PURPOSE: Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients. METHODS: Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams. RESULTS: A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP. CONCLUSION: Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.
PURPOSE: Development and implementation of robust reporting processes to systematically provide quality data to care teams in a timely manner is challenging. National cancer quality measures are useful, but the manual data collection required is resource intensive, and reporting is delayed. We designed a largely automated measurement system with our multidisciplinary cancer care programs (CCPs) to identify, measure, and improve quality metrics that were meaningful to the care teams and their patients. METHODS: Each CCP physician leader collaborated with the cancer quality team to identify metrics, abiding by established guiding principles. Financial incentive was provided to the CCPs if performance at the end of the study period met predetermined targets. Reports were developed and provided to the CCP physician leaders on a monthly or quarterly basis, for dissemination to their CCP teams. RESULTS: A total of 15 distinct quality measures were collected in depth for the first time at this cancer center. Metrics spanned the patient care continuum, from diagnosis through end of life or survivorship care. All metrics improved over the study period, met their targets, and earned a financial incentive for their CCP. CONCLUSION: Our quality program had three essential elements that led to its success: (1) engaging physicians in choosing the quality measures and prespecifying goals, (2) using automated extraction methods for rapid and timely feedback on improvement and progress toward achieving goals, and (3) offering a financial team-based incentive if prespecified goals were met.
Authors: Anne M Walling; Diana Tisnado; Steven M Asch; Jennifer M Malin; Philip Pantoja; Sydney M Dy; Susan L Ettner; Ann P Zisser; Hannah Schreibeis-Baum; Martin Lee; Karl A Lorenz Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013 Dec 9-23 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Michael P Kosty; Amy Hanley; Veronica Chollette; Suanna S Bruinooge; Steven H Taplin Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-24 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Kristen McNiff; Peter D Eisenberg; Terry Gilmore; Paul B Jacobsen; Joseph O Jacobson; Pamela J Kadlubek; Michael N Neuss; Joseph Simone Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Jhanelle E Gray; Christine Laronga; Erin M Siegel; Ji-Hyun Lee; William J Fulp; Michelle Fletcher; Fred Schreiber; Richard Brown; Richard Levine; Thomas Cartwright; Guillermo Abesada-Terk; George Kim; Carlos Alemany; Douglas Faig; Philip Sharp; Merry-Jennifer Markham; David Shibata; Mokenge Malafa; Paul B Jacobsen Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Robert D Siegel; Kathleen M Castro; Jana Eisenstein; Holley Stallings; Patricia D Hegedus; Donna M Bryant; Pam J Kadlubek; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-12-23 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Jane Severson; C Jane Martin; Pamela Kadlubek; Thomas Ruane; Kimberley Harrison Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Douglas W Blayney; Kristen McNiff; David Hanauer; Gretchen Miela; Denise Markstrom; Michael Neuss Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-06-01 Impact factor: 44.544