Skip to content

Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care

Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care

Status
Completed
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Observational
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT02110758
Enrollment
125250
Registered
2014-04-10
Start date
2014-02-28
Completion date
2017-01-31
Last updated
2021-03-09

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Neoplasms

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

OTHERPilot 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.

Sponsors

American Society of Clinical Oncology
CollaboratorOTHER
Independence Blue Cross
CollaboratorOTHER
National Coalition for Cancer Survivorship
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
Oncology Management Services
CollaboratorUNKNOWN
RAND
CollaboratorOTHER
National Committee for Quality Assurance
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Observational model
COHORT
Time perspective
PROSPECTIVE

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

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

MeasureTime frameDescription
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAt baseline and 24 months follow upPatient 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 CareTwo years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow-upQuality 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 upTwo years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow upPer 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

ArmCount
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
Total125,250

Baseline characteristics

CharacteristicPilot Practices Patient Survey CohortComparison Practices Patient Survey CohortPilot Practices Utilization CohortComparison Practices Utilization CohortPilot Practices Quality Measures CohortTotal
Age, Customized
18-24
0 Participants0 Participants344 Participants894 Participants18 Participants1256 Participants
Age, Customized
25-54
36 Participants108 Participants11385 Participants29812 Participants173 Participants41514 Participants
Age, Customized
55-64
83 Participants177 Participants10564 Participants26761 Participants180 Participants37765 Participants
Age, Customized
65-74
65 Participants141 Participants5693 Participants14116 Participants183 Participants20198 Participants
Age, Customized
75 and older
64 Participants169 Participants6460 Participants17698 Participants103 Participants24494 Participants
Age, Customized
Unknown
8 Participants15 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants23 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
American Indian/Alaska Native
0 Participants1 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants1 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
7 Participants6 Participants0 Participants0 Participants9 Participants22 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black/African-American
21 Participants34 Participants6025 Participants12117 Participants57 Participants18254 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic/Latino
4 Participants6 Participants0 Participants0 Participants14 Participants24 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
2 Participants5 Participants0 Participants0 Participants7 Participants14 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Unknown
85 Participants190 Participants3400 Participants89281 Participants154 Participants93110 Participants
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
137 Participants368 Participants24571 Participants69766 Participants416 Participants95258 Participants
Region of Enrollment
United States
256 participants610 participants33996 participants89281 participants657 participants65743 participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Female
153 Participants386 Participants22004 Participants59168 Participants338 Participants82049 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Male
95 Participants209 Participants11992 Participants30113 Participants319 Participants42728 Participants
Sex/Gender, Customized
Unknown
8 Participants15 Participants0 Participants0 Participants0 Participants23 Participants

Adverse events

Event typeEG000
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 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 0
other
Total, other adverse events
0 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 0
serious
Total, serious adverse events
0 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 00 / 0

Outcome results

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.

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

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Baseline0.0403 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Start-up0.0484 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Intervention0.0623 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Follow-up0.0574 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED visits, Baseline0.0815 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED visits, Start-up0.0873 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED visits, Intervention0.0825 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED Visits, Follow-up0.0969 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Baseline0.2539 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Start-Up0.2657 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Intervention0.2764 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Follow-up0.2731 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Baseline0.9211 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Start-Up0.9211 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Intervention1.0199 Per member per month visits
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Follow-Up1.0018 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Follow-Up0.9549 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Baseline0.0386 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Baseline0.2505 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Start-up0.0823 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Baseline0.8967 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Intervention0.0512 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Start-Up0.2679 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause hospitalizations, Follow-up0.0529 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Intervention1.0141 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED visits, Baseline0.0781 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Intervention0.2781 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED visits, Start-up0.0973 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upSpecialist Office Visits, Start-Up0.8967 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED visits, Intervention0.0833 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upPCP Office Visits, Follow-up0.2731 Per member per month visits
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow upAll-cause ED Visits, Follow-up0.1008 Per member per month visits
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was Per Member Per Month Hospitalizations. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for utilization time period (baseline or follow-up) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.2Regression, Logistic
Comparison: 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).p-value: 0.62Regression, Logistic
Comparison: 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).p-value: 0.68Regression, Logistic
Comparison: 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).p-value: 0.03Regression, Logistic
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.

