Quality Cancer Care

  • Mandi Pratt-Chapman


The cancer care system suffers from unevenly distributed resources, variability in practice, workforce constraints, and misaligned financial incentives. A quality cancer care system is equitable, patient-centered, safe, effective, and timely. Attaining this vision of quality care depends on a collaborative commitment to equity, transparency, and information sharing for ongoing quality improvement. This chapter focuses primarily on quality cancer care in the USA with implications for global expansion and attention to the navigator role in quality cancer care.


Quality Cancer care Standards Equity 



Special thanks to Donna Vigue and Sara Rosenbaum for providing feedback on an earlier draft.


  1. 1.
    Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration. Global, regional and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: a systematic analysis for the global burden of disease study. JAMA Oncol. 2016;3(4):524–48. Scholar
  2. 2.
    Pratt-Chapman M. Approaches to cancer survivorship in unique populations: solutions and creative problem-solving. In: Cancer survivorship: transdisciplinary, patient-centered approaches to the seasons of survival. Pittsburg, PA: Oncology Nursing Society; in press.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    National Cancer Policy Board. In: Hewitt M, Simone JV, editors. Ensuring quality cancer care. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1999. p. 79.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Committee on Quality of Health Care in America, Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm: a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care, Institute of Medicine. In: Levit LA, Nass SJ, Ganz PA, editors. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sackett DL, Straus SE, Richardson WS, Rosenberg WMC, Haynes RB. Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM. 2nd ed. Edinburgh, Scotland: Churchill Livingstone; 2000.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Levine D, Greenberg R. More minorities needed in clinical trials to make research relevant to all. AAMC News. 2016.
  8. 8.
    Califf RM. 2016: The year of diversity in clinical trials. U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2016.
  9. 9.
    O’Keefe EB, Melzer JP, Bethea TN. Heath disparities and cancer: racial disparities in cancer mortality in the United States: 2000–2010. Front Public Health. 2015;3:1–15. Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guadagnolo BA, Petereit DG, Coleman CN. Cancer care access and outcomes for American Indian populations in the United States: challenges and models for progress. Semin Radiat Oncol. 2017;27:143–9. Scholar
  11. 11.
    Institute of Medicine. The health of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people: building a foundation for better understanding. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Director’s message: sexual and gender minorities formally designated as a health disparity population for research purposes. National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities. 2016.
  13. 13.
    Bluhm R. From hierarchy to network: a richer view of evidence for evidence-based medicine. Perspect Biol Med. 2005;48(4):535–47. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Clayton JA, Tannenbaum C. Reporting sex, gender, or both in clinical research. JAMA. 2016;316(18):1863–4.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ganz PA, Cheng HY, Gralow JR, Distelhorst SR, Albain KS, Anderson B, Bevilacqua JL, de Azambuja E, El Saghir NS, Kaur R, McTiernan A, Partridge AH, Rowland JH, Singh-Carlson S, Vargo MM, Thompson B, Anderson BO. Supportive care after curative treatment for breast cancer (survivorship care): resource allocations in low- and middle-income countries. A breast health global initiative 2013 consensus statement. Breast. 2013;22:606–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Freeman H, Rodriguez RL. The history and principles of patient navigation. Cancer. 2011;117(5):3539–42. Scholar
  17. 17.
    American College of Physicians. American College of Physicians endorses shared decision making approach for prostate cancer screening. 2013. making-approach-for-prostate-cancer-screening.
  18. 18.
    American Medical Association. Getting the most for our health care dollars: shared decision making. 2010.
  19. 19.
    Interprofessional Education Collaborative. Core competencies for interprofessional collaborative practice. 2011.
  20. 20.
    Sokol DK. “First do no harm” revisited. BMJ. 2013;347:f6426. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Peek ME, Lopez FY, Williams HS, Xu LJ, McNulty MC, Acree ME, Schneider JA. Development of a conceptual framework for understanding shared decision making among African-American LGBT patients and their clinicians. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(6):677–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pratt-Chapman M. TEAM study. Unpublished focus group. August 23, 2017.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lai AM, Hsueh P-YS, Choi YK, Austin RR. Present and future trends in consumer health informatics and patient-generated health data. IMA Yearb Med Inform. 2017;26(1):152–9. Scholar
  24. 24.
    Safavi K, Ratli R, Webb K, MacCracken L. Patients want a heavy dose of digital [presentation]. 2016.
  25. 25.
