Patients with cancer can experience uncertainty when making treatment decisions. When unaddressed, patient uncertainty can result in decisional conflict and decisional regret. Providers can assist in decreasing these factors by involving patients in the decision-making process. Patients who agree to participate should be informed about their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment options, including the benefits, the risks and harms, or the option of no treatment. Providers also can help patients to clarify their values, which reveal patient preferences and inform tailoring of care for each patient. When an informed patient's personal preferences align with care decisions, decisional quality is achieved.
9 Background: For commercial insurance plans, there is often a requirement to obtain prior-authorization for specific services. Prior-authorization though intended to ensure medical necessity, can cause significant delays in patient care and create an unnecessary administrative burden. It often leads to undue anxiety in patients, dissatisfaction among providers and substantial waste in the system. To increase our efficiency and improve patient and provider experience, we partnered with one of our region’s largest commercial payors to eliminate prior-authorization. Methods: A Lean Six-sigma DMAIC approach was adopted: Define- created a process map. Measure- calculated baseline for prior-authorization denials. Analyze- conducted retrospective analysis to identify areas to improve. Improve- conducted provider training for appropriate imaging guidelines. Control- established internal auditing to check provider compliance. Results: At SCCA, we found that 94.8% of prior-authorizations were approved instantly or after providing more documentation, thus prior-authorization did not add value. Moreover, 2.15% were approved after peer-to-peer review that involves significant administrative burden and delay in care. Only 3% prior-authorizations did not meet medical necessity criteria, major reasons being- PET/CT and CT CAP ordered in combination, or PET/CT ordered without clear justification. 2.46% prior-authorizations led to a patient receiving a letter of denial. SCCA and the payor agreed to eliminate prior-authorizations for all imaging (except PET and PET/CT). This required all ordering providers to attest to completion of training on the NCCN Imaging Appropriate Use Criteria. In addition, a quarterly internal audit was put in place to check provider compliance to NCCN guidelines for ordering Imaging tests. SCCA achieved a 100% provider training completion rate and 100% provider compliance to NCCN guidelines in the first two internal audits. Conclusions: A strong partnership and shared vision with a payor enabled us to eliminate wasteful prior-authorizations. Our high training completion rate and compliance rate implies strong support from our providers and leadership to provide value-based care to our patients.
Systematic gaps for pregnancy screening and testing of patients with cancer persist. Absent or inconsistent guidelines and policies are barriers to standardized practice. Awareness among oncology nurses is needed to promote safe cancer care, prevent patient harm, and uphold patient-centered care.
e19153 Background: Several retrospective studies suggest patients enrolled in clinical trials have more end-of-life health care utilization (EOLHCU). This is particularly concerning for phase I clinical trial participants who are known to have therapeutic misconceptions about the purpose and benefits of phase I clinical trial participation. Methods: We identified all phase I participants at the Seattle Cancer Care Alliance (SCCA) with thoracic, head and neck cancers (THNC) who died between July 1, 2014 and June 30, 2018(P1C). We compared them to 139 randomly selected THNC patients who died within the same time period without phase I study participation (NP1C). Patient records were abstracted from the electronic health record (and Epic Care Everywhere if patients received EOL care outside of SCCA). A chi-square test was used to compare categorial variables and t-tests were used for numerical variables. Results: 67 P1C patients were identified; 3 patients had no outside records at the end of life and were removed from the database. No statistically significant differences in gender, ethnicity, marital status, or form of insurance were found between the two groups. P1C patients were younger (median age of 62 (interquartile range (IQR) 55-69) vs. 66 (IQR 59-72), p=0.008) and had more lines of therapy from diagnosis until death (median 4 (IQR 1-3) vs. 2 (IQR 1-3), p=<0.0001). No difference in end-of-life care or quality of death metrics were found between the two groups, however a trend toward more referrals to palliative care were noted in phase I participants. (Table). Conclusions: At our center no differences in EOLHCU or quality of death parameters were seen in THNC patients who did or did not participate in phase I studies. [Table: see text]
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.