An evidence-based quality assessment tool for ovarian cancer care delivery.

384 Background: Ovarian cancer is the fifth leading cause of cancer death among women in the United States (US). Optimizing care for patients with ovarian cancer using a systematic, guideline-concordant approach improves outcomes. However, notable gaps persist for most patients with ovarian cancer in the US. Beginning in 2018, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) implemented a quality improvement (QI) initiative in community and academic cancer centers to address care gaps. From this work, our expert steering committee published a quality document to inform evidence based ovarian cancer care delivery. Methods: In Phase II of this project we used the quality document to inform a qualitative baseline self-assessment and development of four six-month QI initiatives at cancer centers in the US. Based on this work, we developed a quality assessment tool to aid cancer centers in performing QI needs-assessments using the ovarian cancer quality document. The assessment tool applies evidence-based care recommendations in key areas identified by our multidisciplinary steering committee comprised of experts in ovarian cancer care. Results: The assessment tool includes a series of program-level questions and addresses seven key domains: 1. Care coordination and patient education, 2. Prevention and screening, 3. Diagnosis and initial management, 4. Treatment planning, 5. Disease surveillance, 6. Equity in care, and 7. Quality of life. Each domain has between two and seven key recommendations identified. Sites rate themselves on a four-point scale (1-unsatisfactory, 2-needs improvement, 3-acceptable, 4-good) for each key recommendation. Each key recommendation is given equal weight, and a combined score from 0-100 is calculated for each of the seven domains. The tool includes a macro-enabled spreadsheet that makes necessary calculations and provides an overall score, domain-specific sub-scores, and a list of key recommendations that received low ratings. The tool is to be used by clinical sites to self-assess the quality of ovarian cancer care currently provided at their cancer program and serves as a needs assessment. It is recommended that the site team performs the self-assessment in the context of a facilitated half-day multidisciplinary team meeting. After the self-assessment, sites are encouraged to develop QI initiatives to address the gaps identified using the format and structure we have previously described. Conclusions: The QI Assessment tool provides an important resource for cancer centers to conduct needs assessments in key areas of ovarian cancer care. The needs assessment can be used to inform the implementation of program-specific QI initiatives to elevate quality care delivery.