Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Next-generation long-term transplant clinics: improving resource utilization and the quality of care through health information technology

Abstract

By the year 2020, potentially one-half a million hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients will need long-term follow-up care to address not only chronic GvHD but also multiple other late consequences of transplant. Despite this increase in patients, there will not be a concomitant increase in the HCT workforce. Thus, the future of long-term patient management will require a new 'next-generation' clinical model that utilizes technological solutions to make the care of the HCT patient efficient, safe and cost-effective. Guideline-based decision support will be embedded in clinical workflows. Documentation requirements will be reduced as automated data collection from electronic medical records (EMRs) will populate registries and provide feedback for a rapid learning health system. Interoperable EMRs will disseminate treatment protocols to multiple care providers in a distributed long-term clinic model, such that providers outside of the transplant center can provide services closer to the patient. Patients will increase their participatory role through patient portals and mobile devices. At Vanderbilt, we have responded to some of these future challenges by embedding guideline-based decision support, structuring clinical documentation and being early adopters of communication technology. This manuscript describes the current state of some of these innovations, and a vision for the future of the long-term transplant clinic.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1
Figure 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Majhail NS, Tao L, Bredeson C, Davies S, Dehn J, Gajewski JL et al. Prevalence of hematopoietic cell transplant survivors in the United States. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: 1498–1501.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Shahrukh HaL MR . Late effects after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. In: Savani BN (ed). Blood and Marrow Transplantation Long Term Management: Prevention and Complications. John Wiley & Sons Ltd: Oxford, UK, 2014, pp 21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Martin PJ, Counts GW Jr, Appelbaum FR, Lee SJ, Sanders JE, Deeg HJ et al. Life expectancy in patients surviving more than 5 years after hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 1011–1016.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Savani BN . How can we improve life expectancy and quality of life in long-term survivors after allogeneic stem cell transplantation? Semin Hematol 2012; 49: 1–3.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Arai S, Arora M, Wang T, Spellman SR, He W, Couriel DR et al. Increasing incidence of chronic graft-versus-host disease in allogeneic transplantation: a report from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2015; 21: 266–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Khera N, Storer B, Flowers ME, Carpenter PA, Inamoto Y, Sandmaier BM et al. Nonmalignant late effects and compromised functional status in survivors of hematopoietic cell transplantation. J Clin Oncol 2012; 30: 71–77.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Socie G, Rizzo JD . Second solid tumors: screening and management guidelines in long-term survivors after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Semin Hematol 2012; 49: 4–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Majhail NS . Secondary cancers following allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation in adults. Br J Haematol 2011; 154: 301–310.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Hashmi S, Carpenter P, Khera N, Tichelli A, Savani BN . Lost in transition: the essential need for long-term follow-up clinic for blood and marrow transplantation survivors. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014; 21: 225–232.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schriber JR, Anasetti C, Heslop HE, Leahigh AK . Preparing for growth: current capacity and challenges in hematopoietic stem cell transplantation programs. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2010; 16: 595–597.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Rizzo JD, Wingard JR, Tichelli A, Lee SJ, Van Lint MT, Burns LJ et al. Recommended screening and preventive practices for long-term survivors after hematopoietic cell transplantation: joint recommendations of the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation, Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research, and the American Society for Blood and Marrow Transplantation (EBMT/CIBMTR/ASBMT). Bone Marrow Transplant 2006; 37: 249–261.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Majhail NS, Rizzo JD, Lee SJ, Aljurf M, Atsuta Y, Bonfim C et al. Recommended screening and preventive practices for long-term survivors after hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2012; 18: 348–371.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Gajewski JL, LeMaistre CF, Silver SM, Lill MC, Selby GB, Horowitz MM et al. Impending challenges in the hematopoietic stem cell transplantation physician workforce. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2009; 15: 1493–1501.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Majhail NS, Murphy EA, Omondi NA, Robinett P, Gajewski JL, LeMaistre CF et al. Allogeneic transplant physician and center capacity in the United States. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2011; 17: 956–961.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wolff D, Ayuk F, Elmaagacli A, Bertz H, Lawitschka A, Schleuning M et al. Current practice in diagnosis and treatment of acute graft-versus-host disease: results from a survey among German-Austrian-Swiss hematopoietic stem cell transplant centers. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2013; 19: 767–776.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ruutu T, van Biezen A, Hertenstein B, Henseler A, Garderet L, Passweg J et al. Prophylaxis and treatment of GVHD after allogeneic haematopoietic SCT: a survey of centre strategies by the European Group for Blood and Marrow Transplantation. Bone Marrow Transplant 2012; 47: 1459–1464.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee SJ, Vogelsang G, Gilman A, Weisdorf DJ, Pavletic S, Antin JH et al. A survey of diagnosis, management, and grading of chronic GVHD. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2002; 8: 32–39.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lee SJ, Astigarraga CC, Eapen M, Artz AS, Davies SM, Champlin R et al. Variation in supportive care practices in hematopoietic cell transplantation. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2008; 14: 1231–1238.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Sichel DE, Oliner SD . Information technology and productivity: where are we now and where are we going?. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System FEDS, Washington, DC,. 2002, pp 16–29 http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2002/200229/200229pap.pdf.

