Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Research Articles

Improving quality of care by standardising patient data collection in electronic medical records in an oncology department in Spain

BackgroundEvaluation of quality of care in oncology is key in ensuring patients receive adequate treatment. American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) Certification Program (QCP) is...

Enhancing Cancer Care Through Quality Initiatives: The Uganda Cancer Institute Experience With the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

Cancer care in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces numerous challenges, such as limited resources, infrastructure constraints, and a shortage of specialized training. To address these challenges, innovative quality improvement (QI) approaches are required. The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) by the ASCO provides a framework for improving care quality through evidence-based standards. This article explores how QOPI has been adapted to the local context of the Uganda Cancer Institute (UCI) and highlights the importance of aligning international best practices with local health care realities to bridge disparities in care standards. The adaptation of the QOPI program at UCI commenced with a collaborative meeting with the ASCO-QOPI team in 2020. A tailored implementation plan was developed focusing on incorporating ASCO's QOPI measures and additional metrics relevant to the Ugandan context, engaging multidisciplinary teams, and optimizing resource use by leveraging existing resources for data collection and analysis. The execution of the plan relied heavily on staff training, participatory data collection, and continuous quality improvement processes that utilized data-driven methodologies. A retrospective analysis of QOPI data of UCI from 2020 to 2023 shows significant improvements in oncology care quality, highlighted by an upward trend in QOPI assessment scores across various metrics. These reflect the journey of UCI toward aligning its oncology care practices with international standards despite facing significant challenges. UCI's experience demonstrated the feasibility and impact of implementing international QI programs in LMICs. The success demonstrates that significant improvements in cancer care quality can be achieved in resource-constrained settings through adaptability, stakeholder engagement, and strategic resource optimization. UCI's journey is a model for other LMICs seeking to raise their cancer care standards, demonstrating that QI is necessary and attainable worldwide.

The role of shared decision-making in cancer pain management: Insights from a systematic review.

e24078 Background: Effective pain management in cancer care is crucial for patient quality of life. Shared decision-making (SDM) interventions are increasingly recognized for their potential to improve patient outcomes by facilitating patient engagement in care decisions. This systematic review synthesizes evidence on the impact of SDM interventions in cancer pain management. Methods: This systematic review adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We conducted a comprehensive search across multiple databases, including PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. The search also extended to grey literature sources such as conference proceedings, dissertations, and unpublished reports to ensure a thorough coverage of the subject matter. Our search strategy employed a combination of MeSH terms and keywords related to 'decision making,' 'patient participation,' 'pain management,' and 'cancer.' This strategy was tailored to each database's unique syntax and search operators. Results: Ten studies, including six pilot and feasibility studies and four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and Preintervention-Postintervention studies, were systematically reviewed. The interventions implemented diverse SDM strategies ranging from digital tools and personalized education to clinical decision support systems, targeting key aspects of pain management and patient-provider communication. Frequent intervention components included patient-reported outcome dashboards, symptom management support, and educational resources for pain management. The Tailored Education and Coaching (TEC) intervention notably increased pain-specific patient communication by 31%, while the PAINRelieveIt intervention did not significantly impact analgesic adherence but effectively reduced pain misconceptions among caregivers. Some interventions, like the Carevive CPS, showed high patient involvement in SDM (94.1%) and compliance with quality oncology practice initiative metrics (98%). However, the effectiveness of these interventions varied, with some showing no significant impact on primary pain outcomes. The variability in measured outcomes such as pain intensity, analgesic adherence, and patient satisfaction indicates a context-dependent effectiveness of SDM interventions, highlighting the importance of personalized approaches and the role of implementation strategies in influencing patient engagement and intervention success. Conclusions: SDM interventions in cancer pain management are diverse in structure and impact. Some interventions show promise in improving communication and reducing misconceptions, but their direct effect on pain outcomes varies.

Quality of telehealth-provided cancer care in VA.