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (MEAN)
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAffective Communication Composite-Start-Up90.1 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAffective Communication Composite-Follow-Up92.8 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAccess Composite-Start-Up92.1 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAccess Composite-Follow-Up88.4 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upExchanging Information Composite-Start-Up88.1 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upExchanging Information Composite-Follow-Up86.0 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upPatient Self-Management Composite-Start-Up75.2 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upPatient Self-Management Composite-Follow-Up67.9 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upShared Decision-Making Composite-Start-Up76.6 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upShared Decision-Making Composite-Follow-Up83.3 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upOverall Rating-Start-Up92.9 units on a scale
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upOverall Rating-Follow-Up89.8 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upOverall Rating-Start-Up90.1 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAffective Communication Composite-Start-Up90.0 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upPatient Self-Management Composite-Start-Up76.3 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAffective Communication Composite-Follow-Up92.4 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upShared Decision-Making Composite-Follow-Up79.7 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAccess Composite-Start-Up91.0 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upPatient Self-Management Composite-Follow-Up68.3 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upAccess Composite-Follow-Up93.6 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upOverall Rating-Follow-Up94.2 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upExchanging Information Composite-Start-Up89.1 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upShared Decision-Making Composite-Start-Up77.9 units on a scale
Comparison Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow upExchanging Information Composite-Follow-Up89.8 units on a scale
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Access composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.025Regression, Logistic
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Affective Communication composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.69Regression, Logistic
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Shared Decision-Making composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.013Regression, Logistic
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Patient Self-Management composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.85Regression, Logistic
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Exchanging Information composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.013Regression, Logistic
Comparison: To estimate exposure to the intervention on the Overall Rating of Treatment Team composite score, we used a difference-in-differences model with fixed effects for practices. The dependent variable was the composite score. The intervention effects were represented by the coefficient estimates for survey time period (pre or post) interacted with status (pilot or comparison).p-value: 0.053Regression, Logistic
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.

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.

ArmMeasureGroupValue (NUMBER)
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePain assessed, Baseline77.9 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePain assessed, Follow-Up95.7 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePain intensity quantified, Baseline74.9 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePain intensity quantified, Follow-Up94.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePlan of care for moderate/severe pain, Baseline88.3 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePlan of care for moderate/severe pain, Follow-up79.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePain addressed defect-free measure, Baseline58.8 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CarePain addressed defect-free measure, Follow-up87.3 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareEmotional well-being assessed, Baseline42.9 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareEmotional well-being assessed, Follow-up75.8 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareEmotional well-being addressed, Baseline92.7 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareEmotional well-being addressed, Follow-up84.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareDocumented plan for chemotherapy, Baseline96.4 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareDocumented plan for chemotherapy, Follow-up93.2 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy intent documented, Baseline80.3 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy intent documented, Follow-up92.8 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy intent discussion w/ patient, Baselil72.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy intent discussion with patient, follo87.1 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareNumber of chemotherapy cycles documented, Baseline74.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareNumber of chemotherapy cycles documented, Follow-u94.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy planning defect-free measur, Baseline73.2 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy planning defect-free measu, Follow-up86.0 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment summary completed, Baseline41.1 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment summary completed, Follow-u55.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Baselin5.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Follow-37.3 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Basel5.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Follow41.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Baselin15.4 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareChemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Follow-u34.1 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco use documented, Baseline89.7 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco use documented, Follow-up99.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco use cessation recommended, Baseline51.6 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco use cessation recommended, Follow-up47.1 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco use cessation administered, Baseline43.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco use cessation administered, Follow-up16.7 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco defect-free measure, Baseline89.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareTobacco defect-free measure, Follow-up85.8 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareSerotonin antagonist prescribed, Baseline98.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareSerotonin antagonist prescribed, Follow-up98.7 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareSertonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Ba89.9 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareSerotonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Follow-up88.8 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareAprepitant prescribed, Baseline84.9 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareAprepitant prescribed, Follow-up75.8 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareAnti-emetics defect-free measure, Baseline71.2 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareAnti-emetics defect-free measure, Follow-up92.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareInfertility risks discussed, Baseline28.3 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareInfertility risks discussed, Follow-up63.4 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareFertility preservation options discussed, Baseline52.5 percentage of participants
Pilot Practices Patient Survey CohortChange in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended CareFertility preservation options discussed, Follow-u63.9 percentage of participants

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026