The trigger methodology appears to be a promising approach to the measurement of patient safety. However, automated processes could make the process more efficient in identifying adverse events and has a greater potential of improving care delivery and patient 'outcomes'.

PURPOSE: To describe the frequency, content, dynamics, and patterns of cost conversations in academic medical oncology across tumor types. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We reviewed 529 audio recordings between May 3, 2012, to September 23, 2014, from a prospective three-site communication study in which patients at any stage of management for any solid tumor malignancy were seen in routine oncology appointments. Recordings were deidentified, transcribed, and flagged for any mention of cost. We coded encounters and used qualitative thematic analysis. RESULTS: Financial issues were discussed in 151 (28%) of 529 recordings. Conversations lasted shorter than 2 minutes on average. Patients/caregivers raised a majority of discussions (106 of 151), and 40% of cost concerns raised by patients/caregivers were not verbally acknowledged by clinicians. Social service referrals were made only six times. Themes from content analysis were related to insurance eligibility/process, work insecurity, cost of drugs, cost used as tool to influence medical decision making, health care–specific costs, and basic needs. Financial concerns influenced oncology work processes via test or medication coverage denials, creating paperwork for clinicians, potentially influencing patient involvement in trials, and leading to medication self-rationing or similar behaviors. Typically, financial concerns were associated with negative emotions. CONCLUSION: Financial issues were raised in approximately one in four academic oncology visits. These brief conversations were usually initiated by patients/caregivers, went frequently unaddressed by clinicians, and seemed to influence medical decision making and work processes and contribute to distress. Themes identified shed light on the kinds of gaps that must be addressed to help patients with cancer cope with the rising cost of care.

Objective Cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), but do not routinely talk about it with their clinicians. This study describes CAM discussions in oncology visits, the communication patterns that facilitate these discussions and their association with visit satisfaction. Methods 327 patients (58% female; average age 61) and 37 clinicians were recorded during an oncology visit and completed post-visit questionnaires. All CAM discussions were tagged and the Roter Interaction Analysis System (RIAS) was used to code visit dialogue. Results CAM was discussed in 36 of 327 visits; discussions were brief (< one minute), the majority patient initiated (65%) and more common for patients in early stages of cancer care. Longer visits (35 vs 29 minutes; p<05), greater patient engagement in visit dialogue, lowered clinician verbal dominance and a more patient-centered pattern of visit communication were significantly related to visits with CAM discussions (all p values<01). Both patient and clinician visit satisfaction was higher with CAM discussion (p<05). Conclusions CAM discussions do not occur at random; they take place in visits characterized by patient-centered communication and are associated with higher visit satisfaction. Practice Implications CAM discussions are perceived positively by both patients and clinicians and are facilitated by patient-centered visit communication.

BackgroundTo determine whether virtual surgical planning and three‐dimensional printed cutting guides (3D/VSP) improved radiographic bone union compared to conventional methods (CM) in fibula free flap (FFF) reconstruction of the mandibles.MethodsRetrospective study from the years 2000–2018 at a tertiary hospital. Osseous union was evaluated by a radiologist blinded to each patient's treatment.ResultsTwo hundred sixty patients who underwent FFF tissue transfer, 28 with VSP and 3D cutting guides. Bony union was not achieved in 46 (20%) patients who underwent CM compared to 1 (4%) of patients with VSP and guides (p = 0.036). FFF complication was significantly higher in CM with 87 patients (38%) compared to three patients (11%) in 3D/VSP (p = 0.005). Median time to bony union for patients who underwent CM was 1.4 years compared to 0.8 years in 3D/VSP.Conclusions3D/VSP reduced the rate of radiographic nonunion and flap‐related complications in FFF reconstruction for mandibular defects.

No abstract

The two episode-based methods identify different patients with these two chronic conditions. In addition, there are significant differences in the episode-based payment estimates for diabetes, but similar estimates for CAD. Implementing episode-based payments for chronic conditions is challenging, and thoughtful discussions are needed to determine appropriate payments.

Objective Failure to recognize symptoms of human papillomavirus–associated oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (HPV(+)OPSCC) at presentation can delay diagnosis and treatment. This study aims to identify patient factors and provider patterns that contribute to delayed diagnosis. Study Design Retrospective case series. Setting Tertiary care center. Methods Patients with HPV(+)OPSCC receiving intent-to-cure treatment from 2006 to 2016. Clinical data, workup, and care timelines were abstracted. Univariate and multivariable linear regressions were performed to determine associations. Results Of 703 included patients, 627 (89%) were male, and mean (SD) age at diagnosis was 59 (9) years. The mean (SD) delay to diagnosis was 148.8 (243.51) days, with an average delay of 63 (154.91) days from symptom onset to first presentation and 82.8 (194.25) days from first presentation to diagnosis. Most patients visited at least 2 providers (n = 546, 78%) before diagnosis and saw their primary care physician at first presentation (n = 496, 71%). The most common imaging and biopsy obtained before diagnosis was neck computed tomography (n = 391, 56%) and neck fine-needle aspiration (n = 423, 60%), respectively. On multivariable linear regression, being a homemaker, being a current smoker, seeing 3 or more providers, and getting a magnetic resonance imaging scan were associated with significant delays in diagnosis ( P < .01, all). Treatment with antibiotics and a suspicion for HPV(+)OPSCC at first presentation were associated with decreased delays in diagnosis ( P < .01, both). Conclusions Patient delays in seeking medical attention and provider delays in recognizing the appropriate diagnosis both contribute to delays of care in HPV(+)OPSCC. Improved patient and provider education is necessary to expedite the diagnosis of HPV(+)OPSCC.

Objectives: Many patients with cancer use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), but the quality of CAM documentation in their electronic health records (EHRs) is unknown. The authors aimed to describe (i) the prevalence and types of CAM used after cancer diagnosis and the influence of oncologists on CAM use, as per patients' self-report, and (ii) the prevalence of CAM documentation in the EHR and its consistency with self-reported usage. Design: Patient and provider surveys and chart review. Settings/Location: Medical oncology practices at one institution. Subjects: Patients with cancer at oncologist visits. Outcome measures: Patient self-reported rate of 3-month postvisit CAM use; provider EHR documentation of CAM use or discussion and its concordance with patient self-report. Results: Among 327 patients enrolled, 248 responded to the 3-month postvisit survey. Of these, 158 reported CAM use after diagnosis (63.7%). CAM users were younger (p < 0.001) and had a higher percentage of women (p = 0.03) than nonusers. Modalities most commonly used were supplements (62.6%), special diets (38.6%), chiropractor (28.4%), and massage (28.4%). CAM was used to improve well-being (68.7%), manage adverse effects (35.5%), and fight cancer (22.9%). Oncologists suggested CAM in 22.5% of instances of use. CAM use/discussion was documented for 58.2% of self-reported CAM users. Of the documented modalities, EHR and self-report were concordant for only 8.2%. CAM documentation was associated with physician provider (p = 0.03), older patients (p = 0.01), and treatment with radiation (p = 0.03) or surgery (p = 0.001). After adjusting for other factors, patients with breast cancer or ''other'' tumor category were four times more likely than patients with gastrointestinal cancer to have CAM use documentation (odds ratio [95% confidence interval]: 4.41 [1.48-13.10]; 3.76 [1.42-9.99], respectively). Conclusions: Most patients with cancer use CAM after diagnosis, yet EHR documentation is complete for very few. Oncologists should inquire about, document, and discuss CAM benefits and harm or refer patients to CAM specialists.