Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care

5 de marzo de 2021 actualizado por: National Committee for Quality Assurance

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.

Descripción general del estudio

Estado

Terminado

Condiciones

Descripción detallada

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.

Tipo de estudio

De observación

Inscripción (Actual)

125250

Contactos y Ubicaciones

Esta sección proporciona los datos de contacto de quienes realizan el estudio e información sobre dónde se lleva a cabo este estudio.

Ubicaciones de estudio

    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, Estados Unidos, 20005
        • National Committee for Quality Assurance

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

18 años y mayores (Adulto, Adulto Mayor)

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

No

Géneros elegibles para el estudio

Todos

Método de muestreo

Muestra no probabilística

Población de estudio

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.

Descripción

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

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

Cohortes e Intervenciones

Grupo / Cohorte
Intervención / Tratamiento
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track & coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track & coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort
Patients with an evaluation & management claim attributed to a medical oncology pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track & coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track & coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort
Patients with an evaluation & management claim attributed to a medical oncology comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort
Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past two years
Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track & coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track & coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Periodo de tiempo: At baseline and 24 months follow up

Patient experience survey composite scores were evaluated in the pilot practice group and in the comparison practice group during the intervention period and the follow-up period using a modified version of the cancer CAHPS patient survey.

We calculated survey composite scores on a 0-100 scale using proportional scoring and the summated rating method based on the CAHPS macro.This method calculates the mean responses to each survey item in the composite, after transforming each response to a 0-100 scale (100 representing the most positive response on any given item response scale; 0 representing the least positive). For example, on a Yes/No response scale, if "Yes" represents the most positive response, then Yes= 100 and No = 0; on an Always/Usually/Sometimes/Never response scale, if "Always" represents the most positive response, then Always = 100, Usually = 67, Sometimes = 33 and Never = 0. A higher score means that practices were rated more positively for care on that item.

At baseline and 24 months follow up
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Periodo de tiempo: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow-up
Quality measure performance rates were evaluated in the pilot practice group during the baseline period and the follow-up period. Data were abstracted from medical records for a sample of patients diagnosed with an invasive malignancy within previous 2 years and with at least 2 visits to the practice in the previous six months at baseline and at 36 months follow-up.
Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow-up
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
Periodo de tiempo: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow up
Per member per month hospitalizations, emergency department visits, primary care visits and specialist visits were evaluated in the pilot group and in the comparison group using insurance claims data during the baseline, start-up, intervention and follow-up periods.
Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow up

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Investigadores

  • Investigador principal: Sarah H Scholle, DrPH, MPH, National Committee for Quality Assurance

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio

1 de febrero de 2014

Finalización primaria (Actual)

1 de enero de 2017

Finalización del estudio (Actual)

1 de enero de 2017

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

31 de enero de 2014

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

8 de abril de 2014

Publicado por primera vez (Estimar)

10 de abril de 2014

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

9 de marzo de 2021

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

5 de marzo de 2021

Última verificación

1 de marzo de 2021

Más información

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir