Trial Outcomes & Findings for Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care (NCT NCT02110758)
NCT ID: NCT02110758
Last Updated: 2021-03-09
Results Overview
Patient experience survey composite scores were evaluated in the pilot practice group and in the comparison practice group during the intervention period and the follow-up period using a modified version of the cancer CAHPS patient survey. We calculated survey composite scores on a 0-100 scale using proportional scoring and the summated rating method based on the CAHPS macro.This method calculates the mean responses to each survey item in the composite, after transforming each response to a 0-100 scale (100 representing the most positive response on any given item response scale; 0 representing the least positive). For example, on a Yes/No response scale, if "Yes" represents the most positive response, then Yes= 100 and No = 0; on an Always/Usually/Sometimes/Never response scale, if "Always" represents the most positive response, then Always = 100, Usually = 67, Sometimes = 33 and Never = 0. A higher score means that practices were rated more positively for care on that item.
Recruitment status
COMPLETED
Target enrollment
125250 participants
Primary outcome timeframe
At baseline and 24 months follow up
Results posted on
2021-03-09
Participant Flow
We didn't follow patients longitudinally. We analyzed cross-sectional patient samples across our pilot and comparison arms in four different time periods: baseline, start-up, intervention \& follow-up. Adding up the cross-sectional samples across the periods and arms equals our total enrollment of 125,250 patients.
Participant milestones
| Measure |
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
No intervention/Usual care
|
Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort
Patients with an evaluation \& management claim attributed to a medical oncology pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort
Patients with an evaluation \& management claim attributed to a medical oncology comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention: No intervention/Usual care
|
Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort
Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past two years
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Baseline: August 2011-July 2013
STARTED
|
0
|
0
|
9832
|
18994
|
308
|
|
Baseline: August 2011-July 2013
COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
9832
|
18994
|
308
|
|
Baseline: August 2011-July 2013
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Start-Up: August 2013-June 2014
STARTED
|
175
|
431
|
8057
|
12883
|
0
|
|
Start-Up: August 2013-June 2014
COMPLETED
|
175
|
431
|
8057
|
12883
|
0
|
|
Start-Up: August 2013-June 2014
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Intervention: July 2014-December 2015
STARTED
|
0
|
0
|
10106
|
33012
|
0
|
|
Intervention: July 2014-December 2015
COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
10106
|
33012
|
0
|
|
Intervention: July 2014-December 2015
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
|
Follow-Up: January-July 2016
STARTED
|
81
|
179
|
6451
|
24392
|
349
|
|
Follow-Up: January-July 2016
COMPLETED
|
81
|
179
|
6451
|
24392
|
349
|
|
Follow-Up: January-July 2016
NOT COMPLETED
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
0
|
Reasons for withdrawal
Withdrawal data not reported
Baseline Characteristics
Evaluating the Impact of Patient-Centered Oncology Care
Baseline characteristics by cohort
| Measure |
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=256 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=610 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
No intervention/Usual care
|
Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort
n=34446 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort
n=89281 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention: No intervention/Usual care
|
Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort
n=657 Participants
Patients with a new diagnosis of cancer in the past two years
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Total
n=125250 Participants
Total of all reporting groups
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Other
|
2 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
5 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
7 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
14 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Hispanic/Latino
|
4 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
14 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
24 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Unknown
|
85 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
190 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
3400 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
89281 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
154 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
93110 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Region of Enrollment
United States
|
256 participants
n=5 Participants
|
610 participants
n=7 Participants
|
33996 participants
n=5 Participants
|
89281 participants
n=4 Participants
|
657 participants
n=21 Participants
|
65743 participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
18-24
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
344 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
894 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
18 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
1256 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
25-54
|
36 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
108 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
11385 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
29812 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
173 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
41514 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
55-64
|
83 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
177 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
10564 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
26761 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
180 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
37765 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
65-74
|
65 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
141 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
5693 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
14116 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
183 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
20198 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
75 and older
|
64 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
169 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
6460 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
17698 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
103 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
24494 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Age, Customized
Unknown
|
8 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
15 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Female
|
153 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
386 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
22004 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
59168 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
338 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
82049 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Male
|
95 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
209 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
11992 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
30113 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
319 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
42728 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Sex/Gender, Customized
Unknown
|
8 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
15 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
23 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
White
|
137 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
368 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
24571 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
69766 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
416 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
95258 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Black/African-American
|
21 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
34 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
6025 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
12117 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
57 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
18254 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Asian
|
7 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
6 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
9 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
22 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
American Indian/Alaska Native
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
1 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
|
Race/Ethnicity, Customized
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islander
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=7 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=5 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=4 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=21 Participants
|
0 Participants
n=10 Participants
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: At baseline and 24 months follow upPopulation: Only the Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort and Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this Primary Outcome.
