Tina Harris, DNP, NP-C, AOCNP, Julie Brinzo, DNP, APRN, MBA, FNP-C, Christopher Pell, PhD
{"title":"妇科肿瘤学城市诊所的财务毒性筛查和护理协调质量改进计划","authors":"Tina Harris, DNP, NP-C, AOCNP, Julie Brinzo, DNP, APRN, MBA, FNP-C, Christopher Pell, PhD","doi":"10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.1.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.","PeriodicalId":17176,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology","volume":"1091 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A Financial Toxicity Screening and Care Coordination Quality Improvement Program in a Gynecology Oncology Urban Practice\",\"authors\":\"Tina Harris, DNP, NP-C, AOCNP, Julie Brinzo, DNP, APRN, MBA, FNP-C, Christopher Pell, PhD\",\"doi\":\"10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.1.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology\",\"volume\":\"1091 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.1.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.1.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
背景:对多学科团队进行经济毒性(FT)风险、筛查和护理协调方面的教育,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。目标:本质量改进项目(QIP)的目标是为多学科团队提供一项教育计划,为实现以下目标提供启示:(1)提高未进行基线筛查的财务毒性筛查率;(2)在出现财务毒性的患者中增加资源护理协调转介;以及(3)在为期 8 周的项目中评估财务毒性与所选人口统计学识别指标之间的关系。方法:采用 "计划-实施-研究-行动"(Plan-Do-Study-Act,PDSA)模式来学习和引导 QIP 期间的变革,重点关注财务毒性综合评分(COST)和新诊断的 III 期或 IV 期妇科癌症参与者的资源护理协调。结果:在 42 名(80.75%)同意参加 QIP 的参与者中,61.90% 的 COST 评分低于 23 分,100%(26 名)的参与者接受了资源护理协调转介。平均有 6.50 名患者进入诊所接受治疗,其中 50%(3.25 人)报告有家庭病史。按此比例计算,在 50 周的一年中,有 162.50 名患者经历了 FT,但未接受资源护理协调。然而,由于部分患者未同意参与 QIP,在 50 周的一年中,FT(是)患者的平均人数可能在 199.50 到 225.00 之间,从而导致可能有 62.50 名 FT 患者(或 225.00 患者中的 28%)未接受转介。在这一质量改进项目中,年龄是影响固定电话转诊成本得分的主要因素。在这一质量改进项目中,许多变量都是不可观测的,可能会影响固定电话成本得分。然而,单独建模显示,年龄本身就能解释所观察到的 FT COST 分数变化的约 15%。对更多变量的控制可能会使模型更加完善,但从数据分析来看,年龄作为 FT COST 分数变化的驱动因素似乎不太可能消失。结论制定一项以结构化 QIP-PDSA 计划为重点的多学科教育计划,可以作为规范 FT 筛查和护理协调计划的一个范例。QIP 团队成功地将 PDSA 模型路线图筛查计划纳入其中,识别出了出现 FT 的参与者,并及时将 100% 的参与者转介到资源护理协调机构。
A Financial Toxicity Screening and Care Coordination Quality Improvement Program in a Gynecology Oncology Urban Practice
Background: 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. Objective: 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. Methods: 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. Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.