Currently Viewing:
Evidence-Based Oncology February 2020
Currently Reading
Lessons From the Front: Designing and Implementing Clinical Pathways by and for Clinicians
David M. Jackman, MD; Joanna Hamilton, MA, MS; Emily Foster, MPH; Craig A. Bunnell, MD, MPH, MBA; Louis Culot, MA; Carole Tremonti, RN, MBA; Joseph O. Jacobson, MD, MSc
Clinical Pathways: A Critical Component of Success in Episodes of Care
Lili Brillstein, MPH, and Brian Currie
From the Editor-in-Chief: The End of the Beginning
Joseph Alvarnas, MD
Speaking of Employers: Purchasers Detail the Challenges of Getting a Handle on Oncology Care Costs
Mary Caffrey
Biomarker Testing Can Direct Care, but Only If Clinicians Perform the Right Tests
Interview by Allison Inserro
Impact of Next-Generation Sequencing Tests on Clinical Pathways for Cancer Care
Lance Baldo, MD
Overall US Cancer Mortality Rate Reaches 26-Year Decline, but Obesity-Related Cancer Deaths Rise
Matthew Gavidia
Faster Drug Approvals, Weaker Data? Study Raises Questions About FDA Process
Deana Ferreri, PhD

Lessons From the Front: Designing and Implementing Clinical Pathways by and for Clinicians

David M. Jackman, MD; Joanna Hamilton, MA, MS; Emily Foster, MPH; Craig A. Bunnell, MD, MPH, MBA; Louis Culot, MA; Carole Tremonti, RN, MBA; Joseph O. Jacobson, MD, MSc
As cancer care becomes more complex and more expensive, decision-support algorithms offer a mechanism to define best practice, reduce unwarranted variation, and control costs across growing networks.
Over the past decade, the use of clinical cancer pathways has increased. In its 2017 State of Cancer Care in America report, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) noted a 42% increase from 2014 to 2016 in practices using a clinical pathways program.1 This growing trend reflects a need for structured decision support among clinicians, clinical practices, and payer systems. As cancer care becomes more complex and more expensive, these decision-support algorithms offer a mechanism to defi ne best practice, reduce unwarranted variation, and control costs across growing networks.2-4

At the heart of the pathways movement lies a desire to improve treatment—its outcomes, its tolerability, its efficiency, and its value. Achieving these goals requires commitment not just to an electronic platform but also to a broader pathways program. At the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute (DFCI), we believe that this requires a tripartite dedication to expert content development; integration into physician and practice workflow; and the capture, analysis, and practical use of data (Figure 1). These are, in fact, the same 3 areas identified as key for high-quality pathways programs by the ASCO Pathways Committee.5 Ultimately, the successful creation and implementation of a pathways program within any institution or network depends on understanding the interdependence of these 3 areas and using each to improve the others.

Over the course of our own nearly decade-long experience with pathways, we have learned a lot from our stumbles and successes. We come to the pathways table bearing many perspectives—as creators of dynamic and expert content, as codevelopers of a wholly new pathways platform with Philips, as managers of care delivery across an academic institution and a larger network, and as clinical oncologists seeking to deliver the best care to the patient seated before us. The following are some of the key elements we deem worth sharing with others on their own journey down this road.

Development of Clinical Content

The quality of clinical content is the foundational component of any pathways platform.  Content must be expert, it must be nimble, and it must be trusted.  

Expert. Clinical pathways content requires the input of a diverse collection of providers with a wealth of clinical experience and mastery of the published evidence in a specific disease. To adequately compare clinical outcomes, toxicity, and costs, our clinical pathways committees comprise physicians and pharmacists with expertise in the clinical care and research of that disease, along with team members who provide up-to-date drug costs.  Furthermore, to achieve content that is not only expertly sourced but also expertly applied in a pathways platform, it is critical that the creators of pathways content also be users of that same content.  When physicians are contributing to a tool that they will use themselves, they have a vested interest in ensuring accurate, nuanced, and usable content.  

Nimble. Keeping up with the staggering rate of new medical information—including  FDA approvals, prominent publications and presentations, and safety alerts—is becoming increasingly difficult for an individual physician. Doing so across multiple cancer types while also managing a busy oncology practice is nearly impossible. Even at a programmatic level, keeping pathways up to date requires a commitment to infrastructure and process.

