Best Practices for Reducing Unplanned Acute Care for Patients With Cancer
Open accessAbstract
Variation and cost in oncology care represent a large and growing burden for the US health care system, and acute hospital care is one of the single largest drivers. Reduction of unplanned acute care is a major priority for clinical transformation in oncology; proposed changes to Medicare reimbursement for patients with cancer who suffer unplanned admissions while receiving chemotherapy heighten the need. We conducted a review of best practices to reduce unplanned acute care for patients with cancer. We searched PubMed for articles published between 2000 and 2017 and reviewed guidelines published by professional organizations. We identified five strategies to reduce unplanned acute care for patients with cancer: (1) identify patients at high risk for unplanned acute care; (2) enhance access and care coordination; (3) standardize clinical pathways for symptom management; (4) develop new loci for urgent cancer care; and (5) use early palliative care. We assessed each strategy on the basis of specific outcomes: reduction in emergency department visits, reduction in hospitalizations, and reduction in rehospitalizations within 30 days. For each, we define gaps in knowledge and identify areas for future effort. These five strategies can be implemented separately or, with possibly more success, as an integrated program to reduce unplanned acute care for patients with cancer. Because of the large investment required and the limited data on effectiveness, there should be further research and evaluation to identify the optimal strategies to reduce emergency department visits, hospitalizations, and rehospitalizations. Proposed reimbursement changes amplify the need for cancer programs to focus on this issue.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Few cancer-specific risk stratification models exist.
“Reducing acute healthcare utilization requires the identification of high-risk patients, and few cancer-specific risk stratification models exist [7].”
From Risk stratification and outreach to hematology/oncology patients during the COVID-19 pandemic (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 48 · Cited by 137
Part of this paper’s reference list could not be split into single entries.
- Authors
- Handley, N. R., Schuchter, L. M., & Bekelman, J. E.
- Affiliations
- University of Pennsylvania (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Oncology Practice
- Published
- 2018-05
- Volume
- 14
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 306-313
- ISSN
- 1554-7477 (ISSN-L)
- 1935-469X
- PMC
- PMC6366244
- OpenAlex
- W2802263553
- Cited by
- 137
- References
- 48
- Citations by year
- 2026: 15 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 3.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Journal of Oncology Practice (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Cancer Institute (K07CA163616)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Emergency Medicine › Emergency and Acute Care Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Financial Impacts of Cancer
- Keywords
- cancer care, hospital readmission, emergency department visits, care coordination, care pathways, symptom management, palliative care, high-risk patient identification, Medicare reimbursement, health care costs
- MeSH terms
- Ambulatory Care, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Palliative Care, Patient Care Management, Quality of Health Care, Risk Assessment, Delivery of Health Care, Integrated, Critical Pathways, Quality Improvement
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review