PURPOSE: Training clinical and supportive staff in quality improvement (QI) theory and use of QI tools has the potential to improve oncology care delivery. We report our combined experience of providing training to oncologists in a variety of local settings and assess the effect of the training on individual participants and for institutions. METHODS: Multidisciplinary oncology teams at a comprehensive cancer center, an academic medical center, and community practices were led through experiential QI training that spanned several months. The curriculum included didactic training sessions that attendees applied to their local project-based work and that required plan-do-study-act cycles. The curriculum was adapted to the smaller practice setting through use of a workbook and a reduced focus on quantitative methods. All teams were supported by coaches and provided final presentations to leadership. The self-rated abilities of trainees to use 15 QI tools were assessed with a pre/post training survey that had five response categories (information, skill, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom). Local institutional and external project presentations were tracked. RESULTS: During 7 years, 129 trainees participated in 56 QI projects. All of the 15 QI tools had 80% of trainees rate themselves in the top three categories (knowledge, understanding, and wisdom) after the training; none met this threshold before. Multiple projects were presented in institutional and external settings. Most projects targeted three of the four domains of the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative certification program standards. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented and sustained QI training programs in a variety of cancer delivery settings. The flexible training model should be easily adoptable by others.
PURPOSE: Training clinical and supportive staff in quality improvement (QI) theory and use of QI tools has the potential to improve oncology care delivery. We report our combined experience of providing training to oncologists in a variety of local settings and assess the effect of the training on individual participants and for institutions. METHODS: Multidisciplinary oncology teams at a comprehensive cancer center, an academic medical center, and community practices were led through experiential QI training that spanned several months. The curriculum included didactic training sessions that attendees applied to their local project-based work and that required plan-do-study-act cycles. The curriculum was adapted to the smaller practice setting through use of a workbook and a reduced focus on quantitative methods. All teams were supported by coaches and provided final presentations to leadership. The self-rated abilities of trainees to use 15 QI tools were assessed with a pre/post training survey that had five response categories (information, skill, knowledge, understanding, and wisdom). Local institutional and external project presentations were tracked. RESULTS: During 7 years, 129 trainees participated in 56 QI projects. All of the 15 QI tools had 80% of trainees rate themselves in the top three categories (knowledge, understanding, and wisdom) after the training; none met this threshold before. Multiple projects were presented in institutional and external settings. Most projects targeted three of the four domains of the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative certification program standards. CONCLUSIONS: We implemented and sustained QI training programs in a variety of cancer delivery settings. The flexible training model should be easily adoptable by others.