Back

Tension between timeliness and completeness of data in the initiation of cancer treatment: A qualitative study of oncology practice workflows and enduring health IT challenges

Samal, L.; Kyle, M. A.; Kilgallon, J. L.; Landrum, K. M.; Gawande, A. A.; Jacobson, J. O.; Hassett, M. J.

2025-05-21 health informatics
10.1101/2025.05.19.25324967
Show abstract

IntroductionDiagnostic evaluation and treatment planning for newly diagnosed cancer requires a coordinated effort across multiple specialties. Delays in treatment initiation are common, leading to unnecessary anxiety and decreased survival. Given that timely treatment initiation is pivotal to providing high quality cancer care, we sought to characterize patient intake, workflows, and the role of health information technology (HIT) in a varied group of oncology practices nationwide. MethodsInterviews with oncologists were performed between March and September 2016, with follow-ups conducted between October and December 2021. Thematic analysis was used to assign codes to key elements of the transcripts, group these codes into conceptually distinct and clinically meaningful categories, and identify major cross-cutting themes. ResultsNine oncologists participated in an initial interview (one surgical, two radiation, six medical oncology). Four oncologists participated in a follow-up interview (one radiation, three medical oncology). In both time periods there was tremendous variation in staff roles and communication processes; some oncology practices obtained diagnostic studies before the first oncology consult visit, whereas others waited until after the initial consult visit to begin the diagnostic evaluation. Variability and tension were noted to arise from deficiencies in HIT, such as lack of interoperability, impaired speed and quality of data collection, cumbersome user interfaces, and variety of data types in oncology care. Oncologists reported only modest improvements in HIT between 2016 and 2021. ConclusionAssembling data to make a new cancer diagnosis and treatment plan is complex and time-intensive. HIT interoperability remains a quasi-manual process, contributing to preventable treatment delays. Federal policy supporting interoperability provides an opportunity to develop HIT that supports care coordination and patient-centered care, but effective implementation of such tools will be challenging within current workflows.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 0.1%
9.9%
2
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 59%
7.4%
3
JAMIA Open
based on 35 papers
Top 1%
7.4%
4
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
based on 13 papers
Top 0.1%
7.4%
5
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
based on 36 papers
Top 2%
6.2%
6
JAMA Network Open
based on 125 papers
Top 2%
5.7%
7
Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association
based on 53 papers
Top 2%
5.2%
8
Journal of Medical Internet Research
based on 81 papers
Top 4%
4.6%
50% of probability mass above
9
Cancer Medicine
based on 17 papers
Top 0.8%
4.4%
10
BMJ Open
based on 553 papers
Top 32%
2.7%
11
Frontiers in Digital Health
based on 18 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
12
International Journal of Medical Informatics
based on 25 papers
Top 3%
2.3%
13
DIGITAL HEALTH
based on 11 papers
Top 0.7%
1.8%
14
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 73%
1.5%
15
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 5%
1.5%
16
JMIR Medical Informatics
based on 16 papers
Top 3%
1.5%
17
BMC Health Services Research
based on 43 papers
Top 3%
1.3%
18
Genetics in Medicine
based on 57 papers
Top 4%
1.3%
19
JMIR Formative Research
based on 31 papers
Top 4%
1.2%
20
Journal of General Internal Medicine
based on 19 papers
Top 3%
1.2%
21
Scientific Data
based on 30 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
22
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
23
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 13%
0.8%
24
PLOS Digital Health
based on 88 papers
Top 12%
0.8%
25
JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
based on 45 papers
Top 11%
0.8%
26
Journal of Biomedical Informatics
based on 37 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
27
BMJ Open Quality
based on 15 papers
Top 3%
0.8%
28
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 35%
0.7%
29
Preventive Medicine Reports
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
30
BMJ
based on 49 papers
Top 8%
0.7%