Neoplasms
Conditions
Keywords
Patient Care Management, Patient Care Planning, Patient-Centered Care, Patient Care Team, Advance Care Planning, Delivery of Health Care, Evidence-based Practice, Health Care Costs, Health Care Quality, Access, and Evaluation, Quality of Health Care, Neoplasms, Medical Oncology
Brief 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.
Detailed 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.
Interventions
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.
Sponsors
Study design
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
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | 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. |
| Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | 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. |
| Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | 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. |
Countries
United States
Participant flow
Recruitment details
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.
Participants by arm
| Arm | Count |
|---|---|
| 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. | 256 |
| 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 | 610 |
| 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. | 34,446 |
| 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 | 89,281 |
| 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. | 657 |
| Total | 125,250 |
Baseline characteristics
| Characteristic | Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort | Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort | Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age, Customized 18-24 | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 344 Participants | 894 Participants | 18 Participants | 1256 Participants |
| Age, Customized 25-54 | 36 Participants | 108 Participants | 11385 Participants | 29812 Participants | 173 Participants | 41514 Participants |
| Age, Customized 55-64 | 83 Participants | 177 Participants | 10564 Participants | 26761 Participants | 180 Participants | 37765 Participants |
| Age, Customized 65-74 | 65 Participants | 141 Participants | 5693 Participants | 14116 Participants | 183 Participants | 20198 Participants |
| Age, Customized 75 and older | 64 Participants | 169 Participants | 6460 Participants | 17698 Participants | 103 Participants | 24494 Participants |
| Age, Customized Unknown | 8 Participants | 15 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 23 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized American Indian/Alaska Native | 0 Participants | 1 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 1 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Asian | 7 Participants | 6 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 9 Participants | 22 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Black/African-American | 21 Participants | 34 Participants | 6025 Participants | 12117 Participants | 57 Participants | 18254 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Hispanic/Latino | 4 Participants | 6 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 14 Participants | 24 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Other | 2 Participants | 5 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 7 Participants | 14 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized Unknown | 85 Participants | 190 Participants | 3400 Participants | 89281 Participants | 154 Participants | 93110 Participants |
| Race/Ethnicity, Customized White | 137 Participants | 368 Participants | 24571 Participants | 69766 Participants | 416 Participants | 95258 Participants |
| Region of Enrollment United States | 256 participants | 610 participants | 33996 participants | 89281 participants | 657 participants | 65743 participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Female | 153 Participants | 386 Participants | 22004 Participants | 59168 Participants | 338 Participants | 82049 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Male | 95 Participants | 209 Participants | 11992 Participants | 30113 Participants | 319 Participants | 42728 Participants |
| Sex/Gender, Customized Unknown | 8 Participants | 15 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 0 Participants | 23 Participants |
Adverse events
| Event type | EG000 affected / at risk | EG001 affected / at risk | EG002 affected / at risk | EG003 affected / at risk | EG004 affected / at risk |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| deaths Total, all-cause mortality | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| other Total, other adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
| serious Total, serious adverse events | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 | 0 / 0 |
Outcome results
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.
Time frame: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow up
Population: Only the Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort and Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this outcome
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Baseline | 0.0403 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Start-up | 0.0484 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Intervention | 0.0623 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Follow-up | 0.0574 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED visits, Baseline | 0.0815 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED visits, Start-up | 0.0873 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED visits, Intervention | 0.0825 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED Visits, Follow-up | 0.0969 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Baseline | 0.2539 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Start-Up | 0.2657 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Intervention | 0.2764 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Follow-up | 0.2731 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Baseline | 0.9211 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Start-Up | 0.9211 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Intervention | 1.0199 Per member per month visits |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Follow-Up | 1.0018 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Follow-Up | 0.9549 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Baseline | 0.0386 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Baseline | 0.2505 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Start-up | 0.0823 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Baseline | 0.8967 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Intervention | 0.0512 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Start-Up | 0.2679 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause hospitalizations, Follow-up | 0.0529 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Intervention | 1.0141 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED visits, Baseline | 0.0781 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Intervention | 0.2781 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED visits, Start-up | 0.0973 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | Specialist Office Visits, Start-Up | 0.8967 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED visits, Intervention | 0.0833 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | PCP Office Visits, Follow-up | 0.2731 Per member per month visits |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up | All-cause ED Visits, Follow-up | 0.1008 Per member per month visits |
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.
