Teams, Tools, Processes and Resources to Manage Oncologic Clinical Decision Support: Lessons Learned from City of Hope's Multistate, Academic, and Community Oncology Enterprise.

Background/Objectives: Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) consisting of Computerized Physician Order Entry (CPOE) and oncology pathways serve as the foundation of high-quality cancer care. However, the resources needed to develop and maintain these systems have not been characterized for oncology enterprises. Methods: Executive leadership appointed a medical director and clinical pharmacist to develop and lead a Pathways and Protocols Program for the City of Hope (COH) enterprise. This involved developing a program charter and governance committee and a business case for resources to support CPOE in our Epic Beacon treatment orders. Missing CPOEs for oncology treatments were identified for treatments in COH's Elsevier ClinicalPath treatment pathways and for those few diseases not in the pathways for medical oncology and hematology. New FDA oncology drug approvals were used to estimate ongoing CPOE build needs. Time estimates for Beacon analysts to build Beacon protocols were developed from a prior CPOE catch-up project, from informal surveys of our clinical pharmacists and Beacon leads, and surveys of staff leads at two other large, multisite cancer programs using Epic. Informal surveys of oncology clinicians and pharmacists were carried out to understand the time they were using to build Beacon orders that were not in the COH system. This information was used to build a business case for additional project management and staffing to catch up on building 400 missing Beacon orders, to maintain Beacon orders as new therapies and regimens are needed, and to provide required regulatory oversight of Beacon orders. Given these standards had not been shared by others, this work was gathered into a manuscript to help others evaluate and support needed resources to manage oncology pathway programs and CPOE to improve efficiencies, safety, and quality of care for medical oncology and hematology programs. Results: A Pathways and Protocols program was developed with a governance committee, a program charter, and a charge for disease committees to prioritize, approve, and oversee the regulation of COH's Beacon treatment orders. CPOE resources to catch up and maintain COH's Beacon treatment orders were developed and shared with COH's executive leadership. Informal surveys were completed to benchmark Beacon resources with COH and two other Beacon enterprises as well as to estimate the time used by COH clinicians to build Beacon orders for orders not in the system. Conclusions: The resources for managing clinical oncology pathways and CPOE for an enterprise have not previously been published. Work components identified from our work at COH are shared so that other oncology leaders might have a starting framework to evaluate their own CDSS needs for oncology pathways and CPOE.