  20. Buntin MB, Burke MF, Hoaglin MC, Blumenthal D . The benefits of health information technology: a review of the recent literature shows predominantly positive results. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30: 464–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Lee J, McCullough JS, Town RJ . The impact of health information technology on hospital productivity. RAND J Econ 2013; 44: 545–568.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Huerta TR, Thompson MA, Ford EW, Ford WF . Electronic health record implementation and hospitals' total factor productivity. Decision Support Systems 2013; 55: 450–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Poissant L, Pereira J, Tamblyn R, Kawasumi Y . The impact of electronic health records on time efficiency of physicians and nurses: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2005; 12: 505–516.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Halamka J, Aranow M, Ascenzo C, Bates DW, Berry K, Debor G et al. E-Prescribing collaboration in Massachusetts: early experiences from regional prescribing projects. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2006; 13: 239–244.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  25. Warner J, Hochberg E . Where is the EHR in oncology? J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2012; 10: 584–588.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Yu P, Artz D, Warner J . Electronic health records (EHRs): supporting ASCO's vision of cancer care. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2014; 34: 225–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Yu PP . The evolution of oncology electronic health records. Cancer J 2011; 17: 197–202.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Ohno-Machado L . Networking the country to promote health and scientific discovery. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2014; 21: 575 21575.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Dafny L . Hospital industry consolidation—still more to come? N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 198–199.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Humphreys A . Healthcare & life sciences M&A outlook. Bass, Berry & Sims 2014 Contract No. 1.

  31. Koppel R, Lehmann CU . Implications of an emerging EHR monoculture for hospitals and healthcare systems. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22: 465–471.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Sittig DF, Wright A . What makes an EHR "open" or interoperable? J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22: 1099–1101.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Joseph S, Snow M, Furukawa MF, Posnack S, Chaffee MA . HITECH spurs EHR vendor competition and innovation, resulting in increased adoption. Am J Manag Care 2014; 20: 734–740.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Blumenthal D, Tavenner M . The "meaningful use" regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: 501–504.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Slavitt AM, Burwell SM . Medicare and medicaid programs; electronic health record incentive program-stage 3. Fed Reg 2015; 80: 16731–16804.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Williams C, Mostashari F, Mertz K, Hogin E, Atwal P . From the Office of the National Coordinator: the strategy for advancing the exchange of health information. Health Aff (Millwood) 2012; 31: 527–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Fridsma DBMPFFP, Ceo A . AMIA-Setting the standard. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22: 744–745.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Aljurf M, Rizzo JD, Mohty M, Hussain F, Madrigal A, Pasquini MC et al. Challenges and opportunities for HSCT outcome registries: perspective from international HSCT registries experts. Bone Marrow Transplant 2014; 49: 1016–1021.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Ezzone SA . History of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. Semin Oncol Nurs 2009; 25: 95–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Kuwatsuka Y, Atsuta Y, Horowitz MM, Inagaki J, Kanda J, Kato K et al. Graft-versus-host disease and survival after cord blood transplantation for acute leukemia: a comparison of Japanese versus White populations. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014; 20: 662–667.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Saltz J, Oster S, Hastings S, Langella S, Kurc T, Sanchez W et al. caGrid: design and implementation of the core architecture of the cancer biomedical informatics grid. Bioinformatics 2006; 22: 1910–1916.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Warner JL, Anick P, Drews RE . Physician inter-annotator agreement in the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative manual abstraction task. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9: e96–102.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Abernethy AP, Etheredge LM, Ganz PA, Wallace P, German RR, Neti C et al. Rapid-learning system for cancer care. J Clin Oncol 2010; 28: 4268–4274.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Patlak M, Murphy S . A Foundation for Evidence-Driven Practice: a Rapid Learning System for Cancer Care: Workshop Summary. National Academies Press: Washington, DC, 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Friedman CP, Wong AK, Blumenthal D . Achieving a nationwide learning health system. Sci Transl Med 2010; 2: 57cm29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Etheredge LM . A rapid-learning health system. Health Aff (Millwood) 2007; 26: w107–w118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Institute of Medicine The Learning Healthcare System: Workshop Summary (IOM Roundtable on Evidence-Based Medicine). National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2007.