Patient experience survey composite scores were evaluated in the pilot practice group and in the comparison practice group during the intervention period and the follow-up period using a modified version of the cancer CAHPS patient survey. We calculated survey composite scores on a 0-100 scale using proportional scoring and the summated rating method based on the CAHPS macro.This method calculates the mean responses to each survey item in the composite, after transforming each response to a 0-100 scale (100 representing the most positive response on any given item response scale; 0 representing the least positive). For example, on a Yes/No response scale, if "Yes" represents the most positive response, then Yes= 100 and No = 0; on an Always/Usually/Sometimes/Never response scale, if "Always" represents the most positive response, then Always = 100, Usually = 67, Sometimes = 33 and Never = 0. A higher score means that practices were rated more positively for care on that item.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=256 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=610 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
No intervention/Usual care
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Affective Communication Composite-Start-Up
|
90.1 units on a scale
Interval 87.9 to 99.2
|
90.0 units on a scale
Interval 85.7 to 98.8
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Affective Communication Composite-Follow-Up
|
92.8 units on a scale
Interval 82.1 to 97.4
|
92.4 units on a scale
Interval 63.5 to 100.0
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Access Composite-Start-Up
|
92.1 units on a scale
Interval 90.6 to 98.9
|
91.0 units on a scale
Interval 79.8 to 99.6
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Access Composite-Follow-Up
|
88.4 units on a scale
Interval 83.4 to 94.4
|
93.6 units on a scale
Interval 78.6 to 100.0
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Exchanging Information Composite-Start-Up
|
88.1 units on a scale
Interval 83.8 to 97.5
|
89.1 units on a scale
Interval 77.8 to 98.2
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Exchanging Information Composite-Follow-Up
|
86.0 units on a scale
Interval 84.2 to 91.1
|
89.8 units on a scale
Interval 53.9 to 100.0
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Patient Self-Management Composite-Start-Up
|
75.2 units on a scale
Interval 68.5 to 86.5
|
76.3 units on a scale
Interval 20.6 to 88.1
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Patient Self-Management Composite-Follow-Up
|
67.9 units on a scale
Interval 59.5 to 74.9
|
68.3 units on a scale
Interval 36.6 to 80.7
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Shared Decision-Making Composite-Start-Up
|
76.6 units on a scale
Interval 58.7 to 94.5
|
77.9 units on a scale
Interval 41.4 to 95.2
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Shared Decision-Making Composite-Follow-Up
|
83.3 units on a scale
Interval 80.1 to 87.8
|
79.7 units on a scale
Interval 59.3 to 100.0
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Overall Rating-Start-Up
|
92.9 units on a scale
Interval 92.4 to 99.0
|
90.1 units on a scale
Interval 76.2 to 100.0
|
|
Change in Patient Experience From Baseline to Follow up
Overall Rating-Follow-Up
|
89.8 units on a scale
Interval 82.1 to 97.4
|
94.2 units on a scale
Interval 64.5 to 100.0
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow-upPopulation: The pilot practices quality measures cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this outcome. The pilot practices pulled a sample of patient charts at baseline and follow-up (total of 657 patients). Some patients were eligible for specific measures below and some were not.
Quality measure performance rates were evaluated in the pilot practice group during the baseline period and the follow-up period. Data were abstracted from medical records for a sample of patients diagnosed with an invasive malignancy within previous 2 years and with at least 2 visits to the practice in the previous six months at baseline and at 36 months follow-up.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=657 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
No intervention/Usual care
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Pain assessed, Baseline
|
77.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Pain assessed, Follow-Up
|
95.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Pain intensity quantified, Baseline
|
74.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Pain intensity quantified, Follow-Up
|
94.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Plan of care for moderate/severe pain, Baseline
|
88.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Plan of care for moderate/severe pain, Follow-up
|
79.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Pain addressed defect-free measure, Baseline
|
58.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Pain addressed defect-free measure, Follow-up
|
87.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Emotional well-being assessed, Baseline
|
42.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Emotional well-being assessed, Follow-up
|
75.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Emotional well-being addressed, Baseline
|
92.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Emotional well-being addressed, Follow-up
|
84.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Documented plan for chemotherapy, Baseline
|
96.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Documented plan for chemotherapy, Follow-up
|
93.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy intent documented, Baseline
|
80.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy intent documented, Follow-up
|
92.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy intent discussion w/ patient, Baselil
|
72.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy intent discussion with patient, follo
|
87.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Number of chemotherapy cycles documented, Baseline
|
74.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Number of chemotherapy cycles documented, Follow-u
|
94.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy planning defect-free measur, Baseline
|
73.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy planning defect-free measu, Follow-up
|
86.0 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment summary completed, Baseline
|
41.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment summary completed, Follow-u
|
55.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Baselin
|
5.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment summary to patient, Follow-
|
37.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Basel
|
5.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment summary to provider, Follow
|
41.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Baselin
|
15.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Chemotherapy treatment defect-free measur Follow-u
|
34.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco use documented, Baseline
|
89.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco use documented, Follow-up
|
99.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco use cessation recommended, Baseline
|
51.6 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco use cessation recommended, Follow-up
|
