two otherwise eligible practices were excluded, most commonly for insufficient data submission. A linear regression model that controlled for varied initial performance was used to estimate the effect of participation over time and evaluate participant and measure characteristics of improvement. RESULTS Participants completed a mean of 5.06 (standard deviation, 1.94) rounds of data collection. Adjusted mean quality scores improved from 0.71 (95% CI, 0.42 to 0.91) to 0.85 (95% CI, 0.60 to 0.95). Overall odds ratio of improvement over time was 1.09 (P < .001). The greatest improvement was seen in measures that assessed newly introduced clinical information, in which the mean scores improved from 0.05 (95% CI, 0.01 to 0.17) to 0.69 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.91; P < .001). Many measures showed no change over time. CONCLUSION Many US oncologists have participated in QOPI over the past 6 years. Participation over time was highly correlated with improvement in measured performance. Greater and faster improvement was seen in measures concerning newly introduced clinical information. Some measures showed no change despite opportunity for improvement.


Journal of Oncology Practice | 2012

Revisions to the 2009 American Society of Clinical Oncology/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards: Expanding the Scope to Include Inpatient Settings

Joseph O. Jacobson; Martha Polovich; Terry R. Gilmore; Lisa Schulmeister; Peg Esper; Kristine B. LeFebvre; Michael N. Neuss

In November 2009, ASCO and the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) jointly published a set of 31 voluntary chemotherapy safety standards for adult patients with cancer, as the end result of a highly structured, multistakeholder process. The standards were explicitly created to address patient safety in the administration of parenteral and oral chemotherapeutic agents in outpatient oncology settings. In January 2011, a workgroup consisting of ASCO and ONS members was convened to review feedback received since publication of the standards, to address interim changes in practice, and to modify the standards as needed. The most significant change to the standards is to extend their scope to the inpatient setting. This change reflects the conviction that the same standards for chemotherapy administration safety should apply in all settings. The proposed set of standards has been approved by the Board of Directors for both ASCO and ONS and has been posted for public comment. Comments were used as the basis for final editing of the revised standards. The workgroup recognizes that the safety of oral chemotherapy usage, nononcology medication reconciliation, and home chemotherapy administration are not adequately addressed in the original or revised standards. A separate process, cosponsored by ASCO and ONS, will address the development of safety standards for these areas.


Journal of Oncology Practice | 2016

American Society of Clinical Oncology Policy Statement on Clinical Pathways in Oncology

Robin Zon; James N. Frame; Michael N. Neuss; Ray D. Page; Dana S. Wollins; Steven K. Stranne; Linda Bosserman

The use of clinical pathways in oncology care is increasingly important to patients and oncology providers as a tool for enhancing both quality and value. However, with increasing adoption of pathways into oncology practice, concerns have been raised by ASCO members and other stakeholders. These include the process being used for pathway development, the administrative burdens on oncology practices of reporting on pathway adherence, and understanding the true impact of pathway use on patient health outcomes. To address these concerns, ASCOs Board of Directors established a Task Force on Clinical Pathways, charged with articulating a set of recommendations to improve the development of oncology pathways and processes, allowing the demonstration of pathway concordance in a manner that promotes evidence-based, high-value care respecting input from patients, payers, and providers. These recommendations have been approved and adopted by ASCOs Board of Directors on August 12, 2015, and are presented herein.

Collaboration


Dive into the Michael N. Neuss's collaboration.

Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Pamela Kadlubek

American Society of Clinical Oncology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Terry R. Gilmore

American Society of Clinical Oncology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Dana S. Wollins

American Society of Clinical Oncology

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

Jennifer Malin

University of California

View shared research outputs
Top Co-Authors

Avatar
Top Co-Authors

Avatar

John M. Rainey

University of Cincinnati

View shared research outputs
Researchain Logo
Decentralizing Knowledge