1633 Background: As the largest integrated health care system in the United States, the Veterans Health Administration (VA) has extensive experience in utilizing telehealth-(TH) to deliver care to the 10 million enrolled Veterans, including the~50,000 patients newly diagnosed with cancer annually and ~500,000 cancer survivors. The VA National TeleOncology (NTO) service was established in 2020 to provide specialized treatment regardless of geographical location. We sought to compare quality in TH-delivered care compared to traditional (TR) in-person VA care. Methods: Using the VA EHR, we identified patients who had an ICD-10 diagnostic code for an incident malignancy from Dec 2016 to March 2021 at three medical centers providing both TR and TH care. We used EHR review to classify patients as TH users, if they received TH services at least once for their cancer care, or TR care if no telehealth was used. Using both structured EHR data and manual review by two trained abstractors, we gathered demographic, clinical, and treatment characteristics to calculate 25 Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) measures in the domains of symptoms and toxicity management (2), end of life and palliative care (10), and core measures (13). We report QOPI measures descriptively; and used chi-squared tests with alpha = 0.05 to compare TH and TR. Results: We identified 972 patients with lymphoma, prostate, lung or colorectal cancer. 427 (44%) were TH users and 545 (56%) were TR, and they were predominately white (n=819, 84.3%) men (n=930, 95.7%). TH users had better (n=13), worse (n=9), same (n=2) and unevaluable (n=1) descriptive performance on measures. For example, TH and TR were similar in administration of appropriate antiemetic therapy for high and moderate-risk antineoplastic agents (44.8% vs 42.4%). TH performed better than TR for chemotherapy summary being completed within three months of chemotherapy ending (83.4% vs 75.6%) and for emotional well-being being assessed by the second office visit (92.3% vs 89.9%). Appropriate tobacco use cessation administration within the previous year was statistically higher in TH (85.3% vs 76.2% p=0.0021). No differences were statistically significant for any other QOPI measures. Conclusions: VA is a leader in TH cancer care because of both its volume and quality. VA-provided TH cancer care quality is similar to or better than that of TR in-person care. NTO specifically, and VA teleoncology broadly, provides another option to Veterans for cancer care.

Implementing Standard Diagnosis and Treatment for Locally Advanced Breast Cancer Through Global Research in Latin America: Results From a Multicountry Pragmatic Trial.

Breast cancer mortality rates in Latin America (LA) are higher than those in the United States, possibly because of advanced disease presentation, health care disparities, or unfavorable molecular subtypes. The Latin American Cancer Research Network was established to address these challenges and to promote collaborative clinical research. The Molecular Profiling of Breast Cancer Study (MPBCS) aimed to evaluate the clinical characteristics and treatment outcomes of LA participants with locally advanced breast cancer (LABC). The MPBCS enrolled 1,449 participants from Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and Uruguay. Through harmonized procedures and quality assurance measures, this study evaluated clinicopathologic characteristics, neoadjuvant chemotherapy response, and survival outcomes according to residual cancer burden (RCB) and the type of surgery. Overall, 711 and 480 participants in the primary surgery and neoadjuvant arms, respectively, completed the 5-year follow-up period. Overall survival was independently associated with RCB (worse survival for RCBIII-adjusted hazard ratio, 8.19, P < .001, and RCBII [adjusted hazard ratio, 3.69, P < .008] compared with RCB0 [pathologic complete response or pCR]) and type of surgery (worse survival in mastectomy than in breast-conserving surgery [BCS], adjusted hazard ratio, 2.97, P = .001). The hormone receptor-negative-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive group had the highest proportion of pCR (48.9%). The analysis of the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative breast module revealed high compliance with pathologic standards but lower adherence to treatment administration standards. Notably, compliance with trastuzumab administration varied widely among countries (33.3%-88.7%). In LABC, we demonstrated the survival benefit of BCS and the prognostic effect of the response to available neoadjuvant treatments despite an important variability in access to key treatments. The MPBCS represents a significant step forward in understanding the real-world implementation of oncologic procedures in LA.

Seeking American Society of Clinical Oncology-Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (ASCO-QOPI) certification in a northern New England rural health system and cancer care network.

