No abstract

Assessment and management of dyspnea has emerged as a priority topic for quality evaluation and improvement. Evaluating dyspnea quality of care requires valid, reliable, and responsive measures of the care provided to patients across settings and diseases. As part of an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Symposium, we reviewed quality of care measures for dyspnea by compiling quality measures identified in systematic searches and reviews. Systematic reviews identified only three existing quality measurement sets that included quality measures for dyspnea care. The existing dyspnea quality measures reported by retrospective evaluations of care assess only four aspects: dyspnea assessment within 48 hours of hospital admission, use of objective scales to rate dyspnea severity, identification of management plans, and evidence of dyspnea reduction. To begin to improve care, clinicians need to assess and regularly document patient's experiences of dyspnea. There is no consensus on how dyspnea should be characterized for quality measurement, and although over 40 tools exist to assess dyspnea, no rating scale or instrument is ideal for palliative care. The panel recommended that dyspnea assessment should include a measure of intensity and some inquiry into the associated bother or distress experienced by the patient. A simple question into the presence or absence of dyspnea would be unlikely to help guide therapy, as complete relief of dyspnea in advanced disease would not be anticipated. Additional knowledge gaps include standards for clinical dyspnea care, assessment in the cognitively impaired, and evaluation of effectiveness of dyspnea care for patients with advanced disease.

QUESTION ASKED: What is the relationship between the level of implementation of multidisciplinary care (MDC) and various processes of cancer care (eg, time to treatment receipt, evaluation for enrollment onto a clinical trial) among community cancer centers serving patients diagnosed with colon, rectal, or lung cancer? There is limited generalizable evidence on this topic. It is important to answer this question using data that can generalize across cancer patients, the majority of whom receive treatment in a community cancer center. SUMMARY ANSWER: Focusing on the time to receipt of cancer-directed treatment as one key process of cancer care in this patient population, we found that the answer to our question depended on the MDC assessment area and tumor site ( Table 1 ). Among patients with colon cancer, higher MDC levels of physician engagement (ie, a higher level of physician engagement at the institutional level) were associated with a shorter time to treatment receipt, whereas higher MDC levels of case planning were associated with a longer time to treatment receipt. Among patients with rectal cancer, higher MDC levels of physician engagement were associated with a shorter time to cancer-directed treatment receipt, whereas higher MDC levels of evaluation for enrollment onto clinical trials were associated with a longer time to treatment receipt. Among patients with lung cancer, there was no association between the MDC areas of assessment and the time to cancer-directed treatment receipt. [Table: see text] METHODS: We collected data for patients receiving care at 14 National Cancer Institute (NCI) community cancer centers. We characterized the NCI community cancer centers according to their level of MDC implementation across seven MDC assessment areas and over time. Using statistical regression models, we investigated the relationship between the level of MDC implementation and various process measures, including time to treatment receipt, clinical trial evaluation, receipt of multimodality treatment, and adherence to treatment guidelines published by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network. BIAS, CONFOUNDING FACTOR(S), DRAWBACKS: In the absence of a validated MDC assessment tool, the NCI community cancer centers used a nonvalidated tool. Additional institutional-level data would have been useful for characterizing norms and practices that may have differed across cancer centers and potentially explained variation in care processes. Although we controlled for patient demographic characteristics, baseline data were not available to document patient comorbidity or performance status level. To the extent that cancer centers at higher levels of MDC implementation may have been more likely to treat clinically complex patients, the inability to control for potential confounding bias caused by patient case mix may have influenced the study results. REAL-LIFE IMPLICATIONS: MDC models are important decision-making forums in current oncology practice. They involve oncologists in generating a comprehensive and coordinated plan of care for patients. Although MDC is purported to offer benefits to patients, there is limited generalizable evidence regarding the benefit to individuals receiving care at community cancer centers in the United States. Across various care processes that are important for characterizing cancer care, this study’s results indicate that changes in the level of MDC implementation could differentially affect the process of care, depending on the MDC area of assessment and the cancer site. In addition, the study results can be used to generate hypotheses for future studies among individuals diagnosed with colon, rectal, or lung cancer.

Time to start addressing (and not just describing) the social determinants of diabetes: results from the NEXT-D 2.0 network.

No abstract