Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA
Caitlin C. Donohue, Marina Kaymakcalan, Aymen Elfiky, Carole Kathleen Dalby, Julie M. Bryar, Joseph O. Jacobson
Background: Due to the rapidly increasing complexity of the treatment and management landscape of genitourinary oncology patients,the high volume of patient calls within our practice has raised safety concerns among providers about follow-through on issues and coordination of care. Survey data revealed that more than 20% of providers and staff (n=19) were unsatisfied with the existing message triage process and indicated that it was not the most efficient and timely way to respond to clinical messages. Patient survey data (n=94) and analysis of messages showed 80% of messages were related to direct patient care issues. The aim of this project was to analyze and streamline the message triage process with the goal of creating a standardized approach to respond to clinical messages in a timely and efficient manner. Methods: A multidisciplinary team constructed a process map, administered surveys, conducted cause-and-effect analyses, orchestrated brainstorming sessions, and used a priority/pay-off matrix to devise and implement an intervention using a standardized message template. Results: Baseline data showed that 18% of emails contained the necessary components to provide direction on who held responsibility for answering a message. Three Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were conducted: (1) Education provided to administrative staff; (2) Implementation of email template; and (3) Subsequent modification in response to PDSA 2. After 3 weeks, 85% of emails contained the necessary components. Compared to a baseline of 79%, 96% of providers and staff prefer the new process. Conclusions: The interventions implemented using three sequential PDSA cycles resulted in an improved process for triaging clinical calls in conjunction with enhancing provider satisfaction. Additional steps are planned to further standardize the email notification template.
Date | Total # emails | % Emails with all components |
---|---|---|
Baseline | ||
Day 1 | 8 | 25% |
Day 2 | 9 | 11% |
Day 3 | 11 | 18% |
Mean | 9 | 18% |
PDSA 1 | ||
Day 4 | 11 | 45% |
Mean | 11 | 46% |
PDSA 2 | ||
Day 5 | 19 | 79% |
Day 6 | 18 | 94% |
Day 7 | 19 | 100% |
Day 8 | 20 | 85% |
Day 9 | 31 | 90% |
Mean | 21 | 90% |
PDSA 3 | ||
Day 10 | 31 | 84% |
Day 11 | 22 | 100% |
Day 12 | 15 | 73% |
Day 13 | 11 | 82% |
Mean | 20 | 85% |
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2023 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: Monica Augustyniak
2020 ASCO Virtual Scientific Program
First Author: Ravi Salgia
2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: M. Kelsey Kirkwood
2022 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: John M. Kirkwood