In 2006 following several years of preliminary study, the American Society ofClinical Oncology (ASCO) launched the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). This cancer-focused quality initiative evolved considerably over the next decade-and-a-half and is expanding globally. QOPI is undoubtedly the leading standard-bearer for quality cancer care and contemporary medical oncology practice. The program garners attention and respect among federal programs, private insurers, and medical oncology practices across the nation. The MaineHealth Cancer Care Network (MHCCN) has undergone expansive growth since 2017. The network provides cancer care to more than 70% of the cases in Maine in a largely rural health system in Northern New England. In fall 2020, the MHCCN QOPI project leadership, following collaborative discussions with the ASCO-QOPI team, elected to proceed with a health system-cancer network-wide QOPI certification. Key themes emerged over the course of our two-year journey including: (1) Developing a highly interprofessional team committed to the project; (2) Capitalizing on a single electronic medical record for data transmission to CancerLinQ; (3) Prior experience, especially policy development, in other cancer-focused accreditation programs across the network; and (4) Building consensus through quarterly stakeholder meetings and awarding Continuing Medical Education (CME) and American Board of Medical Specialists (ABMS) Maintenance of Certification (MOC) credits to oncologists. All participants demonstrated a genuine spirit to work together to achieve certification. We report our successful journey seeking ASCO-QOPI certification across our network, which to our knowledge is the first-of-its-kind endeavor.

Impact and value of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug regimen in patients receiving high emetic risk chemotherapy.

293 Background: The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium, MOQC, has increased the use of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for high emetic risk chemotherapy in many of its 50 practices across Michigan. The purpose of this project was to estimate the impact of olanzapine prescribing on health care utilization and subsequent savings in healthcare utilization payments in patients with breast cancer on (neo)adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide (AC) for breast cancer. Methods: Multipayer claims data were used from the Michigan Value Collaborative (MVC), a collaborative quality initiative of over 100 hospitals and 40 physician organizations with the goal of improving healthcare value. We identified a cohort of female patients with a 90-day episode of care for breast cancer resection between 2016-2021 who received chemotherapy with AC as (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy. Patients were covered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan insurance plans or Medicare. Each patient was attributed to one practice using National Provider Identifiers on professional claims. Facility claims were used to identify inpatient admissions and emergency department (ED) visits across the patient’s course of chemotherapy, up to 21 days following final chemotherapy. Practice-level use of olanzapine abstracted by MOQC as part of ASCO’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI™) data collection was used to determine whether each patient's chemotherapy treatment began when the practice had “high” (≥25%) or “low” (&lt;25%) rates of olanzapine use for high emetic risk chemotherapy. We compared healthcare utilization among patients treated by high- vs. low-prescriber practices and calculated the estimated differences in price-standardized payments attributed to olanzapine use. Results: We identified 1,891 total patients attributed to 45 MOQC practices; 922 patients were attributed to 15 practices that eventually became high prescribers. Patients treated by a high olanzapine prescribing practice had significantly lower hospitalization rates (10%) during chemotherapy compared to patients treated when their attributed practice was a low olanzapine prescriber (15%, p=0.02). There was no difference in the proportion of patients visiting the ED. The mean per-patient price-standardized insurance payment for inpatient hospitalization for this cohort was $12,007. Increased use of olanzapine led to an estimated payment savings of $334,095 in prevented hospitalizations among 525 patients treated when their attributed practice had a high olanzapine prescribing rate. Conclusions: In this patient sample, practice use of olanzapine in ≥ 25% of patients on high emetic risk chemotherapy was associated with significant reductions in the risk of hospitalization. As the proportion of patients receiving olanzapine increases, we expect even greater reductions in the risk of hospitalization and greater cost savings.

Application of natural language processing to assess the performance status documentation quality metric in patients with non–small-cell lung cancer.

e13582 Background: Performance status (PS) assessment is important for cancer prognosis and treatment decision-making. PS documentation for stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is a quality measure for ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) Certification Program. We used natural language processing (NLP) to extract PS from unstructured electronic medical records (EMR) clinical notes in patients with metastatic NSCLC to verify PS documentation compliance and disparities in PS documentation. Methods: We identified oncology progress notes of stage IV NSCLC patients from Harris Health System, which is an integrated comprehensive healthcare system for underserved patients in Houston, TX. All progress notes within 60 days of first oncology clinic visit date were filtered based on visit type and author type. A rule-based regular expression NLP algorithm was used to extract the PS, namely Eastern Standard Cooperative Group (ECOG) or Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS). A total of 400 oncology notes were randomly selected from 400 distinct patients and annotated by two clinician reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by a senior clinician judge. The annotated notes were split randomly into 200 training notes and 200 validation notes, and the performance of the NLP algorithm was evaluated. We used logistic regression to analyze potential disparity in PS documentation. Results: We identified 15,239 progress notes from 757 stage IV NSCLC patients. The NLP algorithm accuracy validated on the test data was 99% with corresponding positive predictive values (PPVs) for ECOG PS 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 of 100%, 100%, 95%, 94%, 94%, respectively. The NLP algorithm identified 85% of patients with appropriate PS documentation (sensitivity 100%, specificity 91%, positive predictive value 98%, negative predictive value 100%). Logistic regression analyses showed no significant differences in association between PS documentation and race/ethnicity, language, or sex. Conclusions: We developed an internally validated NLP algorithm to extract PS from EMR clinical notes. Despite potential language barriers, the QOPI metric of &gt;75% PS documentation was met in our hospital system without significant disparities in clinical care. [Table: see text]

