A community cancer clinic, through cooperation with its parent health care system, developed a lung cancer multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) to enhance patient care and prevent outmigration to competing health care systems. The local medical and radiation oncologists collaborated with a thoracic surgeon from the tertiary care hospital in establishing the lung MDC. All the participating physicians are employed by the health care system. A cancer care coordinator assured that all necessary tests were obtained and available to the physicians at least 1 day before the clinic. The multidisciplinary team also included a pulmonologist and met every third week. Other sub-specialists were involved as necessary. Final treatment recommendations using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were made for each patient at the MDC visit. This clinic, once established, resulted in significant improvements in the quality of care, patient satisfaction and retention of patients. Time from diagnosis to initiation of treatment was reduced to a mean of 18 days from a mean of 24 days. The community cancer clinic had an increase in lung cancer patient care by 28% and a 9.1% increase in gross revenue. The tertiary care hospital benefited by providing all patients with definitive surgery, including minimally invasive surgery. The tertiary hospital thoracic surgeon had a 75% increase in referrals from the lung MDC geographic area over the previous year. This collaboration in the development of MDCs demonstrates how patients, caregivers, and the health care system benefit from MDCs.

e12012 Background: VIA Oncology evidence-based pathways have been integrated into our medical oncology workflows since November 2014. Within 3 months, compliance was high for our 42 medical oncologists at 19 sites working with a common EHR with over 85% of pts treated on pathway. The aim of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference in the overall cost of treatment between pts treated on pathway versus off pathway, and whether on pathway pts had a lower rate of ED use and unplanned admissions within 30 days of chemotherapy as required in the new CMS directives. Methods: Newly diagnosed stage 2 breast cancer pts diagnosed between January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 were identified from the tumor registry for the system. The VIA database was queried to separate these pts into two groups–those pts who were treated on pathway, and those who were off pathway. The data warehouse was utilized to determine the total charges of adjuvant medical oncology treatment for these pts. In addition, data was extracted for the same groups to determine those pts who sought ED evaluation and or hospital admission within 30 days of chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Fisher’s exact test to compare proportions and t-test to compare treatment costs and ED/hospitalizations between the on and off pathway groups. Results: During the 2 years, 412 (93%) Stage 2 breast cancer pts were treated on pathway (including clinical trials); 32 (7%) were off pathway. 81% of the on-pathway group were + for ER and/or PR and 17% were HER-2 +; 78% of the off-pathway group were + for ER and/or PR and 38% were HER-2 +. Mean cost for treating the on-pathway group was $111,067 compared to $200,717 for the off-pathway pts (p=0.01). 18.8% of the off-pathway pts were seen in the ED / unplanned admissions and had more multiple visits compared to 12.1% of on-pathway pts within 30 days of chemotherapy (p=0.026). Conclusions: Standardized usage of evidence based pathways can be used successfully across a large number of providers over wide geography. Adherence to pathways results in significant cost savings for each patient, and significant reduction in ED/hospital utilization for on pathway patients.

196 Background: Oncology quality performance metrics may be improved by establishing a coordinated process for getting data back to providers. However, establishing ownership of quality metric data can be a challenge, especially in a large, integrated health system. Methods: Aurora Cancer Care’s team developed quality charters and a coordinated process for its 15-hospital, integrated health system that outlines a course of action for metric selection, data distribution, peer review and development of process improvement plans. A weighted tool was developed and implemented to prioritize measure selection. The weighted tool described and scored each quality measure against its performance improvement opportunity, ease in data collection, national benchmarks, regulatory and reimbursement impact, value to the patient and consideration of the resources required to implement change. The final score was used to prioritize and select measures. The System Multidisciplinary Disease-Specific Quality Subcommittees established quality measures. Abstraction began, outliers were reviewed and results were disseminated to the System Cancer Leadership Council as well as the 15 hospitals via the Regional Cancer Quality Subcommittees (RCQS). The RCQS chairs and quality directors meet quarterly with the system quality liaison to ensure the communication of data back to the front-line providers. Results: We found a rise in the percentages of invasive rectal cancers diagnosed with endorectal ultrasound or magnetic resonance imaging (no stage IV) (2012: 76%, 2013: 84%) and treated with total mesorectal excision (no stage IV) (2012: 72%, 2013: 87%). In addition, increases in the examination of at least 12 regional lymph nodes for invasive colorectal cancer (2012: 93%, 2013: 98%; p<0.05) and partial, rather than total, nephrectomy for renal cancer patients with T1a tumors (2012: 71%, 2013: 95%; p<0.05) were statistically significant. Conclusions: Though our coordinated process to get quality data back to providers continues to evolve, our front-line providers have shown greater enthusiasm for the data, engaged in behavior modification and become more accountable with process improvement plans that are integral to establishing the best patient outcomes.

No abstract

No abstract