47.1 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco use cessation administered, Baseline
|
43.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco use cessation administered, Follow-up
|
16.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco defect-free measure, Baseline
|
89.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Tobacco defect-free measure, Follow-up
|
85.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Serotonin antagonist prescribed, Baseline
|
98.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Serotonin antagonist prescribed, Follow-up
|
98.7 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Sertonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Ba
|
89.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Serotonin antagonist/corticosteroids, Follow-up
|
88.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Aprepitant prescribed, Baseline
|
84.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Aprepitant prescribed, Follow-up
|
75.8 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Anti-emetics defect-free measure, Baseline
|
71.2 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Anti-emetics defect-free measure, Follow-up
|
92.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Infertility risks discussed, Baseline
|
28.3 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Infertility risks discussed, Follow-up
|
63.4 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Fertility preservation options discussed, Baseline
|
52.5 percentage of participants
|
—
|
|
Change in Quality of Care From Baseline to Follow up: Percentage of Patients Receiving Recommended Care
Fertility preservation options discussed, Follow-u
|
63.9 percentage of participants
|
—
|
PRIMARY outcome
Timeframe: Two years prior to baseline and at 36 months follow upPopulation: Only the Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort and Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort were pre-specified to be assessed for this outcome
Per member per month hospitalizations, emergency department visits, primary care visits and specialist visits were evaluated in the pilot group and in the comparison group using insurance claims data during the baseline, start-up, intervention and follow-up periods.
Outcome measures
| Measure |
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=34446 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at pilot practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
Patient-Centered Oncology Care: Patient-Centered Oncology Care addresses six domains: track \& coordinate referrals, provide access and communication, identify and coordinate patient populations, plan and manage care, track \& coordinate care, and measure and improve performance.
|
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
n=89281 Participants
Patients with any active drug therapy treatment for cancer receiving care at comparison practice in southeastern Pennsylvania
Intervention:
No intervention/Usual care
|
|---|---|---|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause ED visits, Start-up
|
0.0873 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 4.6364
|
0.0973 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 6.0
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause ED visits, Intervention
|
0.0825 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 9.5556
|
0.0833 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 3.2778
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause hospitalizations, Baseline
|
0.0403 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 0.875
|
0.0386 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 1.3333
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause hospitalizations, Start-up
|
0.0484 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 1.6364
|
0.0823 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 1.7273
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause hospitalizations, Intervention
|
0.0623 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 1.3333
|
0.0512 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 1.1667
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause hospitalizations, Follow-up
|
0.0574 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 1.7143
|
0.0529 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 2.2857
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause ED visits, Baseline
|
0.0815 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 2.6667
|
0.0781 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 4.1667
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
All-cause ED Visits, Follow-up
|
0.0969 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 3.8571
|
0.1008 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 4.2857
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
PCP Office Visits, Baseline
|
0.2539 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 3.5417
|
0.2505 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 5.0417
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
PCP Office Visits, Start-Up
|
0.2657 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 10.909
|
0.2679 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 8.6364
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
PCP Office Visits, Intervention
|
0.2764 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 5.0556
|
0.2781 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 12.889
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
PCP Office Visits, Follow-up
|
0.2731 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 4.4286
|
0.2731 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 11.857
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
Specialist Office Visits, Baseline
|
0.9211 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 18.208
|
0.8967 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 8.7083
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
Specialist Office Visits, Start-Up
|
0.9211 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 18.208
|
0.8967 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 8.7083
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
Specialist Office Visits, Intervention
|
1.0199 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 16.545
|
1.0141 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 17.636
|
|
Change in Health Care Utilization From Baseline to Follow up
Specialist Office Visits, Follow-Up
|
1.0018 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 10.167
|
0.9549 Per member per month visits
Interval 0.0 to 11.111
|
Adverse Events
Pilot Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Comparison Practices Patient Survey Cohort
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Pilot Practices Utilization Cohort
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Comparison Practices Utilization Cohort
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Pilot Practices Quality Measures Cohort
Serious events: 0 serious events
Other events: 0 other events
Deaths: 0 deaths
Serious adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Other adverse events
Adverse event data not reported
Additional Information
Sarah Hudson Scholle
National Committee for Quality Assurance
Phone: 202-955-1726
Email: [email protected]
Results disclosure agreements
- Principal investigator is a sponsor employee
- Publication restrictions are in place