Guideline-concordant use of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen for high emetic risk chemotherapy across the state of Michigan.

6519 Background: Chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) is a feared side effect of cancer treatment. If not adequately controlled, CINV can negatively affect both quality of life and increase the costs of care. Clinical practice guidelines from both ASCO and NCCN recommend inclusion of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen in patients receiving high emetic risk chemotherapy (HEC). Uptake of olanzapine has been low, however, in part due to oncologists’ lack of familiarity with the medication, lack of awareness or agreement with the guidelines, and lack of olanzapine inclusion on prepopulated order sets. Current labeling of olanzapine as an antipsychotic poses an additional barrier. The purpose of this project was to increase guideline-concordant prescribing of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen in patients receiving HEC in practices that are part of the Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC), a physician-led consortium of nearly 90% of oncologists in Michigan. Methods: In 2019, MOQC began measuring guideline-concordant HEC prophylaxis with a 4-drug regimen of olanzapine added to corticosteroids, a 5HT3RA, and an NK1RA as part of its measure set. A quality improvement intervention was initiated that consisted of 1) dissemination of baseline measure performance and regular reporting of practice and state-level performance to MOQC practices, 2) information support through sharing of guidelines at biannual meetings (2019, 2022) and state-wide CINV education to improve prescriber knowledge and beliefs and support the practices in updating prepopulated antiemetic order sets, and 3) addition of value-based reimbursement in 2021 to encourage practice change. Measure performance was assessed using ASCO’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) program. Results: The patient sample included 5,703 patients. MOQC practices increased the guideline-concordant prescribing of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen in patients receiving HEC round over round from R1 2019 to R1 2022 (p&lt;0.0001). Conclusions: MOQC has facilitated increased use of olanzapine as part of a 4-drug antiemetic regimen in patients receiving HEC through practice education, reporting, and value-based reimbursement. Ongoing work will focus on practices with low uptake and on demonstrating the impact of this important practice change on patient outcomes. [Table: see text]

Associations of Early Completion of Advance Directives With Key End-of-Life Quality Measures: Analysis of an ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Patient Cohort.

Despite the growing calls for early and ubiquitous completion of advance directives (ADs), studies exploring links between AD completion and their impact on outcomes of patients with cancer have mixed conclusions. We used the ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) registry to compare end-of-life (EOL) quality measures and the effect of QOPI certification among patients with and without early AD completion, defined as completion within the first three oncology visits after cancer diagnosis. Deidentified patient-level data were analyzed from the QOPI database from 2015 through 2017. Associations were assessed using Chi-square tests between early AD completion and patient enrollment in hospice < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or with emergency room visits or intensive care unit admissions in the last 30 days of life. Data from 31,558 patients eligible for the AD question were analyzed. Patients treated at QOPI-certified practices had higher rates of early AD completion than patients at non-certified practices. Early AD completion was not associated with differences in hospice enrollment for < 7 days before death, chemotherapy receipt in the last 14 days of life, or emergency room visits or intensive care unit encounters in the last 30 days of life. The study found that QOPI certification is associated with higher rates of early AD completion. However, early AD completion was not associated with recognized EOL quality measures. Future research should focus on the timing, frequency, and content of AD conversations to demonstrate the impact on care at the EOL.

Assessment of Spanish hospitals involved in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative program.

