Structuring a Hospital Tumor Board – OMMC Experience
Janix M. De
Guzman, M.D.
Reynaldo O. Joson, MD, MHA, MHPEd, MS Surg
Department of
Surgery
Ospital ng
Maynila Medical Center
Reprint requests: Janix M. De Guzman,
MD, Department of Surgery, Ospital ng Maynila Medical Center, Quirino Avenue,
Malate, Manila, Philippines.
Email: ommcsurgery@ yahoo.com
Abstract:
Introduction: A structured Hospital Tumor Board is
needed to be effective, efficient, and sustainable.
Objective: To describe
how a structured Hospital Tumor Board (HTB) was established and
institutionalized in the Ospital ng Maynila Medical Center (OMMC), a tertiary
city government hospital.
Methods: An
action research methodology was utilized.
Results: A situational analysis of OMMC HTB done
in August, 2002 showed absence of clear operational system. Reorganization started
with a primer which spelled out the objectives, evaluation parameters, and
definite strategies to achieve objectives. Using the primer as a guide together
with a definite action plan and an active participation from the different
clinical departments, the OMMC HTB was able to accomplish all its objectives
effectively and efficiently after one year of re-engineering. Some milestones consisted of a simplified
cancer registry; unified concept statements on cancer causes, prevention, cure,
and palliation; clinical practice guidelines on cancer palliation and cancer
pain control program for the entire hospital; and cancer researches.
Conclusion: A structured program as reflected in an
organizational primer is an essential requirement for an effective, efficient,
and sustainable Hospital Tumor Board.
Introduction
In the United
States, tumor boards have been an integral part of oncology management since
the early 1940’s. Scholnik, et al., defines tumor boards as “multidisciplinary
conferences convened for the discussion of cancer patients.” (1) A Hospital
Tumor Board (HTB) includes access to multidisciplinary consultation; wherein a
group of physicians meet on a regular basis, to improve the quality of cancer
care, provide educational opportunities for participants, and become
an asset to the hospital and to the community. (2) Tumor boards now
provide a forum for the discussion of treatment strategies, through continual
updates of standard approaches from the point of view of all modalities.
Medical experts regard tumor boards as an essential component of quality
control in both community hospitals and medical centers.
In the
Philippines, however, Hospital Tumor Board is quite new. It was formulated as
one of the components of the Administrative Order No. 89 - A S. 1990, the
Department of Health - Philippine Cancer Control Program (DOH-PCCP) issued on
April 10, 1990 by then Secretary of Health Alfredo R. Bengzon. Hospital Tumor
Board together with Hospital Cancer Registries, are viewed as the major implementing
and monitoring structures of the PCCP with regards to hospital services. It is
required by the Department of Health for licensure of all DOH regional hospital
and medical center; the Philippine College of Surgeons for accreditation of
training program in general surgery; and the Philippine Obstetrics and
Gynecologic Society for accreditation of training program in OB-GYN.(3)
With the implementation of
Administrative Order No. 89 – A S. 1990, every training hospital is supposed to
have a tumor board. Unfortunately, there are only a few hospitals with active
tumor board, active in the sense that it has meetings and conducts
cancer-related activities; others are either non-existent or existent in name
only. This may due to problems in establishing and sustaining a hospital tumor
board. This arises primarily because most of hospital tumor boards are not
structured. Other common problems
include the following: hospital administrators, appointed chairs, and oncologists
do not have a clear idea on the goal and objectives of a Hospital Tumor Board;
appointed chairs do not have sufficient leadership and managerial skills;
turfing and insecurity among oncologists; and inadequate logistic support.
In July 2002, the OMMC Hospital Tumor Board
(OMMC-HTB) was reorganized under a new leadership.
The objective of this paper is to describe how the
OMMC-HTB was re-organized to make it structured, effective, efficient, and
sustainable.
Methods
An action
research methodology was utilized consisting of the following steps:
situational analysis, identification of problems, formulation of solutions
followed by implementation and evaluation of results.
The
records of OMMC-HTB were retrieved, reviewed, and analyzed focusing on the
processes of establishing and evaluating a Hospital Tumor Board.
In July 2002,
under a new leadership, a situational analysis of the OMMC-HTB was made. The
findings showed that prior to Aug 2002, OMMC had no structured hospital tumor
board. However, cancer case presentations in the Department of Surgery were
being conducted and moderated by a radiation oncologist. These conferences were not attended by other
departments. There were no specified goals and objectives for the HTB; no
proper recording of performance outputs; hence, no means of monitoring and
evaluating these outputs.
The situational analysis was
immediately followed by a formulation of an organizational primer for the
OMMC-HTB. The organizational primer contains information on the following:
purpose, goal, objectives, composition, schedule of meetings, expected
activities and accomplishments, and performance parameters and standards (See
Appendix 1).
After the organizational primer was
approved by all involved clinical departments, a specific management action
plan was formulated, implemented, and monitored every 2 months, mid-year and at
year end. (See Appendix 2).
Table 1 shows the performance
parameters and standards. Table 2 shows
the 2002 year-end and Table 3, the 2003 mid-year reports of accomplishment
based on the management action plan.
All the specified performance objectives were accomplished.
Table
4 shows the specific accomplishments of the OMMC-HTB as reflected in each
meeting.
At least 5 clinical departments with
heavy load of cancer patients and cases had been actively involved in the
bi-montly activiites of the OMMC-HTB.
These departments included pathology, surgery, internal medicine,
obstetrics and gynecology, otorhinolaryngology.
