A conceptual framework and protocol for defining clinical decision support objectives applicable to medical specialties.

BackgroundThe U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services established the Electronic Health Record (EHR) Incentive Program in 2009 to stimulate the adoption of EHRs. One component of the program requires eligible providers to implement clinical decision support (CDS) interventions that can improve performance on one or more quality measures pre-selected for each specialty. Because the unique decision-making challenges and existing HIT capabilities vary widely across specialties, the development of meaningful objectives for CDS within such programs must be supported by deliberative analysis.DesignWe developed a conceptual framework and protocol that combines evidence review with expert opinion to elicit clinically meaningful objectives for CDS directly from specialists. The framework links objectives for CDS to specialty-specific performance gaps while ensuring that a workable set of CDS opportunities are available to providers to address each performance gap. Performance gaps may include those with well-established quality measures but also priorities identified by specialists based on their clinical experience. Moreover, objectives are not constrained to performance gaps with existing CDS technologies, but rather may include those for which CDS tools might reasonably be expected to be developed in the near term, for example, by the beginning of Stage 3 of the EHR Incentive program. The protocol uses a modified Delphi expert panel process to elicit and prioritize CDS meaningful use objectives. Experts first rate the importance of performance gaps, beginning with a candidate list generated through an environmental scan and supplemented through nominations by panelists. For the highest priority performance gaps, panelists then rate the extent to which existing or future CDS interventions, characterized jointly as "CDS opportunities," might impact each performance gap and the extent to which each CDS opportunity is compatible with specialists' clinical workflows. The protocol was tested by expert panels representing four clinical specialties: oncology, orthopedic surgery, interventional cardiology, and pediatrics

Paying for "End-of-Life" Drugs in Australia, Germany, and the United Kingdom: Balancing Policy, Pragmatism, and Societal Values

Analyzes British, Australian, and German health systems' policies on covering expensive end-of-life drugs while maintaining equity and efficiency, such as requiring evidence of comparative clinical and cost-effectiveness. Outlines challenges for the U.S

Addressing the Health Needs of an Aging America: New Opportunities for Evidence-Based Policy Solutions

This report systematically maps research findings to policy proposals intended to improve the health of the elderly. The study identified promising evidence-based policies, like those supporting prevention and care coordination, as well as areas where the research evidence is strong but policy activity is low, such as patient self-management and palliative care. Future work of the Stern Center will focus on these topics as well as long-term care financing, the health care workforce, and the role of family caregivers

Advance care planning documentation strategies; goals-of-care as an alternative to not-for-resuscitation in medical and oncology patients. A pre-post controlled study on quantifiable outcomes

Background: Health services in Tasmania, Victoria and now Western Australia are changing to goals-of-care (GOC) advance care planning (ACP) documentation strategies. Aim: To compare the clinical impact of two different health department-sanctioned ACP documentation strategies. Methods: A non-blinded, pre–post, controlled study over two corresponding 6-month periods in 2016 and 2017 comparing the current discretional not-for-resuscitation (NFR) with a new, inclusive GOC strategy in two medical/oncology wards at a large private hospital. Main outcomes were the uptake of ACP forms per hospitalisation and the timing between hospital admission, ACP form completion and in-patient death. Secondary outcomes included utilisation of the rapid response team (RRT), palliative and critical care services. Results: In total, 650 NFR and 653 GOC patients underwent 1885 admissions (mean Charlson Comorbidity Index = 3.7). GOC patients had a higher uptake of ACP documentation (346 vs 150 ACP forms per 1000 admissions, P \u3c 0.0001) and a higher proportion of ACP forms completed within the first 48 h of admission (58 vs 39%, P = 0.0002) but a higher incidence of altering the initial ACP level of care (P = 0.003). All other measures, including ACP documentation within 48 h of death (P = 0.50), activation of RRT (P = 0.73) and admission to critical (P = 0.62) or palliative (P = 0.81) care services, remained similar. GOC documentation was often incomplete, with most sub-sections left blank between 74 and 87% of occasions. Conclusion: Despite an increased uptake of the GOC form, overall use remained low, written completion was poor, and most quantitative outcomes remained statistically unchanged. Further research is required before a wider GOC implementation can be supported in Australia’s healthcare systems

Breaking the Barriers to Specialty Care: Practical Ideas to Improve Health Equity and Reduce Cost - Call to Action for a System-wide Focus on Equity