305 Background: Measuring and tracking quality of care is highly relevant in today’s healthcare. The Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) program is a referral for evaluating oncology practices worldwide. The ECO Foundation (Excellence and Quality in Oncology), a collaboration of oncology experts from the major Spanish hospitals involved in cancer treatment, reached an agreement with ASCO (American Society of Clinical Oncology) to include Spanish hospitals in its QOPI program. Methods: We analyzed the scores of the QOPI rounds from 14 Spanish hospitals, which submitted their charts from 2016 to 2021, and the measures obtained from 2018 to 2021, regarding the core/symptom, breast, colorectal (CRC) and NSCLC modules, in comparison with the QOPI aggregate measures. Results: Since 2016, 14 Spanish hospitals have participated in the QOPI program, achieving the certification 12 of them, and 3 are in process. Along the years, they have obtained a score over 85%, being 87,41% the worse in 2021, and 92,80% the best in 2020. We also analyzed the outstanding measures from 2018 onwards. The highest scores in Spanish hospitals were for information of infertility risks and chemotherapy intent prior to prescription, and documented plan for oral chemotherapy. However, measures regarding pain addressed, appropriate antiemetic therapy for high- and moderate-emetic-risk antineoplastic agents and action taken to address problems with emotional well-being by the second office visit, were among the lowest scored measures. When we focused in breast and NSCLC modules, Spanish hospitals didn´t show negative values, highlighting in the administration of Tamoxifen or AI within 1 year of diagnosis by patients with AJCC Stage IA (T1c) and IB - III ER or PR positive and in the status documentation for patients with initial AJCC Stage IV or distant metastatic NSCLC. In CRC module, Spanish hospitals showed lower scores in colonoscopy before or within 6 months of curative colorectal resection or completion of primary adjuvant chemotherapy. Conclusions: This study evaluates QOPI scores in Spain, showing that repeated participation enhances quality of care, although there is room for improvement. ECO Foundation will continue supporting Spanish practices to increase their participation aiming of improve oncology care in Spain.

Standardization of data collection in the initial medical history: Implementation of an improvement plan in an oncology department.

306 Background: Non-standardized data collection in medical records has a negative impact on the quality of care: it increases the possibility of medical errors, hinders the performance of clinical studies, precludes the development of improvement plans and impedes accreditation in quality-of-care programs. The ASCO QOPI (Quality Oncology Practice Initiative) certification program accredits the quality of care of oncology departments through a self-assessment process. An overall quality score (OQS) above 75% on 26 measures that focus on quality of care and patient safety is required for application. In order to begin the certification process, we analysed the quality of the data collected in our initial medical history to implement improvement actions. Methods: Based on the 26 QOPI measures, plus 17 additional measures that were chosen by consensus as relevant, we performed a retrospective baseline analysis of the data collected in the initial medical history of patients assessed in June 2021. Patients with breast cancer, colorectal cancer and non-small cell lung carcinomas who initiated systemic treatment were included. Those who participated in clinical trials were excluded. The OQS of the 26 patients analyzed was 59%. Given this negative result, and once the problem was identified, the objective was established (OQS &gt; 75%), changes were prioritized and an improvement plan was developed based on rounds of training, feedback and reinforcement to the entire medical team, and through the design of a template with the essential data to be collected. Results: With the baseline result of June 2021 (n = 26; OQS = 59%), improvement rounds were performed in November 2021 (n = 29; OQS = 82%), December 2021 (n = 26; OQS = 74%), January 2002 (n = 35; OQS = 75%), February 2022 (n = 32; OQS = 78%) and March 2022 (n = 31; OQS = 79%). Conclusions: Correct data collection in medical records is essential for quality of care. Simple short-term measures based on training, feedback and reinforcement, and the creation of a data template, have increased OQS from 59% to exceed the 75% threshold required by QOPI to apply for the certification program. However, a long-term sustainable plan needs to be established through the introduction of computerized checklists in the free-text electronic medical history.

Oral Chemotherapy Metric Performance in Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Practices: Updated Trends and Analysis.

