BACKGROUND: Early studies of Medicare Shared Savings Program (MSSP) accountable care organizations (ACOs) suggested that physician leadership was an important driver of ACO success, but it is unknown whether the demographic and professional composition of current MSSP ACO governing boards is associated with ACOs' publicly reported outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether governing boards with higher physician participation and greater female involvement have better outcomes. DESIGN: Cross-sectional observational study. PARTICIPANTS: All 2017 MSSP ACOs identified by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ACO Public Use Files (PUF). MAIN MEASURES: We collected governing board composition from ACO websites in 2019. Outcome metrics included risk-standardized readmission and unplanned admissions rates. We used descriptive statistics and linear regression models to examine the association between board composition and outcomes. KEY RESULTS: Of the 339 ACOs that still existed in 2019 and had available data, 77% had physicianmajority boards and 11.5% had no women on their boards. Eighty-nine percent reported a Medicare beneficiary on their board, of which about one-third had a woman representative. The average number of members on MSSP ACO boards was 12, with a mean of 67% physicians and 24% women. Board composition varied minimally by ACO characteristics, such as geographic region, number of beneficiaries, or type of participants. Higher levels of physician participation in ACO governing boards were associated with lower all-cause unplanned admission rates for patients with heart failure (p = − 0.26, p < 0.001) and for patients with multiple chronic conditions (p = − 0.28, p = 0.001). The number of women on the board was not associated with any outcome differences.CONCLUSIONS: MSSP ACO governing boards were predominately male and physician-led. Physician involvement may be important for achieving quality goals, while lack of female involvement showcases an opportunity to diversify boards.
S43abstraction was done to capture deidentified patient characteristics, treatment decisions, and clinical events. ReSultS: Our research found that prior to 2014 only 14% of mCRPC patients received newer treatment options (abiraterone, enzalutamide, sipuleucel-T) as first-line treatment. Between 2015 and 2016, 37% of the patients received newer treatment options, and by 2016 and later this number rose to 77% of the patients. ConCluSionS: Though these results demonstrated the rapid adoption of newer treatment options in areas of high unmet needs like mCRPC, they also highlighted the need for continued physician education as nearly 25% of patients did not receive recommended newer options as their first-line treatment since 2016. +Cancer Facts & Figures 2017. American Cancer Society.
208 Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology practice guidelines recommend early palliative care integration for all patients with cancer. At UMass Memorial Medical Center from Sept. to Nov. 2020, only 16% (29/184) of patients on the inpatient oncology unit received a palliative care consultation. Of these consultations, 55% (16/29) were placed within 72 hours of admission. Results from a pre-pilot survey of nurses (n = 20) and providers (n = 14) about attitudes toward palliative care, team communication, and perceptions of barriers to palliative care consultation highlighted a lack of multidisciplinary communication and consensus on criteria for palliative care consultation. Methods: An evidence-based palliative care screening tool and multidisciplinary communication process was piloted to support team collaboration and early identification of oncology patients who may benefit from specialty-level inpatient palliative care. The primary objective was to increase the percentage of palliative care consultations placed within 72 hours of admission from 55% to 65%. Nurses screened patients upon unit arrival for palliative care needs. Patients who screened positive were discussed during daily multidisciplinary rounds, attended by the resource nurse, primary team, case manager and social worker. Results: In March 2021, the percentage of palliative care consultations placed by providers within 72 hours of inpatient admission increased to 68% (13/19). The proportion of patients who received palliative care consultation also increased to 29%. All the patients who screened positive for palliative care needs received a consultation. In a post-pilot survey of providers (n = 9) and nurses (n = 14), most providers (78%) reported that discussions of patients’ palliative care needs occurred more frequently during multidisciplinary rounds. A majority of nurses (57%) agreed the screening tool led to enhanced multidisciplinary communication. 63% of providers agreed that criteria for palliative care consultation was clearer as a result of the pilot; both nurse and provider perceptions of “lack of provider agreement on palliative care consultation criteria” as a barrier decreased compared to the pre-pilot survey. Although a majority of nurses (71%) found the screening tool easy to use, only half were comfortable with all the questions or understood them completely. All providers and 93% of nurses preferred to continue using the screening tool and communication process, and supported electronic medical record integration. Conclusions: The palliative care screening tool and workflow process had a positive impact on earlier identification of oncology patients who could benefit from specialty palliative care, and increased the total number of palliative care consultations. This improved process also enhanced team communication and collaboration. Next steps include refining the screening tool and EMR integration.
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.