Pamela Kadlubek

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

Michigan Oncology Practices Showed Varying Adherence Rates To Practice Guidelines, But Quality Interventions Improved Care

Despite improvements in care for patients with cancer, and in their survival rates, it is not clear that best practices are uniformly delivered to patients. We measured the quality of outpatient cancer care, using validated quality measures, in a consortium of thirty-six outpatient oncology practices in Michigan. We discovered that throughout the measurement period, for breast and colorectal cancer care, there was a more than 85 percent rate of adherence to quality care processes. For end-of-life care processes, the adherence rate was 73 percent, and for symptom and toxicity management care processes, adherence was 56 percent. In particular, we found variations in care around the fundamental oncologic task of management of cancer pain. To address quality gaps, we developed interventions to improve adherence to treatment guidelines, improve pain management, and incorporate palliative care into oncology practice. We concluded that statewide consortia that assume much of the cost burden of quality improvement activities can bring together oncology providers and payers to measure quality and design interventions to improve care.

Development and Future of the American Society of Clinical Oncology's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

Summary In 1999, the IOM issued a cancer quality report that spurred onQOPI development. In 2013, the IOM released a follow-up report. 29 The update reinforces that there is work yet to be accomplished;however,webelievethatoncologyhasmadesignificantprogresssince1999 and that QOPI has contributed positively. Ongoing evolution oftheQOPIprogram,underthecarefulguidanceofoncologyproviders,is critical to maintaining the relevance and meaningfulness of theprogram to ASCO members and positive impact for their patients. AUTHORS’ DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Disclosures provided by the authors are available with this article atwww.jco.org. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONSAdministrative support: Kristen McNiff, Terry Gilmore, Pamela J.Kadlubek Manuscriptwriting: All authors Finalapprovalofmanuscript: All authors REFERENCES 1. Hewitt M, Simone J: National Cancer Policy Board, Institute of Medicine:Ensuring Quality Cancer Care. Washington, DC, National Academies Press, 1999 2. MalinJL,SchneiderEC,EpsteinAM,etal:ResultsofTheNationalInitiativefor Cancer Care Quality: How can we improve the quality of cancer care in theUnited States? J Clin Oncol 24:626-634, 2006

Evolution and Elements of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Measure Set

BACKGROUND Over the past 5 years, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) has supported the development of a Web-based quality-reporting tool in response to a recognized need to provide medical oncologists the opportunity to demonstrate the quality of care that they are providing to patients. METHODS The development of quality measures, their basis in the literature, and the descriptions and organizational structure of the measures are discussed. RESULTS Specific results are the property of practices and are not shared outside of the practices except in aggregate. The system allows collection of information concerning a wide range of quality measures in a short period of time. In the last data collection period in the fall of 2008, information was submitted concerning 81 measures of quality divided into one required and six optional modules from over 250 practices concerning 15,000 patients. CONCLUSIONS The timely collection of information on a wide range of quality measures regarding cancer patients can be efficiently collected using a Web-based data collection tool allowing for practice self-examination and comparison with other practices.

Administration of Oral Chemotherapy: Results From Three Rounds of the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative

PURPOSE Although use of oral chemotherapy is becoming more prevalent, little is known about the quality of care that patients receive when these agents are prescribed. Moreover, few practice-level systems are in place to ensure safe management of oral chemotherapy in the vulnerable population of patients with cancer. METHODS We analyzed results from 155 practices that were voluntarily participating in the American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) program on 17 test measures of oral chemotherapy administration and management in at least one of three collection periods: spring or fall of 2012, or spring of 2013. The 17 test measures cover three domains: treatment plan documentation, patient education, and adherence/toxicity monitoring. We defined composite scores for each of the three domains. We analyzed the composite scores by secular trend and tested the difference in composite scores for the three domains. Additionally, we tested change in scores over time among practices that participated at least twice. RESULTS The majority of data was provided by QOPI-certified practices. Overall, mean practice composite scores ranged from 66% to 68% for treatment plan documentation, 51% to 57% for patient education, and 75% to 81% for adherence/toxicity monitoring. Composite scores for practices that participated more than once did not improve significantly. CONCLUSION The collection of oral chemotherapy test measure data is feasible. Composite scores for treatment plan documentation and patient education were not only lower, but had greater variability compared with adherence/toxicity monitoring. Improvement opportunities exist for patients who are prescribed oral chemotherapy.

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 ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI).

CRA1505 Background: The cancer family history (CFH) is an important tool for identification of individuals for genetic counseling/testing (GC/GT). Prior studies demonstrate a low rate of family history documentation and low referral rates for genetic counseling and genetic testing. METHODS In 2011ASCO began pilot testing new measures in QOPI to evaluate the practice of family history taking and referral for genetic counseling/testing in patients with either breast cancer (BC) or colorectal cancer (CRC). The measures assessed the presence or absence of CFH in 1st/2nd degree relatives, age at cancer diagnosis, referral for GC/GT and outcomes of referral. RESULTS Between September and October 2011 272 practices pilot tested these measures and reported on 10,466 patients (BC 6569, CRC 3897). 77.4% of all charts reviewed documented presence or absence of CFH in 1st degree relatives (BC 81.2% (CI 80-82%), CRC 77.4% (CI 76-79%), p= <0.001) and 61.5% of charts documented presence or absence of CFH in 2nd degree relatives (BC 68.9% (CI 68-70%), CRC 57.3% (CI 56-59%) p=<0.001). Age at diagnosis was documented for all relatives with cancer in 30.7% of charts (BC 45.2% (CI 44-47%), CRC 35.4% (CI 34-37%) p=<0.001). Patients were referred for GC/GT in 22.1% of all charts reviewed (BC 29.1% (CI 28-30%), CRC 19.6% (CI, 18-21%) p=<0.001). Of patients with hereditary risk (defined by selected risk guidelines) 52.2% of BC and 26.4% CRC were referred for GC/GT. When genetic testing was performed by the practice consent was documented 77.7% of the time and discussion of results was documented 78.8% of the time. CONCLUSIONS Appropriate referral for GC/GT requires a complete and accurate CFH. In this pilot testing of QOPI measures we identified a higher quality of CFH information than expected though with room for improvement. Significant differences were seen between BC and CRC charts with greater accuracy of CFH and higher referral rates among BC patients. To obtain improvement in the identification and management of patients at high risk, significant improvements are needed. Education is part of the answer.