Oral chemotherapy performance measures were first introduced into ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) in 2013. This study examined performance on these measures among QOPI-participating practices and evaluated whether it differed among practices based on meeting QOPI Certification Program standards. A total of 192 QOPI-participating practices (certified, n=50 [26%]; not certified, n=142 [74%]) reported performance on oral chemotherapy measures in 2017 and 2018. Inclusion was limited to practices reporting on ≥3 charts for ≥1 oral chemotherapy measure. Performance was defined as the percentage of charts examined that adhered to the measure. Descriptive analyses were used to characterize performance within and across practices, and mixed-effects logistic regression models were conducted to compare performance based on certification status. Median performance across practices for the 9 oral chemotherapy measures examined ranged from 44% (education before the start of treatment addressing missed doses, toxicities, and clinical contact instructions [composite measure]) to 100% (documented dose, documented plan, and education about toxicities). Certified practices were more likely to provide education about clinic contact instructions than noncertified practices (odds ratio, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.00-24.0). Performance on all other measures was not significantly associated with certification status. There is wide variability in quality related to performance on oral chemotherapy measures across all QOPI-participating practices, and several areas were identified in which administration of oral chemotherapy could be improved. Our findings highlight the need for the development and implementation of appropriate standards that apply to oral chemotherapy and address the complexities that set it apart from parenteral treatment.

Clinical and nonclinical factors associated with a complete family history in a statewide quality improvement consortium.

149 Background: A complete family history is critical in identifying cancer patients who should be referred to genetic counseling and testing. Despite the importance of a detailed family history, defined as any cancer diagnoses in first- or second-degree relatives and their age at diagnosis, only about one third of cancer patients have a complete family history documented in their medical record. The Michigan Oncology Quality Consortium (MOQC), a physician-led consortium of oncology practices across the state of Michigan, selected documentation of a complete family history in oncology patients as a quality measure. The purpose of this study was to identify clinical and non-clinical factors associated with the quality of the family history. Methods: Beginning in 2020, MOQC began collecting completeness of documentation of cancer family history from the medical oncology records of patients with invasive cancer from MOQC practices twice per year in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) database. QOPI data from 2020 and 2021 were combined for analyses. A multivariate model was built to determine the clinical and non-clinical factors, including age, sex, race, ethnicity, and cancer diagnosis, associated with documentation of a complete family history. Results: Between January 2020 and December 2021, 10,800 patients’ records were abstracted. Of these, 30% had a complete family history documented in their medical record. Factors independently and significantly associated with not having a complete family history included increasing age and Black race. Patients with breast cancer (AOR 1.94, 95% CI 1.72, 2.19) and colorectal cancer (AOR 1.2, 95% CI 1.05, 1.37) were more likely to have a complete family history than all others. Patients with prostate, pancreas, or endometrial cancer—all of which are associated with cancer syndromes—were no more likely than other patients to have a complete family history. Sex and ethnicity were not significantly associated with documentation of a complete family history. Conclusions: Patients may qualify for genetic testing based on family history alone. It is therefore crucial that clinicians know a patient’s complete family history to identify those patients eligible for genetic risk assessment. We have identified gaps in the quality of the family history with increasing age, in Black patients, and, except for breast and colorectal cancer, in patients with cancers associated with an inherited susceptibility. Our findings highlight an opportunity to improve care.[Table: see text]

Fostering Oral Chemotherapy Understanding and Safety (FOCUS) Project: Interventions for improving knowledge and compliance with national safety standards.

370 Background: Oral chemotherapy drugs are not always subject to the same safety standards as intravenous chemotherapy. Variability in safety practices can cause gaps in care, creating a need for continuous review of this process. This quality improvement (QI) project sought to improve provider and staff general knowledge on oral chemotherapy and on national safety standards through an educational intervention and to evaluate the implementation of an electronic medical record (EMR) integrated chemotherapy documentation template geared towards improving compliance with national safety standards pertinent to oral treatment. Methods: We used a pre/post-test design to compare knowledge following an educational session. A 15-question test covering national guidelines and safety standards relevant to oral chemotherapy were used to evaluate base knowledge before and after the session. We compared pre and post-test scores using paired t-tests. Then, a chemotherapy documentation template was developed in the EMR. The medical records of 44 patients at the center were reviewed four months before and 44 patients one month after the template’s introduction and documentation compliance was assessed using 24 national chemotherapy administration safety standards from the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) Quality Oncology Practice Initiative and the 2016 ASCO/Oncology Nursing Society Chemotherapy Administration Safety Standards. Comparison of compliance rates were performed using independent t-tests. Results: A total of 65 providers and staff participated in the educational session and completed both the pre and post-test. There was a statistical significance in knowledge gained from pre-test to post-test (p value of &lt; 0.001). Additionally, from the 88 charts reviewed, there was a statistical improvement in compliance with national safety standards (p value of &lt; 0.001). The participants (n = 29) also scored the documentation template as above average indicating overall ease of use and feasibility for continued use. Conclusions: This QI initiative improved provider knowledge and compliance with oral chemotherapy national safety standards. As a result, more centers should focus efforts on awareness and utilization of established national safety guidelines; critical to addressing the disparities in practice. Additionally, having a standardized workflow that prompts documentation within the EMR and discussion of the national standards is key to quality and safe practice.

