Literature DB >> 28561691

Improving Quality and Value of Cancer Care for Older Adults.

Erika E Ramsdale1, Valerie Csik1, Andrew E Chapman1, Arash Naeim1, Beverly Canin1.   

Abstract

The concepts of quality and value have become ubiquitous in discussions about health care, including cancer care. Despite their prominence, these concepts remain difficult to encapsulate, with multiple definitions and frameworks emerging over the past few decades. Defining quality and value for the care of older adults with cancer can be particularly challenging. Older adults are heterogeneous and often excluded from clinical trials, severely limiting generalizable data for this population. Moreover, many frameworks for quality and value focus on traditional outcomes of survival and toxicity and neglect goals that may be more meaningful for older adults, such as quality of life and functional independence. A history of quality and value standards and an evaluation of some currently available standards and frameworks elucidate the potential gaps in application to older adults with cancer. However, narrowing the focus to processes of care presents several opportunities for improving the care of older adults with cancer now, even while further work is ongoing to evaluate outcomes and efficiency. New models of care, including the patient-centered medical home, as well as new associated bundled payment models, would be advantageous for older adults with cancer, facilitating collaboration, communication, and patient-centeredness and minimizing the fragmentation that impairs the current provision of cancer care. Advances in information technology support the foundation for these models of care; these technologies facilitate communication, increase available data, support shared decision making, and increase access to multidisciplinary specialty care. Further work will be needed to define and to continue to tailor processes of care to achieve relevant outcomes for older patients with cancer to fulfill the promise of quality and value of care for this vulnerable and growing population.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28561691      PMCID: PMC9245494          DOI: 10.1200/EDBK_175442

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book        ISSN: 1548-8748


  42 in total

1.  Poor documentation prevents adequate assessment of quality metrics in colorectal cancer.

Authors:  Amy P Abernethy; James E Herndon; Jane L Wheeler; Krista Rowe; Jennifer Marcello; Meenal Patwardhan
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 3.840

2.  Silver oncologic tsunami: quality issues in the senior adult oncology population.

Authors:  Andrew Chapman; Amy MacKenzie; Ira Parker
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2015-04-21       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  Factors Affecting Physician Professional Satisfaction and Their Implications for Patient Care, Health Systems, and Health Policy.

Authors:  Mark W Friedberg; Peggy G Chen; Kristin R Van Busum; Frances Aunon; Chau Pham; John Caloyeras; Soeren Mattke; Emma Pitchforth; Denise D Quigley; Robert H Brook; F Jay Crosson; Michael Tutty
Journal:  Rand Health Q       Date:  2014-12-01

4.  The Collection of Indirect and Nonmedical Direct Costs (COIN) form: a new tool for collecting the invisible costs of androgen independent prostate carcinoma.

Authors:  E J Sherman; D G Pfister; H S Ruchlin; D M Rubin; M H Radzyner; G H Kelleher; S F Slovin; W K Kelly; H I Scher
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2001-02-15       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  CancerLinQ Update.

Authors:  Robert S Miller
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 3.840

6.  Academic health center management of chronic diseases through knowledge networks: Project ECHO.

Authors:  Sanjeev Arora; Cynthia M A Geppert; Summers Kalishman; Denise Dion; Frank Pullara; Barbara Bjeletich; Gary Simpson; Dale C Alverson; Lori B Moore; Dave Kuhl; Joseph V Scaletti
Journal:  Acad Med       Date:  2007-02       Impact factor: 6.893

7.  Randomized controlled clinical trial of "virtual house calls" for Parkinson disease.

Authors:  E Ray Dorsey; Vinayak Venkataraman; Matthew J Grana; Michael T Bull; Benjamin P George; Cynthia M Boyd; Christopher A Beck; Balaraman Rajan; Abraham Seidmann; Kevin M Biglan
Journal:  JAMA Neurol       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 18.302

Review 8.  International Society of Geriatric Oncology consensus on geriatric assessment in older patients with cancer.

Authors:  Hans Wildiers; Pieter Heeren; Martine Puts; Eva Topinkova; Maryska L G Janssen-Heijnen; Martine Extermann; Claire Falandry; Andrew Artz; Etienne Brain; Giuseppe Colloca; Johan Flamaing; Theodora Karnakis; Cindy Kenis; Riccardo A Audisio; Supriya Mohile; Lazzaro Repetto; Barbara Van Leeuwen; Koen Milisen; Arti Hurria
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2014-08-20       Impact factor: 44.544

Review 9.  The impact of electronic medical records on patient-doctor communication during consultation: a narrative literature review.

Authors:  Aviv Shachak; Shmuel Reis
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2009-06-10       Impact factor: 2.431

10.  Identifying knowledge gaps in the labeling of medications for geriatric patients.

Authors:  Trevor Hinshaw; Joan Kapusnik-Uner; Barbara Zarowitz; Karl Matuszewski
Journal:  P T       Date:  2013-09
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.