1. The Technology Exchange for Cancer Health Network (TECH-Net) AHRQ Annual Conference: Improving Healthcare, Improving Lives September 27, 2007 Teresa M. Waters, Ph.D. Department of Preventive Medicine The University of Tennessee Health Science Center

2. A collaborative, multi-state effort to implement a systematic care program to improve cancer management in rural communities in the MidSouth region: Tennessee North Mississippi East Arkansas What is TECH-Net?

3. Why is TECH-Net needed?  Rapid and significant advances in cancer care do not reach poor and rural populations  Cancer care is complex and involves multiple specialists and treatment protocols  Health care systems in rural areas are poorly designed and fragmented  The Midsouth population has significant unmet need in the area of cancer care  High cancer prevalence  Large minority population  Socio-economically disadvantaged

5. Tennessee Breast Cancer Mortality Rates

6. Mississippi Breast Cancer Mortality Rates

7. Arkansas Breast Cancer Mortality Rates

8. To determine the extent to which a multi-state HIT collaborative network can contribute to MEASUREABLE and SUSTAINABLE improvements in the cost, safety, and overall quality of cancer care for rural patients. Primary Goal of Project

9. The Process  Providing access in rural areas to oncology, hematology, and other specialists through the dedicated telehealth network of the University of Tennessee’s Health Science Center (UTHSC).  A distributed electronic health record (EHR) integrated with:  Decision support systems  Online management of cancer protocols  Electronic orders  Medication management systems

10. Specific Aim #1:  To implement a collaborative, multi- state Health Information Technology System that meets the needs of patients, families and providers in a rural cancer care setting

11. Specific Aim #2:  To improve access to appropriate care, increase the quality and safety of care and achieve better health outcomes at equal or lower cost for cancer patients in rural communities through an integrated Health Information Technology System.

12. Specific Aim #3:  To produce and distribute a generalizeable, replicable model for implementing an integrated Health Information Technology System for cancer care

13. Progress and Results: Recruitment and Retention  Six study sites have recruited patients for the study (4 rural, 2 urban)  Rural patient recruitment is complete (n=135), exceeding study enrollment goal (125)  Urban patient recruitment is moving into extension year (n=74) and we hope to meet our recruitment goal in 4 months (125)  Good study retention: only 3 patients withdrew from the study (2 rural, 1 urban), and additional 2 were non- compliant (rural), and 1 transferred to another physician (rural)  27 patients expired at some point in the study (23 rural, 4 urban)

14. Progress and Results: Completed Surveys: Initial, 6 and 12 Months

15. Aim 1: Progress and Results To implement a collaborative, multi-state Health Information Technology System that meets the needs of patients, families and providers in a rural cancer care setting  Oncology services are provided via Telehealth at five sites; services augment in-person specialty consults allowing cancer patients to have local access to specialists for  follow-up care  second-opinion consults  supportive care  genetic counseling  Separate EHR systems have been implemented for UTCI and UTMG; current efforts focusing on developing interface

16. Aim 2: Progress and Results To improve access to appropriate care, increase the quality and safety of care and achieve better health outcomes at equal or lower cost for cancer patients in rural communities through an integrated Health Information Technology System.  Study has been set up to assess quality, safety, health outcomes and cost of rural telehealth program using  Patient Diaries (cost, utilization)  Chart Abstraction (quality, safety, outcomes)

17. Aim 2: Progress and Results  Telehealth and EHR infrastructure implemented in rural and urban sites  Patients recruited at rural sites serve as ‘intervention group’  Patients recruited at urban sites serve as ‘control group’  Quality, safety, outcomes and cost compared across treatment and control groups

18. Aim 2: Preliminary Outcomes

19. Source: TECH-Net self-reported patient dairy data. 3-fold difference < 2-fold difference

20. Aim 3: Produce/Distribute Generalizeable/Replicable Model  Project involves wide range of oncologists – generalizeable to many clinical practices  Does not require specific types of telehealth equipment or EHR platform– more easily replicable  Greatest obstacles related to creating effective partnerships

21. Lessons Learned: Keep in Mind Our Ongoing Challenges! Find Effective Cooperation Keep Stepping Over Those Hurdles! Make It Something Replicable