Measures to evaluate quality of care in head and neck cancer: Results of a Delphi study.

358 Background: Currently, no specific measures are used in Spain to evaluate quality of care in head and neck cancer, and programs such as the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative developed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology does not include head-and-neck-specific measures. Methods: A systematic literature review was carried out to identify measures useful for evaluating quality of care in head and neck cancer. A scientific committee, comprising 9 medical oncologists specialized in head and neck cancer, reviewed the literature findings and developed measures to be evaluated in a 2-step Delphi method. Experts in head and neck cancer practicing in Spain—specialized in medical oncology, radiotherapy oncology, maxillofacial surgery, pathology or otorhinolaryngology—participated in the Delphi, scoring the appropriateness of the measures using a 9-point Likert scale (1, extremely inappropriate; 9, extremely appropriate). Consensus was defined as at least two-thirds of Delphi respondents selecting a score sub-category (1–3, 4–6, or 7–9) that encompassed the median score of the group. Results: Out of the 833 documents found with the literature review, 20 were selected from to identify measures of interest. Fifty measures, covering diagnosis (13), treatment (28), follow-up (5), and outcome (4), were evaluated with the Delphi method. The 52 Delphi participants reached consensus on the appropriateness of using all 50 measures to evaluate the quality of care in head and neck cancer. Measures with lowest scores concerned re-hospitalization shortly after surgery and long hospitalization after surgery. Measures with highest scores regarded the use of imaging for follow-up, a histology study prior to treatment, and complete resection of the tumor. The scientific committee then selected 29 measures based on their applicability and cost-effectiveness and developed index cards with definitions, formulas, acceptable level of attainment, and rationale for their use in clinical practice. Conclusions: The goal of this study was to develop measures to evaluate and improve the quality of care in head and neck cancer. These results show unanimous consensus from a group of experts on the proposed measures for diagnosis, treatment, follow-up, and outcome. The index cards developed with measures are easy to follow and their use could improve quality of care.

QOPI Clinical Informatics: A digital platform to enable real-time quality reporting, clinical decision support, and rapid learning.

e13545 Background: The ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) was established in 2006 to facilitate quality measurement and continuous improvement of cancer care.1 ASCO and QOPI leadership encourage a continuous learning environment to develop new tools and methodologies that improve quality and maximize outcomes and value in oncology practice.2 Parallel advances in tumor molecular profiling, bioinformatics, and EMR data curation are adding new insights to support the real-world research of longitudinal patient journeys. Methods: Referencing the QOPI Certification Track 2021 Measures Summary, we employed data visualization techniques to create a precision oncology dashboard for breast cancer. This evaluation included 409 breast cancer patients for whom genomic testing was performed and presented at the Avera molecular tumor board. Patients were then matched to appropriate biomarker-based targeted therapies. Results: The dashboard identified and prioritized areas for enhanced data capture to inform strategies for care-coordination, research, and delivery of specialized care. Conclusions: An interactive, visual platform may help facilitate the integration of QOPI reporting into CancerLinQ, thereby fostering a real-time, bidirectional system for quality reporting, clinical decision support, and rapid learning.3,4 The next stage will (1) expand the tumor list; and (2) apply NLP methods to assess accuracy, outcomes and temporal reasoning to create interactive graphs for patient referral patterns and surgery decision drivers.

