Cancer hospital advertising and outcomes: trust the messenger?

Hospitals have made substantial investments in advertising for cancer services in the past two decades, totalling over US$200 million in 2016 alone. Advertisements promoting cancer centres are unavoidable in the USA. They hang on highway billboards and on air during prime-time programming. Some advertisements claim superior outcomes, others highlight access to clinical trials, and many present heart-warming patient stories that might be non-representative of actual outcomes. Data suggest that patients are highly aware of advertisements and are likewise influenced by them

Electronic consent in clinical care: an international scoping review

Objective Digital technologies create opportunities for improvement of consenting processes in clinical care. Yet little is known about the prevalence, characteristics or outcomes of shifting from paper to electronic consenting, or e-consent, in clinical settings. Thus questions remain around e-consent’s impact on efficiency, data integrity, user experience, care access, equity and quality. Our objective was to scope all known findings on this critical topic.Materials and methods Through an international, systematic scoping review, we identified and assessed all published findings on clinical e-consent in the scholarly and grey literatures, including consents for telehealth encounters, procedures and health information exchanges. From each relevant publication, we abstracted data on study design, measures, findings and other study features.Main outcome measures Metrics describing or evaluating clinical e-consent, including preferences for paper versus e-consenting; efficiency (eg, time, workload) and effectiveness (eg, data integrity, care quality). User characteristics were captured where available.Results A total of 25 articles published since 2005, most from North America or Europe, report on the deployment of e-consent in surgery, oncology and other clinical settings. Experimental designs and other study characteristics vary, but nearly all focus on procedural e-consents. Synthesis reveals relatively consistent findings around improved efficiency and data integrity with, and user preferences for, e-consent. Care access and quality issues are less frequently explored, with disparate findings.Discussion and conclusion The literature is nascent and largely focused on issues that are immediate and straightforward to measure. As virtual care pathways expand, more research is urgently needed to ensure that care quality and access are advanced, not compromised, by e-consent

Development of a Conceptual Map of Negative Consequences for Patients of Overuse of Medical Tests and Treatments

ImportanceOveruse of medical tests and treatments is an increasingly recognized problem across health systems; best practices for reducing overuse are not clear. Framing the problem in terms of the spectrum of potential patient harm is likely to be an effective strategy for clinician and patient engagement in efforts to reduce overuse, but the scope of negative consequences of overuse for patients has not been well described.ObservationsWe sought to generate a comprehensive conceptual map documenting the processes through which overused tests and treatments lead to multiple domains of negative consequences for patients. For map development, an iterative consensus process was informed by structured review of the literature on overuse using PubMed and input from a panel of 6 international experts. For map verification, a systematic review was performed of case reports involving overused services, identified through literature review and manual review of relevant article collections. The conceptual map documents that overused tests and treatments and resultant downstream services generate 6 domains of negative consequences for patients: physical, psychological, social, financial, treatment burden, and dissatisfaction with health care. Negative consequences can result from overused services and from downstream services; they can also trigger further downstream services that in turn can lead to more negative consequences, in an ongoing feedback loop. Case reports on overuse confirmed the processes and domains of the conceptual map. Cases also revealed strengths and weaknesses in published communication about overuse: they were dominated by physical harms, with other negative consequences receiving far less attention.Conclusions and relevanceThis evidence-based conceptual map clarifies the processes by which overused tests and treatments result in negative consequences for patients; it also documents multiple domains of negative consequences experienced by patients. The map will be useful for facilitating comprehensive communication about overuse, estimating harms and costs associated with overused services, and informing health system efforts to reduce overuse

Why Not? Persuading Clinicians to Reduce Overuse.