Time frame: At baseline and 24 months follow up
Population: Only the Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort and Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this Primary Outcome.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (MEAN) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Affective Communication Composite-Start-Up | 90.1 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Affective Communication Composite-Follow-Up | 92.8 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Access Composite-Start-Up | 92.1 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Access Composite-Follow-Up | 88.4 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Exchanging Information Composite-Start-Up | 88.1 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Exchanging Information Composite-Follow-Up | 86.0 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Patient Self-Management Composite-Start-Up | 75.2 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Patient Self-Management Composite-Follow-Up | 67.9 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Shared Decision-Making Composite-Start-Up | 76.6 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Shared Decision-Making Composite-Follow-Up | 83.3 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Overall Rating-Start-Up | 92.9 units on a scale |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Overall Rating-Follow-Up | 89.8 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Overall Rating-Start-Up | 90.1 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Affective Communication Composite-Start-Up | 90.0 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Patient Self-Management Composite-Start-Up | 76.3 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Affective Communication Composite-Follow-Up | 92.4 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Shared Decision-Making Composite-Follow-Up | 79.7 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Access Composite-Start-Up | 91.0 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Patient Self-Management Composite-Follow-Up | 68.3 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Access Composite-Follow-Up | 93.6 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Overall Rating-Follow-Up | 94.2 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Exchanging Information Composite-Start-Up | 89.1 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Shared Decision-Making Composite-Start-Up | 77.9 units on a scale |
| Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up | Exchanging Information Composite-Follow-Up | 89.8 units on a scale |
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.
Time frame: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow-up
Population: 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.
| Arm | Measure | Group | Value (NUMBER) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Pain assessed, Baseline | 77.9 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Pain assessed, Follow-Up | 95.7 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Pain intensity quantified, Baseline | 74.9 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Pain intensity quantified, Follow-Up | 94.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Plan of care for moderate/severe pain, Baseline | 88.3 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Plan of care for moderate/severe pain, Follow-up | 79.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Pain addressed defect-free measure, Baseline | 58.8 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Pain addressed defect-free measure, Follow-up | 87.3 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Emotional well-being assessed, Baseline | 42.9 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Emotional well-being assessed, Follow-up | 75.8 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Emotional well-being addressed, Baseline | 92.7 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Emotional well-being addressed, Follow-up | 84.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Documented plan for chemotherapy, Baseline | 96.4 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Documented plan for chemotherapy, Follow-up | 93.2 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy intent documented, Baseline | 80.3 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy intent documented, Follow-up | 92.8 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy intent discussion w/ patient, Baselil | 72.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy intent discussion with patient, follo | 87.1 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Number of chemotherapy cycles documented, Baseline | 74.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Number of chemotherapy cycles documented, Follow-u | 94.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy planning defect-free measur, Baseline | 73.2 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy planning defect-free measu, Follow-up | 86.0 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment summary completed, Baseline | 41.1 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment summary completed, Follow-u | 55.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Baselin | 5.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Follow- | 37.3 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Basel | 5.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Follow | 41.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Baselin | 15.4 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Chemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Follow-u | 34.1 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco use documented, Baseline | 89.7 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco use documented, Follow-up | 99.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco use cessation recommended, Baseline | 51.6 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco use cessation recommended, Follow-up | 47.1 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco use cessation administered, Baseline | 43.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco use cessation administered, Follow-up | 16.7 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco defect-free measure, Baseline | 89.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Tobacco defect-free measure, Follow-up | 85.8 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Serotonin antagonist prescribed, Baseline | 98.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Serotonin antagonist prescribed, Follow-up | 98.7 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Sertonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Ba | 89.9 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Serotonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Follow-up | 88.8 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Aprepitant prescribed, Baseline | 84.9 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Aprepitant prescribed, Follow-up | 75.8 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Anti-emetics defect-free measure, Baseline | 71.2 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Anti-emetics defect-free measure, Follow-up | 92.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Infertility risks discussed, Baseline | 28.3 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Infertility risks discussed, Follow-up | 63.4 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Fertility preservation options discussed, Baseline | 52.5 percentage of participants |
| Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort | Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care | Fertility preservation options discussed, Follow-u | 63.9 percentage of participants |