  48. Middleton B, Bloomrosen M, Dente MA, Hashmat B, Koppel R, Overhage JM et al. Enhancing patient safety and quality of care by improving the usability of electronic health record systems: recommendations from AMIA. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2013; 20: e2–e8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman DM, Greenfield S, Steinberg E . Clinical Practice Guidelines we Can Trust. National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2011.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bright TJ, Wong A, Dhurjati R, Bristow E, Bastian L, Coeytaux RR et al. Effect of clinical decision-support systems: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 29–43.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. King J, Patel V, Jamoom EW, Furukawa MF . Clinical benefits of electronic health record use: national findings. Health Serv Res 2014; 49: 392–404.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. In:Grossmann C, Powers B, McGinnis JM (eds). Digital Infrastructure for the Learning Health System: The Foundation for Continuous Improvement in Health and Health Care. Workshop Series Summary: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.

  53. Giuse DA (ed). Supporting Communication In An Integrated Patient Record System. AMIA annual symposium proceedings; 2003: American Medical Informatics Association.

  54. Denny JC, Giuse DA, Jirjis JN . The Vanderbilt experience with electronic health records. Semin Colon Rect Surg 2005; 16: 59–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Giuse NB, Williams AM, Giuse DA . Integrating best evidence into patient care: a process facilitated by a seamless integration with informatics tools. J Med Libr Assoc 2010; 98: 220–222.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Ragon BK, Clifton C, Chen H, Savani BN, Engelhardt BG, Kassim AA et al. Geographic distance is not associated with inferior outcome when using long-term transplant clinic strategy. Biol Blood Marrow Transplant 2014; 20: 53–57.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Duncavage S, Mathe J, Werner J, Malin BA, Ledeczi A, Sztipanovits J (eds). A Modeling Environment for Patient Portals. AMIA Annu Symp Proc 2007; 2007: 201–205.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. Collins SA, Vawdrey DK, Kukafka R, Kuperman GJ . Policies for patient access to clinical data via PHRs: current state and recommendations. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2011; 18: i2–i7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  59. Delbanco T, Walker J, Darer JD, Elmore JG, Feldman HJ, Leveille SG et al. Open notes: doctors and patients signing on. Ann Intern Med 2010; 153: 121–125.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Danciu I, Cowan JD, Basford M, Wang X, Saip A, Osgood S et al. Secondary use of clinical data: the Vanderbilt approach. J Biomed Inform 2014; 52: 28–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  61. Roden DM, Pulley JM, Basford MA, Bernard GR, Clayton EW, Balser JR et al. Development of a large-scale de-identified DNA biobank to enable personalized medicine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 84: 362–369.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Bowton E, Field JR, Wang S, Schildcrout JS, Van Driest SL, Delaney JT et al. Biobanks and electronic medical records: enabling cost-effective research. Sci Transl Med 2014; 6: 234cm3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Kesselheim AS, Cresswell K, Phansalkar S, Bates DW, Sheikh A . Clinical decision support systems could be modified to reduce 'alert fatigue' while still minimizing the risk of litigation. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011; 30: 2310–2317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Lin CP, Payne TH, Nichol WP, Hoey PJ, Anderson CL, Gennari JH . Evaluating clinical decision support systems: monitoring CPOE order check override rates in the Department of Veterans Affairs' Computerized Patient Record System. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2008; 15: 620–626.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  65. Hsieh TC, Kuperman GJ, Jaggi T, Hojnowski-Diaz P, Fiskio J, Williams DH et al. Characteristics and consequences of drug allergy alert overrides in a computerized physician order entry system. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2004; 11: 482–491.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Warner JL, Maddux SE, Hughes KS, Krauss JC, Yu PP, Shulman LN et al. Development, implementation, and initial evaluation of a foundational open interoperability standard for oncology treatment planning and summarization. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2015; 22: 577–586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Smith A . Smartphone ownership–2013 update. Pew Research Center: Washington, DC, USA, 2013.

  68. Hoverman JR . From the first visit on: information technology and communication. J Oncol Pract 2013; 9: 152–154.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. Basch E, Reeve BB, Mitchell SA, Clauser SB, Minasian LM, Dueck AC et al. Development of the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the common terminology criteria for adverse events (PRO-CTCAE). J Natl Cancer Inst 2014; 106: 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to M Jagasia.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rioth, M., Warner, J., Savani, B. et al. Next-generation long-term transplant clinics: improving resource utilization and the quality of care through health information technology. Bone Marrow Transplant 51, 34–40 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.210

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/bmt.2015.210

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links