Mikele Bunce

Care for a Patient With Cancer As a Project: Management of Complex Task Interdependence in Cancer Care Delivery

Cancer care is highly complex and suffers from fragmentation and lack of coordination across provider specialties and clinical domains. As a result, patients often find that they must coordinate care on their own. Coordinated delivery teams may address these challenges and improve quality of cancer care. Task interdependence is a core principle of rigorous teamwork and is essential to addressing the complexity of cancer care, which is highly interdependent across specialties and modalities. We examined challenges faced by a patient with early-stage breast cancer that resulted from difficulties in understanding and managing task interdependence across clinical domains involved in this patients care. We used team science supported by the project management discipline to discuss how various task interdependence aspects can be recognized, deliberately designed, and systematically managed to prevent care breakdowns. This case highlights how effective task interdependence management facilitated by project management methods could markedly improve the course of a patients care. This work informs efforts of cancer centers and practices to redesign cancer care delivery through innovative, practical, and patient-centered approaches to management of task interdependence in cancer care. Future patient-reported outcomes research will help to determine optimal ways to engage patients, including those who are medically underserved, in managing task interdependence in their own care.

Radiology as the Point of Cancer Patient and Care Team Engagement: Applying the 4R Model at a Patient’s Breast Cancer Care Initiation

Radiologists aspire to improve patient experience and engagement, as part of the Triple Aim of health reform. Patient engagement requires active partnerships among health providers and patients, and rigorous teamwork provides a mechanism for this. Patient and care team engagement are crucial at the time of cancer diagnosis and care initiation but are complicated by the necessity to orchestrate many interdependent consultations and care events in a short time. Radiology often serves as the patient entry point into the cancer care system, especially for breast cancer. It is uniquely positioned to play the value-adding role of facilitating patient and team engagement during cancer care initiation. The 4R approach (Right Information and Right Care to the Right Patient at the Right Time), previously proposed for optimizing teamwork and care delivery during cancer treatment, could be applied at the time of diagnosis. The 4R approach considers care for every patient with cancer as a project, using project management to plan and manage care interdependencies, assign clear responsibilities, and designate a quarterback function. The authors propose that radiology assume the quarterback function during breast cancer care initiation, developing the care initiation sequence, as a project care plan for newly diagnosed patients, and engaging patients and their care teams in timely, coordinated activities. After initial consultations and treatment plan development, the quarterback function is transitioned to surgery or medical oncology. This model provides radiologists with opportunities to offer value-added services and solidifies radiologys relevance in the evolving health care environment. To implement 4R at cancer care initiation, it will be necessary to change the radiology practice model to incorporate patient interaction and teamwork, develop 4R content and local adaption approaches, and enrich radiology training with relevant clinical knowledge, patient interaction competence, and teamwork skill set.

The Relationship Between Guideline-Recommended Initiation of Therapy, Outcomes, and Cost for Patients with Metastatic Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer

BACKGROUND Guideline-recommended therapy for metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC) encourages evidence-based treatment; however, there is a knowledge gap regarding the influence of guideline-recommended initiation of therapy on outcomes and cost. OBJECTIVE To investigate if lack of guideline-recommended initiation of first-line systemic therapy was associated with worse patient outcomes and increased costs for patients with mNSCLC. METHODS In this retrospective analysis, 1,344 Medicare patients with mNSCLC were identified from Humana data. Performance status (PS) was imputed using procedure, diagnosis, and durable medical equipment codes pre-index. Guideline-recommended initiation of therapy was defined as ≥1 cycle of National Comprehensive Cancer Network-recommended first-line therapy based on age and PS or targeted therapies regardless of age and PS. Demographics and clinical characteristics were compared by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. A Cox model assessed factors associated with 6-month mortality. End-of-life quality of care indicators included hospital admission and oncology infusions 30 days preceding death and were evaluated using logistic regression models. A generalized linear model assessed the relationship between guideline-recommended initiation of therapy and total health care costs in the 6 months post-index controlling for clinical, demographic, and treatment characteristics. Logistic models for inpatient stays and emergency department visits were also evaluated. RESULTS Guideline-recommended therapy initiation was observed in 75.5% of patients. Patients not initiating guideline-recommended therapy were older, with a mean (SD) age of 72.5 (6.7) versus 71.2 (6.2) years (P = 0.001), and more frequently identified as having a low-income subsidy (30.0% vs. 16.4%; P < 0.001). Among the 24.6% of patients who died ≤ 6 months post-index, a greater percentage had not initiated guideline-recommended therapy (28.8% vs. 23.2%; P = 0.040). In adjusted models, PS (not initiation of guideline-recommended therapy) was predictive of mortality (patients with poor PS had an 84% higher probability of death [P = 0.014]). Among decedents, 64.2% were hospitalized, and 33.9% had an oncology-related infusion within 30 days of death, with no differences by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy. These end-of-life quality indicators were not associated with guideline-recommended initiation of therapy in adjusted models. Overall, 47.5% of patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy were hospitalized compared with 55.0% of patients who did not (P = 0.026). Patients initiating guideline-recommended therapy had higher post-index total and oncology-related health care costs and fewer hospitalizations. In models, these differences in costs and hospitalizations were not associated with initiation of guideline-recommended therapy. CONCLUSIONS Most patients initiated guideline-recommended therapy, with no differences in mortality and quality of care at the end of life by guideline-recommended initiation of therapy, though adherence beyond treatment initiation was not assessed. Unadjusted hospitalization rates were lower and costs were higher for patients who initiated guideline-recommended therapy. These differences were no longer observed after risk adjustment, suggesting that they may have been influenced by patient characteristics, disease progression, and subsequent treatment decisions. DISCLOSURES This study was sponsored by Genentech. Khoury, Michael, Parikh, and Bunce are employed by Genentech. Casebeer, Drzayich Antol, DeClue, Hopson, Li, and Stemkowski are employed by Comprehensive Health Insights, Humana, which was contracted by Genentech to conduct this study. Sehman is employed by Humana. Based on this research, 2 posters were presented at the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy Nexus 2017 on October 16-19, 2017, in Dallas, Texas. Another poster was also presented at the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) Annual European Congress on October 29-November 2, 2016, in Vienna, Austria.

Tools for Communication: Novel Infrastructure to Address Patient-Perceived Gaps in Oncology Care

BACKGROUND: Healthcare providers (HCPs) and patient communication are integral to high‐quality oncology care. The patient and HCP perspectives are needed to identify gaps in care and develop communication tools. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to understand patient‐ and HCP‐perceived elements of and gaps in high‐quality care to develop novel communication tools to improve care. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted among 16 patients with cancer and 10 HCPs in the United States. Trained interviewers elicited patients’ and HCPs’ concerns, views, and perceived needs for communication tools. A thematic analysis was used to identify four quality of care domains, depicted in a conceptual model, and two draft communication tools were developed to address identified gaps. FINDINGS: No patients reported previously using a communication tool, and gaps in communication regarding treatment aims and education were evident. Two tools were developed to assess patients’ life and treatment goals and the importance of ongoing education.