Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Class |
|---|---|
| American Society of Clinical Oncology | OTHER |
| Independence Blue Cross | OTHER |
| National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship | UNKNOWN |
| Oncology Management Services |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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:
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.
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:
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.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania |
| |
| 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 |
| |
| 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 |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot of Patient-Centered Oncology Care | Other | 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. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| 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 |
| 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 |
| 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 |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria
Patients:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
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.
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Sarah H Scholle, DrPH, MPH | National Committee for Quality Assurance | Principal Investigator |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Committee for Quality Assurance | Washington D.C. | District of Columbia | 20005 | United States |
Not provided
We didn't follow patients longitudinally. We analyzed cross-sectional patient samples across our pilot and comparison arms in four different time periods: baseline, start-up, intervention & follow-up. Adding up the cross-sectional samples across the periods and arms equals our total enrollment of 125,250 patients.
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| FG000 | Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. |
| FG001 | Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care |
| FG002 | Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort | Patients with an evaluation & management claim attributed to a medical oncology pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. |
| FG003 | Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort | Patients with an evaluation & management claim attributed to a medical oncology comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care |
| FG004 | Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort | Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past two years Intervention: 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. |
| Title | Milestones | Reasons Not Completed | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline: August 2011-July 2013 |
| |||||||||||||
| Start-Up: August 2013-June 2014 |
| |||||||||||||
| Intervention: July 2014-December 2015 |
| |||||||||||||
| Follow-Up: January-July 2016 |
|
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| BG000 | Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. |
| Units | Counts |
|---|---|
| Participants |
|
| Title | Description | Population Description | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Denominator Units Selected | Denominators | Classes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized | Count of Participants |
| Type | Title | Description | Population Description | Reporting Status | Anticipated Posting Date | Parameter Type | Dispersion Type | Unit of Measure | Calculate Percentage | Time Frame | Units Analyzed | Denominator Units Selected | Arm/Group Information | Denominators | Classes | Analyses |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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. | Only the Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort and Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this Primary Outcome. | Posted | Mean | Full Range | units on a scale | At baseline and 24 months follow up |
Not provided
All-Cause Mortality, Serious, and Other (Not Including Serious) Adverse Events were not monitored/assessed
Not provided
| ID | Title | Description | Deaths (Affected) | Deaths (At Risk) | Serious Events (Affected) | Serious Events (At Risk) | Other Events (Affected) | Other Events (At Risk) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EG000 | Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Title | Organization | Phone | Extension | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sarah Hudson Scholle | National Committee for Quality Assurance | 202-955-1726 | scholle@ncqa.org |
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| UNKNOWN |
| RAND | OTHER |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| COMPLETED | This involved cross-sectional samples of patients; we did not follow individuals longitudinally |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| COMPLETED | This involved cross-sectional samples of patients; we did not follow individuals longitudinally |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| COMPLETED | This involved cross-sectional samples of patients; we did not follow individuals longitudinally |
|
| NOT COMPLETED |
|
| BG001 | Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care |
| BG002 | Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. |
| BG003 | Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care |
| BG004 | Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort | Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past two years Intervention: 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. |
| BG005 | Total | Total of all reporting groups |
| Participants |
|
| Sex/Gender, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized | Count of Participants | Participants |
|
| Region of Enrollment | Number | participants |
|
| ID | Title | Description |
|---|---|---|
| OG000 | Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. |
| OG001 | Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care |
|
|
|
| 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. | The pilot practices quality measures cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this outcome. The pilot practices pulled a sample of patient charts at baseline and follow-up (total of 657 patients). Some patients were eligible for specific measures below and some were not. | Posted | Number | percentage of participants | 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. | Only the Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort and Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this outcome | Posted | Mean | Full Range | Per member per month visits | Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow up |
|
|
|
|
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| 0 |
| EG001 | Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| EG002 | Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: 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. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| EG003 | Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort | Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania Intervention: No intervention/Usual care | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| EG004 | Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort | Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past two years Intervention: 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. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Pain intensity quantified, Baseline |
|
|
| Pain intensity quantified, Follow-Up |
|
|
| Plan of care for moderate/severe pain, Baseline |
|
|
| Plan of care for moderate/severe pain, Follow-up |
|
|
| Pain addressed defect-free measure, Baseline |
|
|
| Pain addressed defect-free measure, Follow-up |
|
|
| Emotional well-being assessed, Baseline |
|
|
| Emotional well-being assessed, Follow-up |
|
|
| Emotional well-being addressed, Baseline |
|
|
| Emotional well-being addressed, Follow-up |
|
|
| Documented plan for chemotherapy, Baseline |
|
|
| Documented plan for chemotherapy, Follow-up |
|
|
| Chemotherapy intent documented, Baseline |
|
|
| Chemotherapy intent documented, Follow-up |
|
|
| Chemotherapy intent discussion w/ patient, Baselil |
|
|
| Chemotherapy intent discussion with patient, follo |
|
|
| Number of chemotherapy cycles documented, Baseline |
|
|
| Number of chemotherapy cycles documented, Follow-u |
|
|
| Chemotherapy planning defect-free measur, Baseline |
|
|
| Chemotherapy planning defect-free measu, Follow-up |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment summary completed, Baseline |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment summary completed, Follow-u |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Baselin |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Follow- |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Basel |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Follow |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Baselin |
|
|
| Chemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Follow-u |
|
|
| Tobacco use documented, Baseline |
|
|
| Tobacco use documented, Follow-up |
|
|
| Tobacco use cessation recommended, Baseline |
|
|
| Tobacco use cessation recommended, Follow-up |
|
|
| Tobacco use cessation administered, Baseline |
|
|
| Tobacco use cessation administered, Follow-up |
|
|
| Tobacco defect-free measure, Baseline |
|
|
| Tobacco defect-free measure, Follow-up |
|
|
| Serotonin antagonist prescribed, Baseline |
|
|
| Serotonin antagonist prescribed, Follow-up |
|
|
| Sertonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Ba |
|
|
| Serotonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Follow-up |
|
|
| Aprepitant prescribed, Baseline |
|
|
| Aprepitant prescribed, Follow-up |
|
|
| Anti-emetics defect-free measure, Baseline |
|
|
| Anti-emetics defect-free measure, Follow-up |
|
|
| Infertility risks discussed, Baseline |
|
|
| Infertility risks discussed, Follow-up |
|
|
| Fertility preservation options discussed, Baseline |
|
|
| Fertility preservation options discussed, Follow-u |
|
|
| All-cause hospitalizations, Start-up |
|
|
| All-cause hospitalizations, Intervention |
|
|
| All-cause hospitalizations, Follow-up |
|
|
| All-cause ED visits, Baseline |
|
|
| All-cause ED visits, Start-up |
|
|
| All-cause ED visits, Intervention |
|
|
| All-cause ED Visits, Follow-up |
|
|
| PCP Office Visits, Baseline |
|
|
| PCP Office Visits, Start-Up |
|
|
| PCP Office Visits, Intervention |
|
|
| PCP Office Visits, Follow-up |
|
|
| Specialist Office Visits, Baseline |
|
|
| Specialist Office Visits, Start-Up |
|
|
| Specialist Office Visits, Intervention |
|
|
| Specialist Office Visits, Follow-Up |
|
|
To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Emergency Department (ED) Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month ED Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison). |
| Regression, Logistic |
| 0.62 |
| Other |
| To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Primary Care Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison). | Regression, Logistic | 0.68 | Other |
| To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Specialist Visits. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison). | Regression, Logistic | 0.03 | Other |