Generating Team-Based Strategies to Reduce Health Inequity in Cancer Care

Author:

Moreo Kathleen,Sullivan Shelby,Carter Jeffrey,Heggen Cherilyn

Abstract

Purpose/Objectives: Despite increased emphases on reducing racial disparities in the U.S. health care system, interprofessional care teams may inadvertently perpetuate health disparities through lack of awareness or experience in supporting individualized, patient-centered goals of care. Racial disparities can lead to health inequity. Persistent health disparity gaps exist among Black patients with multiple myeloma (MM) when compared with non-Black patients. Black patients experience a two-fold increase in MM risk and earlier age of onset compared with non-Black patients. Black patients are also less likely to receive timely access to some therapies, undergo autologous stem cell transplant, or enroll in clinical trials. This article describes a large-scale, equity-focused implementation science initiative aimed at identifying and overcoming racial disparities and health inequity among patients with MM through quality improvement goals identified by each of the interprofessional cancer care teams. Primary Practice Settings: Interprofessional cancer care teams in two large oncology systems as well as four community clinics were engaged in this study along with their patients with MM. Geographic areas included the following: Chicago, IL; Washington, DC; Charlotte, NC; Columbus, OH; Denver, CO; and Indianapolis, IN. Interprofessional teams included hematologists/oncologists, primary care physicians, nurse practitioners/physician assistants, and case managers/nurse navigators. Teams collectively examined and compared their own beliefs and attitudes about their patients' goals for MM treatment and management versus those of their patients to uncover and address discordances. Medical records from the clinics were audited to evaluate disparities in treatment and practice at the point of care. Live, team-based audit-feedback sessions were implemented among teams to examine data sets, as well as utilize the data to address interprofessional factors that could enhance more equitable care. Findings/Conclusions: Data from comparative surveys between patients and interprofessional team members revealed significant discordances that enabled health care teams to recognize gaps and identify ways to improve patient-centered care, such as shared decision-making. Through audit-feedback sessions, interprofessional teams were able to collaboratively meet and discuss methods to improve access to care coordination services and other strategies aimed at alleviating disparities. Baseline chart audits revealed and confirmed disparities of care including patient/disease characteristics, treatment history, clinical practice metrics, and patient-centered measures. Follow-up chart audits conducted 6 months later measured changes in documented practice behavior. Action plans developed by the interprofessional teams as a result of this study intend to address sustainable reductions in health disparities among patients with MM to improve health equity and overall care. Implications for Case Management Practice: This implementation science initiative and data results have several implications for case managers caring for diverse patients with MM in both large health systems and smaller community practices. Results punctuate the importance of identifying and supporting diverse patients' individualized goals and preferences in their care journey to mitigate health inequity and maximize health outcomes. The value of working collaboratively as an interprofessional team is evident in the study results, as is the role of the case manager in appropriate resource allocation to mitigate health disparities. Lessons learned from this initiative may also be applied to other case management settings where complex care delivery and interprofessional teams are at work.

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Assessment and Diagnosis,Care Planning,Health Policy,Leadership and Management

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3