Table
5 shows a list of unified concept statements on certain issues in cancer. These were intended to serve as the
philosophy and foundation in the decision-making in the cancer patient
management in the hospital.
A simplified cancer registry was
formulated to facilitate reporting of cancer load in each department and in the
entire hospital (see Appendices 1 and 2).
Before August,
2002, OMMC-HTB was probably like most hospital tumor boards in the country, not
active; if in existent, not structured, no clear goal and objectives, no
specific action plan, poor leadership and managerial skills on the part of the
chairperson, with problems of turfing and disharmony among the oncologists
resulting in poor multi-departmental cooperation and collaboration, and
inadequate logistic support, just to cite of few of the problems.
The Department
of Health, the Philippine College of Surgeons, and the Philippine Obstetrics
and Gynecologic Society have made HTB as a requirement for accreditation. However, these organizations have not
formulated any primer to guide the hospitals in establishing and running a
HTB.
The newly
reorganized OMMC-HTB formulated its own organizational primer which contained
clear and specific statements on purpose, goal, objectives, composition,
schedule of meetings, expected activities and accomplishments, and performance
parameters and standards. Briefly, the OMMC-HTB is envisioned to be a
policy-making body on management of cancer patients and the hospital cancer
program. The goal of OMMC-HTB is to promote quality service to patients with
cancers with the following objectives: to formulate integrated, coordinated,
and comprehensive hospital-wide policies on the management of patients with
cancer in the hospital; to monitor and continually improve the quality of care
to patients with cancers; to conduct educational and training programs for
concerned staff so as to facilitate implementation of hospital policies on
management of cancer patients; and to promote research on oncology that will
continually improve the quality of care for cancer patients.
After one year
of operation, the OMMC-HTB can be said to be successful in that it has
accomplished all the performance objectives that it set out to do at the start
of the reorganization and at the start of the year. What contributed to the success were the following: systematic
planning for the reorganization; an organizational primer that clearly spelled
out the management system which made the HTB very structured; a specific
management action plan cascaded from the goal and objectives and performance
parameters and standards and being monitored every two months, which made the
HTB, effective and efficient; multi-departmental cooperation and collaboration
promoted by a chairperson with leadership and managerial skills, which made the
HTB effective and efficient; unified concepts of basic and key issues in cancer
management, which made the HTB effective, efficient, and sustainable; and implementation of doable, simple
and relevant activities and targets,
which made the HTB sustainable.
The OMMC-HTB
can become a model hospital tumor board in the country because it has clear,
definite, and specific direction, task prescription, and performance evaluation
as provided in its organizational primer and it is performing satisfactorily in
just a year and in 7 meetings. It is a hospital tumor board that all hospital
tumor boards in the country can emulate and ask assistance from, in terms of
the organizational primer (the only one in the country), a practical cancer
registry that is easy to accomplish and useful, and innovative approaches such
as unifying the concepts of different oncologists which often times contribute
to slowing if not breakdown of tumor boards.
The OMMC-HTB will keep on improving and innovating within the framework
of its organizational primer.
References:
Table 2.
Performance parameters and standards.
Objectives |
Parameters |
Standards
and Targets |
To formulate integrated, coordinated,
and comprehensive hospital-wide policies on the management of patients with
cancer in the hospital. |
Presence of written policies |
Integrated, coordinated, and
comprehensive hospital-wide Continually updated |
To monitor and continually improve
the quality of care to patients with cancers. |
Morbidity and mortality rates Complaints of patients |
For nonhospice cancer patients: Acceptable rates (<5%) Acceptable no. of complaints (<5 /
year) |
To conduct educational and training
programs for concerned staff so as to facilitate implementation of hospital
policies on management of cancer patients. |
Educational and training programs |
Structured Geared towards goal and objectives |
To promote research on oncology that
will continually improve the quality of care for cancer patients. |
Research output |
Number (4 a year) Useful enough to be integrated into
policies and procedures |
Table 4. Accomplishments of Hospital Tumor
Board as reflected in each meeting.
Meeting |
Accomplishments |
August 23, 2002 |
Organizational Primer |
October 17, 2002 |
Cancer Registry, Jan to June 2002 |
December 19, 2002 |
Unified concept on certain cancer
issues - |
February 24, 2003 |
Annual Cancer registry, 2002 Unified concept on Cancer Palliative
Treatment |
April 10, 2003 |
Unified concept on OMMC’s cancer pain
control program |
June 19, 2003 |
Update on Cancer research – 4 ongoing
|
August 19, 2003 |
Mid-Year Cancer Registry, 2003 |
Appendix C
Cancer Registry
Database from Clinical Departments
other than Pathology
Department of ______________________
NAME |
AGE |
SEX |
ORGAN |
CANCER
TYPE |
CLINICAL
STAGE |
MORTALITY |
MORBIDITY |
|||||
(Initials) |
(yrs) |
M/F |
|
|
STAGE |
T |
N |
M |
YES |
NO |
YES |
NO |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
of Information:
Department of ___________________________
Total number of cases
Age range; mean age
Sex ratio
Type of cancer by organ (frequency distribution)
Clinical Stage (frequency distribution)
Overall mortality rate
Overall morbidity rate
Appendix D
Cancer Registry
Database from Department of Pathology
NAME |
AGE |
SEX |
ORGAN |
CANCER
TYPE |
PATHOLOGICAL
STAGE |
|||
(Initials) |
(yrs) |
M/F |
|
|
STAGE |
T |
N |
M |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary
of Information:
Department of ___________________________
Total number of cases
Age range; mean age
Sex ratio
Type of cancer by organ (frequency distribution)
Pathological Stage (frequency distribution)