No abstract

The objective of this study was to compare the expressed confidence of senior house officers (SHOs) at performing practical medical procedures before and after working in an accident and emergency (A&E) post. The extent of formal teaching of these skills and opportunity for independent performance of them was also assessed. A postal questionnaire was sent to all SHOs completing an A&E post in the Trent region of the United Kingdom. Doctors were asked to grade their subjective confidence at performing listed practical skills before and after working in A&E. Eighty-four replies from 120 questionnaires were received (70% response rate). There was a significant improvement in confidence ( <0.0001) for all the skills studied after working in A&E. The proportion of doctors who received instruction varied for each of the skills. The expressed confidence of SHOs in performing practical procedures improved dramatically after working in A&E. Although remaining a valuable 'apprenticeship' for junior doctors, structured training is inadequate in the accident and emergency SHO post.

Clinical pathways are intended to promote consistent evidence-based care in an increasingly dynamic treatment landscape. This implies a critical role for pathways to improve quality treatment selection as we advance into an era of precision medicine. 1 In addition to improving quality, studies in the past focusing on the treatment of non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have suggested that treatment pathways may also be a lever to reduce cancer spending by driving appropriate utilization of high-value treatments. 2,3 As such, there is an implicit belief that inappropriate drug utilization is a key contributor to rising drug costs, leading to the inclusion of drug spend in many oncology value-based care models such as the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation's Oncology Care Model. 4

e13515 Background: Reducing avoidable hospital and emergency department (ED) use are national priorities in cancer care. Acute care centers (ACCs) that expand access for patients with oncologic emergencies are increasingly implemented as alternatives to inpatient and ED care. The impact of these ACCs is uncertain. Additionally, how to rigorously evaluate these interventions and to iteratively improve their effectiveness remains unclear as infrastructure interventions such as ACCs are not amenable to experimental manipulation. Methods: We are developing a novel quasi-experimental framework for evaluating and improving the effectiveness of an ACC intervention at the Simmons Comprehensive Cancer Center (SCCC) of the University of Texas Southwestern. SCCC covers one of the largest geographic regions of any academic medical center in the country, creating challenges addressing access to care. Drawing on the Andersen model for healthcare utilization we hypothesize that ACC effectiveness is mediated through enabling factors, particularly distance. Our initial evaluation framework draws on an untreated control group design with multiple pretest and post-test samples. The control group is comprised of patients living in zip codes farther away from the ACC. Additional analytic work will assess the feasibility of adding a matching cohort group structure based on factors such as onset of illness and matching individual patient episodes based on risk adjustment parameters. If the ACC is later expanded to other sites, the design can be further developed by adding a switching replications methodology to augment the quasi-experiment. Data collection draws on claims data provided through SCCC’s participation in Medicare’s Oncology Care Model (OCM). Results: Over OCM’s initial four performance periods (each six months long), all-cause risk adjusted hospitalization rates for SCCC patients ranged from 25.2% to 27.2%. All-cause risk adjusted OCM ED use ranged from 28.1 to 29.9%. Seeking to improve performance for both, SCCC leadership initially implemented a temporary urgent care clinic in August 2018. This initial prototype clinic was formalized into an operational ACC in August 2020. Evaluation of the impact of this ACC intervention is ongoing. Conclusions: ACCs represent potentially important means to reduce avoidable hospital and ED use. However, complex infrastructure interventions are not amenable to experimental evaluations assessing their impact, and it remains difficult to gain insights into how to tailor services through these interventions to support patients with oncologic urgencies and emergencies. Quasi-experimental approaches when integrated alongside ACC interventions represent promising mechanisms of evaluation and continuous quality improvement.

e18850 Background: Value based models (VBMs) in which cancers are bundled are a growing alternative to fee for service, as in the Oncology Care Model (OCM). However, bundles in OCM may not capture the clinical granularity needed to predict resource utilization for cancer subtypes. One such bundle is lymphoma, which groups highly heterogeneous diseases with distinct treatments and differing intensity of care. Here, we compare OCM predicted episode costs (targets) to actual episode costs by lymphoma subtype. Methods: Our cohort study used OCM data from a large academic medical center (AMC) and large community oncology practice (COP). Six-month episodes of lymphoma beginning between July 2016 and June 2019 were categorized based on ICD-10 diagnoses on antineoplastic infusions and E&M visits, as well as disease and data modeling. Episodes were subdivided into follicular (FL), diffuse large B (DLBCL), small B (SBCL), mantle (MCL), Hodgkin (HL), Waldenstrom macroglobulinemia (WM), mature T/NK (T/NK), and Other. The distributional consistency of episode costs and targets for each subtype relative to the rest of the episodes was evaluated by Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests. We also compared the proportion of subtypes contributing to episodes in the AMC vs. COP. Results: A total of 1801 lymphoma episodes were identified (44% in AMC, 56% in COP). The most common subtypes (DLBCL and FL) contributed a larger proportion of episodes in the COP, while less frequent subtypes (T/NK, WM) were more prevalent at the AMC. Further, episode costs are significantly different across individual subtypes. Target variance was significantly lower than cost variance across subtypes. For example, the average target for WM was $50.4K, average costs were $40.2K, with 26% of episodes over target. In contrast, the average target for T/NK was $55.9K, average costs were $72.7K, with 64% of episodes over target. Conclusions: VBMs such as OCM currently aggregate cancer types and lack clinical granularity. Our evaluation of OCM episodes at an AMC and COP found considerable differences in lymphoma populations and in costs by subtype. Failure to account for clinical features (i.e. lymphoma history) could lead to inappropriate shifts of risk from payers to providers in VBMs.[Table: see text]