Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et l'exactitude de la traduction n'est pas garantie. Veuillez vous référer au version anglaise pour un texte source.

Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care

5 mars 2021 mis à jour par: 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.

Aperçu de l'étude

Statut

Complété

Les conditions

Description détaillée

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.

Type d'étude

Observationnel

Inscription (Réel)

125250

Contacts et emplacements

Cette section fournit les coordonnées de ceux qui mènent l'étude et des informations sur le lieu où cette étude est menée.

Lieux d'étude

    • District of Columbia
      • Washington, District of Columbia, États-Unis, 20005
        • National Committee for Quality Assurance

Critères de participation

Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.

Critère d'éligibilité

Âges éligibles pour étudier

18 ans et plus (Adulte, Adulte plus âgé)

Accepte les volontaires sains

Non

Sexes éligibles pour l'étude

Tout

Méthode d'échantillonnage

Échantillon non probabiliste

Population étudiée

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.

La description

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 d'étude

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.

Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?

Détails de conception

Cohortes et interventions

Groupe / Cohorte
Intervention / Traitement
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.

Que mesure l'étude ?

Principaux critères de jugement

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Délai: 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
Délai: 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
Délai: 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

Collaborateurs et enquêteurs

C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.

Les enquêteurs

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

Dates d'enregistrement des études

Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.

Dates principales de l'étude

Début de l'étude

1 février 2014

Achèvement primaire (Réel)

1 janvier 2017

Achèvement de l'étude (Réel)

1 janvier 2017

Dates d'inscription aux études

Première soumission

31 janvier 2014

Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

8 avril 2014

Première publication (Estimation)

10 avril 2014

Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude

Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)

9 mars 2021

Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

5 mars 2021

Dernière vérification

1 mars 2021

Plus d'information

Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .

S'abonner