Harris Tina, Brinzo Julie, Pell Christopher
From University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, Georgia.
Southwestern College, Chula Vista, California.
J Adv Pract Oncol. 2024 Jan;15(1):16-27. doi: 10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.1.2. Epub 2024 Jan 1.
Educating a multidisciplinary team on financial toxicity (FT) risk, screening, and care coordination is an approach to addressing gaps in care among newly diagnosed patients with stage III or IV cancer.
The goal of this quality improvement project (QIP) was to supply an education program for the multidisciplinary team providing insights for the following objectives: (1) Increase the rate of FT screening where there was no baseline screening, (2) Increase referrals for resource care coordination among patients experiencing FT, and (3) Evaluate the relationship between FT and selected demographic identifiers during the 8-week project.
The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model was adopted for learning and leading the change during the QIP, focusing on the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) and resource care coordination for newly diagnosed participants with stage III or IV gynecologic cancer.
Of the 42 (80.75%) participants consenting to the QIP, 61.90% had COST scores below 23, with 100% (26) of the participants receiving referrals for resource care coordination. On average, 6.50 patients enter the practice for care, with 50% (3.25) reporting FT. At this rate, 162.50 patients were experiencing FT in a 50-week year and were not receiving resource care coordination. However, because some patients did not consent to the QIP, the average FT (Yes) count could potentially be between 199.50 to 225.00 patients in a 50-week year, leading to a potential 62.50 with FT (or 28% of 225.00) not receiving referrals. Age was the main driver for FT COST Score in this QIP. Many variables were unobserved in this QIP and could impact the FT COST Score. However, separate modeling reveals that age alone explains approximately 15% of FT COST scores' observed changes. Controlling for more variables may refine the model, but it seems unlikely by the data analysis that age would disappear as a driver of change in the FT COST score.
Developing a multidisciplinary education program focusing on a structured QIP-PDSA plan can be an example of standardizing an FT screening and care coordination program. The QIP team successfully incorporated a PDSA model roadmap screening program to identify the participants experiencing FT and promptly referred 100% for resource care coordination.
对多学科团队进行财务毒性(FT)风险、筛查及护理协调方面的培训,是解决新诊断的III期或IV期癌症患者护理差距的一种方法。
本质量改进项目(QIP)的目标是为多学科团队提供一个教育项目,以实现以下目标:(1)在无基线筛查的情况下提高FT筛查率;(2)增加经历FT的患者接受资源护理协调的转诊率;(3)在为期8周的项目中评估FT与选定人口统计学标识符之间的关系。
在QIP期间采用计划-实施-研究-改进(PDSA)模型来学习和引领变革,重点关注新诊断的III期或IV期妇科癌症参与者的财务毒性综合评分(COST)及资源护理协调。
在42名(80.75%)同意参与QIP的参与者中,61.90%的COST评分低于23,100%(26名)参与者接受了资源护理协调的转诊。平均而言,每周有6.50名患者前来就诊,其中50%(3.25名)报告有FT。按此比率计算,在一年50周的时间里,有162.50名患者经历FT但未接受资源护理协调。然而,由于一些患者不同意参与QIP,在一年50周的时间里,FT(是)的平均患者数可能在199.50至225.00之间,这导致可能有62.50名FT患者(或225.00名患者中的28%)未获得转诊。在本QIP中,年龄是FT COST评分的主要驱动因素。本QIP中未观察到许多变量,这些变量可能会影响FT COST评分。然而,单独建模显示,仅年龄一项就解释了FT COST评分观察到的变化的约15%。控制更多变量可能会完善模型,但从数据分析来看,年龄似乎不太可能不再是FT COST评分变化的驱动因素。
制定一个以结构化的QIP-PDSA计划为重点的多学科教育项目,可以成为FT筛查和护理协调项目标准化的一个范例。QIP团队成功地将PDSA模型路线图筛查项目纳入其中,以识别经历FT的参与者,并将100%的参与者及时转诊以接受资源护理协调。