Tremendous health outcome inequities remain in the U.S. across race and ethnicity, gender and sexual orientation, socio-economic status, and geography—particularly for those with serious conditions such as lung or skin cancer, HIV/AIDS, or cardiovascular disease.These inequities are driven by a complex set of factors—including distance to a specialist, insurance coverage, provider bias, and a patient's housing and healthy food access. These inequities not only harm patients, resulting in avoidable illness and death, they also drive unnecessary health systems costs.This 5-part series highlights the urgent need to address these issues, providing resources such as case studies, data, and recommendations to help the health care sector make meaningful strides toward achieving equity in specialty care.Top TakeawaysThere are vast inequalities in access to and outcomes from specialty health care in the U.S. These inequalities are worst for minority patients, low-income patients, patients with limited English language proficiency, and patients in rural areas.A number of solutions have emerged to improve health outcomes for minority and medically underserved patients. These solutions fall into three main categories: increasing specialty care availability, ensuring high-quality care, and helping patients engage in care.As these inequities are also significant drivers of health costs, payers, health care provider organizations, and policy makers have a strong incentive to invest in solutions that will both improve outcomes and reduce unnecessary costs. These actors play a critical role in ensuring that equity is embedded into core care delivery at scale.Part 5: "Call to Action for a System-wide Focus on Equity"These solutions create value not only for patients, but also for health care providers and public and private payers.  Each of these actors have a role to play in scaling and sustaining the health equity solutions.

What do measures of patient satisfaction with the doctor tell us?

Objective: To gain an understanding of how patient satisfaction (PS) with the doctor (PSD) is conceptualized through an empirical review of how it is currently being measured. The content of PS questionnaire items was examined to (a) determine the primary domains underlying PSD, and (b) summarize the specific doctor-related characteristics and behaviors, and patient-related perceptions, composing each domain. Methods: A scoping review of empirical articles that assessed PSD published from 2000 to November 2013. MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases were searched. Results: The literature search yielded 1726 articles, 316 of which fulfilled study inclusion criteria. PSD was realized in one of four health contexts, with questions being embedded in a larger questionnaire that assessed PS with either: (1) overall healthcare, (2) a specific medical encounter, or (3) the healthcare team. In the fourth context, PSD was the questionnaire's sole focus. Five broad domains underlying PSD were revealed: (1) Communication Attributes; (2) Relational Conduct; (3) Technical Skill/Knowledge; (4) Personal Qualities; and (5) Availability/Accessibility. Conclusions: Careful consideration of measurement goals and purposes is necessary when selecting a PSD measure. Practice implications: The five emergent domains underlying PSD point to potential key areas of physician training and foci for quality assessment

How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?

BackgroundInter-professional collaborative care (ICC) for cancer leads to multiple system, organizational, professional, and patient benefits, but is limited by numerous challenges. Empirical research on interventions that promote or enable ICC is sparse so guidance on how to achieve ICC is lacking. Research shows that ICC for diagnosis could be improved. Diagnostic assessment programs (DAPs) appear to be a promising model for enabling ICC. The purpose of this study was to explore how DAP structure and function enable ICC, and whether that may be associated with organizational and clinical outcomes.MethodsA case study approach will be used to explore ICC among eight DAPs that vary by type of cancer (lung, breast), academic status, and geographic region. To describe DAP function and outcomes, and gather information that will enable costing, recommendations expressed in DAP standards and clinical guidelines will be assessed through retrospective observational study. Data will be acquired from databases maintained by participating DAPs and the provincial cancer agency, and confirmed by and supplemented with review of medical records. We will conduct a pilot study to explore the feasibility of estimating the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio using person-level data from medical records and other sources. Interviews will be conducted with health professionals, staff, and referring physicians from each DAP to learn about barriers and facilitators of ICC. Qualitative methods based on a grounded approach will be used to guide sampling, data collection and analysis.DiscussionFindings may reveal opportunities for unique structures, interventions or tools that enable ICC that could be developed, implemented, and evaluated through future research. This information will serve as a formative needs assessment to identify the nature of ongoing or required improvements, which can be directly used by our decision maker collaborators, and as a framework by policy makers, cancer system managers, and DAP managers elsewhere to strategically plan for and implement diagnostic cancer services

Citation analysis of Canadian psycho-oncology and supportive care researchers

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to conduct a historical review of psycho-oncology and supportive care research in Canada using citation analysis and to review the clinical impact of the research conducted by the most highly cited researchers. Methods: The lifetime journal publication records of 109 psycho-oncology and supportive care researchers in Canada were subject to citation analysis using the Scopus database, based on citations since 1996 of articles deemed relevant to psychosocial oncology and supportive care, excluding selfcitations. Three primary types of analysis were performed for each individual: the number of citations for each journal publication, a summative citation count of all published articles, and the Scopus h-index. Results: The top 20 psycho-oncology/supportive care researchers for each of five citation categories are presented: the number of citations for all publications; the number of citations for first-authored publications; the most highly cited first-authored publications; the Scopus h-index for all publications; and the Scopus h-index for first-authored publications. The three most highly cited Canadian psychooncology researchers are Dr. Kerry Courneya (University of Alberta), Dr. Lesley Degner, (University of Manitoba), and Dr. Harvey Chochinov (University of Manitoba). Conclusions: Citation analysis is useful for examining the research performance of psycho-oncology and supportive care researchers and identifying leaders among the