OBJECTIVE: To explore how best to deimplement nonrecommended medical services, which can result in excess costs and patient harm. METHODS: We conducted telephone interviews with 15 providers at 3 health systems from June 19 to November 21, 2017. Using the case of nonrecommended imaging in patients with cancer, participants assessed the potential for 7 rationales or arguments, each characterizing overuse in terms of a single problem type (cost or quality) and affected stakeholder group (clinicians, institutions, society, or patients), to convince colleagues to change their practices. We tested rationales for all problem-stakeholder combinations appearing in prior deimplementation studies. RESULTS: Participants\u27 views varied widely. Relatively few found cost arguments powerful, except for patients\u27 out-of-pocket costs. Participants were divided on institution-quality and clinician-quality rationales. Patient-quality rationales resonated strongly with nearly all participants. However, a yes, but phenomenon emerged: after initially expressing strong support for a rationale, participants often undercut it with denials or rationalizations. CONCLUSION: Deimplementation efforts should combine multiple rationales appealing to clinicians\u27 diverse perspectives and priorities. In addition, efforts must consider the complex cognitive dynamics that can undercut data and reasoned argumentation

Developing a cancer‐specific trigger tool to identify treatment‐related adverse events using administrative data

Abstract Background As there are few validated tools to identify treatment‐related adverse events across cancer care settings, we sought to develop oncology‐specific “triggers” to flag potential adverse events among cancer patients using claims data. Methods 322 887 adult patients undergoing an initial course of cancer‐directed therapy for breast, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer from 2008 to 2014 were drawn from a large commercial claims database. We defined 16 oncology‐specific triggers using diagnosis and procedure codes. To distinguish treatment‐related complications from comorbidities, we required a logical and temporal relationship between a treatment and the associated trigger. We tabulated the prevalence of triggers by cancer type and metastatic status during 1‐year of follow‐up, and examined cancer trigger risk factors. Results Cancer‐specific trigger events affected 19% of patients over the initial treatment year. The trigger burden varied by disease and metastatic status, from 6% of patients with nonmetastatic prostate cancer to 41% and 50% of those with metastatic colorectal and lung cancers, respectively. The most prevalent triggers were abnormal serum bicarbonate, blood transfusion, non‐contrast chest CT scan following radiation therapy, and hypoxemia. Among patients with metastatic disease, 10% had one trigger event and 29% had two or more. Triggers were more common among older patients, women, non‐whites, patients with low family incomes, and those without a college education. Conclusions Oncology‐specific triggers offer a promising method for identifying potential patient safety events among patients across cancer care settings

Engaging Community-Based Cancer Physicians: Experience of the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center Cancer Alliance.

BACKGROUND: The proliferation of relationships between community health systems and academic medical centers has created a need to identify effective components of these models. This article reports on frontline physician experiences, with one such relationship established through the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (MSK) Cancer Alliance. MSK created the Alliance with the goals of rapidly bringing the newest standards of care into community settings and increasing patient access to clinical trials in their local communities. METHODS: Alliance leadership administered a 10-question anonymous survey to physicians treating patients with cancer across the 3 Alliance member health systems: Hartford HealthCare Cancer Institute, Lehigh Valley Cancer Institute, and Miami Cancer Institute at Baptist Health South Florida. The purpose of the survey was to identify opportunities to improve physician engagement. RESULTS: There were 103 clinician respondents across Alliance members, of which 87 reported participation in a disease management team and were included in the final analysis. Most respondents reported high value from Alliance activities, such as attending MSK tumor boards (94%) and lecture series (96%), among those who reported them applicable. Across all respondents, most reported satisfaction with engagement opportunities, such as MSK physician participation in their institution\u27s meetings (76%). When asked where they would like to see increased engagement, the most commonly reported response was for more lecture series (45%). Most respondents (88%) reported that the Alliance led to practice change, either for themselves or for other clinicians at their institution. Many attributed this practice change to MSK disease-specific process measures. CONCLUSIONS: The activities most valued by community physicians were heavily physician relationship-based. The encouraging experience of the MSK Cancer Alliance suggests that activities involving physician investment may be effective for promoting practice change in the context of cross-institution relationships. Future research is needed in this area