First, pathways need to be reviewed frequently enough to remain relevant. Within the DFCI pathways program, we conduct scheduled review meetings 2 to 4 times per year depending on the disease. For diseases with high rates of new approvals and changes, review meetings are scheduled 4 times per year. We intentionally time these reviews to follow major conferences including ASCO,  the American Society of Hematology (ASH), and the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) annual meetings or key disease-specific meetings such as the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium or the World Conference on Lung Cancer.  

Second, we have designated medical directors for each pathway. If there is a major clinical breakthrough or a critical safety alert outside of the planned meeting schedule, we approach the corresponding director to triage the clinical urgency. If an ad hoc meeting is required instead of waiting for the next scheduled review, we proceed appropriately.

Third, timeliness applies not only to the decision-making process but also to the subsequent validation and implementation of content in the pathways platform.  To reduce the time required to push content into production, Philips and Dana-Farber have designed the platform to be self-authoring. This allows our internal pathways project management team to model proposed changes, validate them with our physicians and pharmacists, and push them into production more quickly.  

Trust.  Trust in pathways content is derived from the expertise of the people and institutions creating the content, although that alone is not sufficient. To win the trust of physician users, a pathways program must provide a consistent and transparent decision-making process and succinct messaging about both the decisions made and the supporting rationale.

Contemporary references to transparency are often focused on conflicts of interest.  Providers using a pathways platform deserve to know who is in the room when decisions are made and if and how they might be conflicted by ties to industry and other entities.

Transparency regarding what information is included in the decision-making process is just as important but often receives less attention. Providing this level of transparent data review requires significant programmatic commitment. To achieve this, Dana-Farber’s disease-specific pathways medical directors, pharmacists, and pathways staff prepare extensively in advance of an upcoming review. These meetings start with a display of the current pathway selections, followed by a review of the trial design, outcomes, and adverse effects found in the publications and presentations supporting the proposed change. These results are then compared to those of the existing standard. Finally, before discussion and decision making, we present the drug costs of the proposed and existing regimens, calculated from the most recent  Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Average Sales Price files.6

To achieve an additional level of transparency, we create succinct meeting minutes that summarize each agenda item, the sources cited, the decisions made, and the supporting rationale. The meeting slides and minutes are shared with all relevant users, and web-based recordings of the meetings are made available.

Integration Into Clinical and Institutional Workflow:

The success of a pathways program relies on physician adoption, and physician adoption in turn hinges significantly on integration into workflow. To optimize the user experience, the Philips Healthcare development team has involved DFCI physicians from the early planning stages in every aspect of the platform: medical content, design and layout, navigation, and workflow. To create a system that is sensitive to the clinical demands of busy practitioners, these collaborating teams have identified and addressed a number of areas for focus:
  • Accessing the platform from within an Electronic Medical Record (EMR) rather than having to search for a separate application
  • Opening the pathway tool with a single sign-on (SSO) from within a specific patient’s chart.  This not only expedites access but also potentiates the transfer of data among the pathways platform, the EMR, and other medical databases and applications. 
  • Visually displaying the treatment-support algorithms as a road map to be traversed. This allows the platform to present choices in the order and manner in which a clinician would consider them, and it allows users to understand how and why each successive choice leads to the next (Figure 2).
  • Minimizing clicks wherever possiblewhile ensuring safety and maintaining data integrity. Current medical practice risks “death by a thousand clicks,”7 but we have sought to minimize these without compromising the platform’s ability to impart medical nuance, provide critical information, or capture important data. 
  • Listing on-pathway treatment recommendations and clinical trial options in a single digestible pagewith supporting information, warnings, and other medical guidance clearly displayed.  
  • Creating lists of treatment-associated adverse effects for every regimen in our library. For a multidrug treatment plan, these adverse effects represent the potential toxicities of the combination, not of each individual drug. They are curated by our pharmacists and physicians, are in patient-friendly language, and are incorporated into a consent form that is generated upon treatment selection. Automatically creating a consent form with regimen-specific adverse effects can result in significant time saved, in some cases winning back more than the time spent navigating the platform itself.
Although integrating a pathways platform into a provider’s workflow is critical, it is equally important to integrate into institutional workflow. Beyond decision support, pathways can help to streamline operations and improve care delivery. For example, the data captured in the process of pathway navigation—histology, stage, line of therapy, performance status, genomic alterations, and other molecular biomarkers—are precisely the information that can support the prior authorization process. Pathways navigations in the Philips platform automatically generate treatment summary reports that outline the treatment selections and recapitulate the data elements that drove those selections.

Copyright AJMC 2006-2020 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Welcome the the new and improved, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up