Abstract P2-13-16: A multidisciplinary approach to implement personalized multifaceted care plans in standard breast cancer care: A quality improvement project
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Background: IOM, ASCO and Commission on Cancer have emphasized the provision of survivorship care plans (SCPs) to cancer patients. Cancer Care Ontario (CCO) aims to ensure that SCPs are developed and shared with healthcare providers (HCPs) to facilitate integrated cancer care. In 2016, a randomized mixed-methods study at St. Michael’s Hospital (SMH) provided a paper based Personalized Multifaceted Care Plan (PMCPs) to breast cancer (BC) patients, which included an upfront treatment plan. The PMCP was generated by entering non-repetitive patient data into a care plan database software developed by the team. The study results showed that patients and primary care providers (PCPs) found PMCP to be useful. Despite the benefits, implementation of SCPs as standard of care remained a challenge due to lack of designated personnel for developing SCP and limited resources causing poor provider buy-in. In 2017, we initiated a quality improvement (QI) project to implement the PMCP by integrating it into existing workflow by involving the care team. Methods: This REB approved QI project was done in two phases. Phase 1 was to identify key members to create the PMCP and to secure the software to the SMH IT server. In phase 2, the PMCPs were delivered to newly diagnosed invasive BC patients, receiving chemotherapy. The PMCPs were also shared with respective PCPs. At SMH, new patients diagnosed with BC are seen initially at the Multidisciplinary Clinic (MDC) by a medical and radiation oncologist, and a patient navigator (PN) to plan treatment. In phase 1, the PN who coordinated the MDC was identified as the most appropriate care team member to initiate the PMCP. To incorporate the PMCP into the PN’s existing workflow, a Transfer of Accountability (TOA) document was designed using the care plan software to replace a patient summary that was created in silos. The TOA was electronically shared with the team and had most of the information provided in the PMCP. The primary outcome measures were proportion of information completed to generate the PMCP and care plans delivered by patients’ care team. Secondary Outcome measures were patient and provider satisfaction with PMCP assessed using surveys at three time points and single time point respectively. Data were summarized using median and IQR as well as frequency and percentages. Data was also shared at QI team meetings, practice patterns were observed for changes and incorporated into subsequent PDSA cycles. Results: From 2017 to 2019, 90% (120/134) of eligible BC patients were provided with the PMCP. At the first 2 PDSA cycles 100% PMCP preparation and delivery was done by research staff. We have achieved 80% compliance in Phase 1 by involving the PN in data entry for PMCP while preparing the TOA document. TOA had been incorporated into standard of care at MDC and a recent nursing project found that HCPs surveyed perceived TOA to be a useful tool in information exchange and care coordination. Patient satisfaction surveys for PMCP found their responses were consistent over all time points with high levels of agreement. Surveys also showed that 73% (86/117) patients agreed that the PMCP helped with communication with their PCPs and 81% (95/117) agreed it helped with communication with the team. Of the 25 PCPs and 5 oncology HCPs surveyed, 91% (22/25) PCPs and 100% (5/5) oncology HCPs agreed that the PMCP should be incorporated into BC care. Conclusions: Implementation of SCPs with a multidisciplinary approach is feasible in BC care. Integration of SCPs within the existing work flow and involvement of members of the care team can lead to increased SCP uptake, better care coordination, sustainability and provider buy-in. With the high patient and provider satisfaction with PMCP, and recommendation by CCO, we are in the process of integrating PMCPs for BC patients as standard of care in the oncology clinic. Citation Format: Rashida Haq, Amy Kong, Ronita Lee, Geetha Mukherji, Christine Brezden-Maesley, Pauline Gulasingam. A multidisciplinary approach to implement personalized multifaceted care plans in standard breast cancer care: A quality improvement project [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2019 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2019 Dec 10-14; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2020;80(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P2-13-16.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,125 | 0,062 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,006 | 0,013 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,006 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,008 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».