Palliative specialty care availability for adults in community oncology practices.

e24110 Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology recommends integration of palliative care in patients with advanced cancer. Studies have shown the availability of palliative care services, especially in outpatient settings, varies widely across practice sites; factors associated with outpatient palliative care clinic availability remain unknown. Our study describes the presence and characteristics of palliative care resources in community oncology practices. Methods: Analyses used data from the 2015 Cancer Care Delivery Research (CCDR) Landscape Assessment of National Cancer Institute Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practices (funding support provided by 2UG1CA189824). Oncology practices were surveyed regarding availability of specialty providers and supportive services, including palliative care, as reported by designated CCDR leads. Descriptive statistics describe availability of providers and services, and logistic regression models identify practice characteristics associated with supportive/palliative care specialist availability. Results: 216 non-pediatric exclusive NCORP practice groups were included in analyses. Characteristics are shown in Table. A majority of practices had palliative care specialists (76%), oncology certified nurses (95%), and advance practice providers (80%); 45% had nurse navigators for oncology. 76% of practices had inpatient palliative care consultation services, but only 36% had a dedicated outpatient palliative care clinic. Multivariable analyses demonstrated practices with Medicaid and/or uninsured patient volumes &gt; 25% (Odds Ratio (OR) = 2.5, p = 0.020), more oncology providers (OR = 1.02, p = 0.025), survivorship clinic availability (OR = 2.5, p = 0.005), and who participated in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) (OR = 2.0, p = 0.039) were significantly more likely to have an outpatient palliative care clinic. Conclusions: Most community oncology practices reported having palliative care specialists, although only a third had a dedicated outpatient palliative care clinic. Newly discovered factors associated with increased odds of having an outpatient palliative care clinic can inform future efforts to expand the availability of outpatient palliative care clinics within community oncology practices.[Table: see text]

Hematology/Oncology Fellowship Programs' Participation in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative.

In the first decade of this millennium, ASCO pioneered a quality measurement tool, the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI). Despite an Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requirement since 2012 for oncology fellows to participate in quality improvement (QI) projects, the uptake of QOPI remains modest. This study examined reasons for low QOPI participation by surveying participating and nonparticipating HemOnc Fellowship Programs. The survey elicited views toward QI and QOPI as well as ideas about making the program more helpful. Among 69 fellowship programs, only 39% (n = 27) participated in QOPI. Other findings were that (1) the majority of programs considered their fellows' QI projects beneficial but were not fulfilling the ACGME standard for all fellows' QI participation; (2) nonparticipating programs were unfamiliar with but interested in QOPI; (3) participating programs tended to view QI as easier to conduct and more beneficial than nonparticipating programs; and (4) programs that withdrew from QOPI and participating programs alike were dissatisfied with the educational benefit and data abstraction burden for fellows. Academic oncology programs generally valued QI but many have not fully engaged in it. Fellows in programs participating in QOPI may have had less difficulty conducting QI and their projects may have been more beneficial than that of nonparticipating programs. However, perceived lack of educational benefits for fellows and the burden of manual data abstraction from the electronic medical record are impediments to satisfaction with the program. Higher faculty involvement and longitudinal reports for each fellow may significantly increase participation.

Relationship Between Participation in ASCO's Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Program and American Board of Internal Medicine's Maintenance of Certification Program.

Medical oncologists have a variety of options for demonstrating proficiency in providing high-quality patient care. Perhaps, the best-known opportunity for demonstrating individual expertise and lifelong learning is the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) maintenance of certification (MOC) program. At the practice level, ASCO has offered the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) as a means of optimizing cancer care delivery. In this study, we assess the association between active involvement in MOC on an individual basis and whether that individual's practice is involved with the QOPI program. We evaluated 13,600 US medical oncologists initially certified by the ABIM and divided them into those initially certified before 1990 (the year in which ABIM started to require periodic recertification), those from 1990 to 2007, and those from 2008 to 2016. It was then determined which of these had let their certificates expire by 2020. These data were then compared with practices that participated in QOPI from 2017 to 2019, resulting in the matching of 97% of physicians. Of individuals initially certified before 1990 (and technically with lifelong certification), 22% were in QOPI practices. Among those who did not have lifelong certification, there was an association between QOPI participation and maintenance of ABIM certification. For those initially certified between 1990 and 2007, 35% of oncologists with up-to-date ABIM certification were in QOPI practices, whereas only 11% with expired ABIM certification were QOPI participants (P < .0001). For those in the 2008-2016 category, the numbers were 36% v 16%, respectively (P < .0001). Our analysis identifies a relationship between participation in these ABIM and ASCO proficiency programs. The reasons for this are likely complex and based on a variety of institutional, professional, monetary, and personal factors.