    Sturmberg JP, Martin CM. The complex nature of knowledge. In: Sturmberg JP, Martin C, editors. Handbook of systems and complexity in health. New York, NY: Springer; 2014. p. 39–62.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Miles A, Loughlin M. Models in the balance: evidence-based medicine versus evidence-informed individualized care. J Eval Clin Pract. 2011;17(4):531–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bao H, Yang F, Su S, Wang X, Zhang M, Xiao Y, Jiang H, Wang J, Liu M. Evaluating the effect of clinical care pathways on quality of cancer care: analysis of breast, colon and rectal cancer pathways. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2016;142:1079–89. Scholar
  28. 28.
    Van Dam PA, Verheyden G, Sugihara A, Trinh XB, Van Der Mussele H, Wyuts H, Verkinderen L, Hauspy J, Vermeulen P, Dirix L. A dynamic clinical pathway for the treatment of patients with early breast cancer is a tool for better care: implementation and prospective analysis between 2002–2010. World J Surg Oncol. 2013;11:70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Uña E, López-Lara F. Pilot study of a clinical pathway implementation in rectal cancer. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2010;4:111–5.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zon RT, Frame JN, Neuss MN, Page RD, Wollins DS, Stranne S, Bosserman LD. American Society of Clinical Oncology policy statement on clinical pathways in oncology. J Oncol Pract. 2016;12(3):261–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Cohen R. Guideline-adherent care vs quality care in cancer patients: twins or distant cousins? JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):596–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Roundtable on the Promotion of Health Equity and the Elements of health Disparities; Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice; Institute of Medicine; National Academies of Sciences: Engineering and Medicine. Achieving health equity via the affordable care act: promises, provisions, and making reform a reality for diverse patients [workshop summary]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2015.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Berwick DM, Nolan TW, Whittington J. The triple aim: care, health, and cost. Health Aff. 2008;27(3):759–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 US 519. 2012; 183 L. Ed.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18001. 2010.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    National Cancer Policy Forum. In: Balogh RE, Patlak M, Nass S, editors. Cancer care in low-resource areas: cancer treatment, palliative care and survivorship care [workshop summary]. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2017. p. 36.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    University of New Mexico School of Medicine. (n.d). Project ECHO: a revolution in medical education and care delivery.
  38. 38.
    Robinson J. Value-based physician payment in oncology: public and private insurer initiatives. Milbank Q. 2017;95(1):184–203.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Song Z, Fisher ES. The ACO experiment in infancy—looking back and looking forward. JAMA. 2016;316(7):705–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Chalkidou K, Tunis S, Lopert R, Rochaix L, Sawicki P, Nasser M, Xerri B. Comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based health policy: experience from four countries. Milbank Q. 2009;87(2):339–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Webster PC. The rise of open-source electronic health records. Lancet. 2011;377:1641–2.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Lopez A. The economic case for single payer health care in the US. Institute for Economic Thinking. 2017.
  43. 43.
    Antonisse L, Garfield R, Rudowitz R, Artiga S. The effects of Medicaid expansion under the ACA: updated findings from a literature review. Kaiser Family Foundation. 2017.
  44. 44.
    Ilbawi AM, Ayoo E, Bhadelia A, Chidebe RC, Fadelu T, Herrera C, Htun HW, Jadoon NA, James OW, May L, Maza M, Murgor M, Nency YM, Oraegbunam C, Pratt-Chapman M, Qin X, Rodin D, Tripathi N, Wainer Z, Yap M. Advancing access and equity: the vision of a new generation in cancer control. Lancet Oncol. 2017;18(2):172–5. Scholar
  45. 45.
    Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care, Institute of Medicine. In: Levit LA, Nass SJ, Ganz, PA, editors. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. p. 5.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care, Institute of Medicine. In: Levit LA, Nass SJ, Ganz, PA, editors. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. p. 4.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Committee on Improving the Quality of Cancer Care, Institute of Medicine. In: Levit LA, Nass SJ, Ganz, PA, editors. Delivering high-quality cancer care: charting a new course for a system in crisis. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. p. 7.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (n.d.) NCCN guidelines.
  49. 49.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. (n.d.). Guidelines, tools, & resources.
  50. 50.
    American Cancer Society. (n.d.) American Cancer Society prevention and early detection guidelines.
  51. 51.
    American Cancer Society. (n.d.) American Cancer Society survivorship care guidelines.
  52. 52.
    American Society of Clinical Oncology. Patient-centered oncology payment: payment reform to support higher quality, more affordable cancer care. Alexandria, VA: American Society of Clinical Oncology; 2015. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Patient-Centered Initiatives & Health EquityThe George Washington University Cancer CenterWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations