Research and Scholarship

A Financial Toxicity Screening and Care Coordination Quality Improvement Program in a Gynecology Oncology Urban Practice

Tina Harris,(1) DNP, NP-C, AOCNP®, Julie Brinzo,(1) DNP, APRN, MBA, FNP-C, and Christopher Pell,(2) PhD

From (1)University of North Georgia, Dahlonega, Georgia; (2)Southwestern College, Chula Vista, California

Correspondence to: Tina Harris, DNP, NP-C, AOCNP®, 82 College Circle, Dahlonega, GA 30597 E-mail: tqharris@catt.com


J Adv Pract Oncol 2024;15(1):16–27 | https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.1.2 | © 2024 BroadcastMed LLC


  

ABSTRACT

Background: Educating a multidisciplinary team on financial toxicity (FT) risk, screening, and care coordination is an approach to addressing gaps in care among newly diagnosed patients with stage III or IV cancer. Objective: The goal of this quality improvement project (QIP) was to supply an education program for the multidisciplinary team providing insights for the following objectives: (1) Increase the rate of FT screening where there was no baseline screening, (2) Increase referrals for resource care coordination among patients experiencing FT, and (3) Evaluate the relationship between FT and selected demographic identifiers during the 8-week project. Methods: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) model was adopted for learning and leading the change during the QIP, focusing on the COmprehensive Score for financial Toxicity (COST) and resource care coordination for newly diagnosed participants with stage III or IV gynecologic cancer. Results: Of the 42 (80.75%) participants consenting to the QIP, 61.90% had COST scores below 23, with 100% (26) of the participants receiving referrals for resource care coordination. On average, 6.50 patients enter the practice for care, with 50% (3.25) reporting FT. At this rate, 162.50 patients were experiencing FT in a 50-week year and were not receiving resource care coordination. However, because some patients did not consent to the QIP, the average FT (Yes) count could potentially be between 199.50 to 225.00 patients in a 50-week year, leading to a potential 62.50 with FT (or 28% of 225.00) not receiving referrals. Age was the main driver for FT COST Score in this QIP. Many variables were unobserved in this QIP and could impact the FT COST Score. However, separate modeling reveals that age alone explains approximately 15% of FT COST scores’ observed changes. Controlling for more variables may refine the model, but it seems unlikely by the data analysis that age would disappear as a driver of change in the FT COST score. Conclusion: Developing a multidisciplinary education program focusing on a structured QIP-PDSA plan can be an example of standardizing an FT screening and care coordination program. The QIP team successfully incorporated a PDSA model roadmap screening program to identify the participants experiencing FT and promptly referred 100% for resource care coordination.




For access to the full length article, please sign in.

Section Seperator
ADVERTISEMENT
Section Seperator
ADVERTISEMENT
Section Seperator
ADVERTISEMENT
Section Seperator
Copyright © 2010-2023 Harborside Press, LLC All rights reserved.               
Home | Current Issue | Previous Issue | Submissions | About JADPRO | Advertising | Privacy Policy | Contact | Copyright Notice/Disclaimer | Subscribe
Bot trap - Don't go here
By continuing to browse this site you permit us and our partners to place identification cookies on your browser and agree to our use of cookies to identify you for marketing. Read our Privacy Policy to learn more.