Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care

Neoplasms Clinical Trial

Official title:

Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care

Clinical Trial Details — Status: Completed

Administrative data

• NCT number: NCT02110758
• Other study ID #: IH-12-11-4383
• Status: Completed
• Start date: February 2014
• Est. completion date: January 2017

Study information

• Verified date: March 2021
• Source: National Committee for Quality Assurance
• Contact: n/a
• Is FDA regulated: No
• Study type: Observational

Clinical Trial Summary

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.

Description:

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.

Recruitment information / eligibility

• Status: Completed
• Enrollment: 125250
• Est. completion date: January 2017
• Est. primary completion date: January 2017
• Accepts healthy volunteers: No
• Gender: All
• Age group: 18 Years and older

Eligibility

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

Related Conditions & MeSH terms

• Neoplasms

Intervention

Other:
• Pilot of Patient-Centered Oncology Care
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.

Locations

Country	Name	City	State
United States	National Committee for Quality Assurance	Washington	District of Columbia

Sponsors (6)

Lead Sponsor	Collaborator
National Committee for Quality Assurance	American Society of Clinical Oncology, Independence Blue Cross, National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship, Oncology Management Services, RAND

Country where clinical trial is conducted

United States, 

Outcome

Type	Measure	Description	Time frame	Safety issue
Primary	Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to 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
Primary	Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care	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
Primary	Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to 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