bluuebunny/crossref_metadata_2025 huggingface dataset:
Yoga therapy as a supportive care strategy for family caregivers of patients with primary brain tumor: Results of 3-arm pilot randomized controlled trial.
Authors: Milbury Kathrin , Li Jing , Weathers Shiao-Pei S. , Silva Rosangela , Snyder Stella , Li Yisheng , Shih Tina , Bruera Eduardo , Cohen Lorenzo
Published: September 2021

156

Background: Seeking to address the well-documented burden of caring for a loved one with a high-grade glioma, this pilot RCT compared the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a dyadic versus individual yoga intervention as a supportive care strategy for family caregivers. Methods: Caregivers completed self-reported assessments of QOL (SF-36) and caregiver burden (CRA) at baseline. Then, patients and caregivers were randomized to either a dyadic yoga (DY) arm in which caregivers attended the sessions together with the patient, a caregiver yoga (CY) arm in which the caregiver attended all sessions individually or a usual care (UC) arm. Both yoga programs were delivered over 15 sessions either in-person or via videoconference (Zoom) concurrently while patients were undergoing standard radiotherapy. All arms were re-assessed at the end of treatment and then again 3-months later. Results: We consented 76 patient-caregiver dyads (59%) and randomized 23 dyads to the DY, 22 to the CY, and 22 to the UC arm. Attendance in the DY was higher than in the CY group (session means, DY = 12.23, CY = 9.00; P =.06, d =.57). Caregivers (80% female; 78% non-Hispanic White; mean age = 53 yrs) reported significantly more overall subjective benefit in the CY compared to the DY arm (means, CY = 1.39, DY = 1.81, P <.05, d = 1.45). Caregivers slightly favored the in-person delivery over the Zoom-based sessions (means, in person: 1.48; Zoom: 1.82, P =.10; d =.77). A clinically significant, medium effect size was found for improved QOL in favor of the CY over the DY group (means, CY = 49.45, DY = 44.45; F = 3.58, P =.07; d =.67). Caregivers in the CY group also reported less caregiving-related health declines compared to the DY group (means, CY = 2.18; DY = 2.48; F = 4.23, P <.05; d =.42). Caregivers in the CY group reported less caregiving-related financial burden than the UC group (means: CY = 2.79; UC = 3.21; F = 3.32, P =.08; d =.35). Conclusions: Despite lower attendance, caregivers in the CY arm reported greater subjective overall benefit, experienced better mental QOL and less caregiver burden compared with those in the DY and UC comparison arms. It appears that individual rather than dyadic delivery may be a superior supportive care approach for this vulnerable caregiver population. An adequately powered, larger efficacy trial of this intervention strategy is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT02481349.
Mobile app care utility: Patients and caregivers perception.
Authors: Oakley-Girvan Ingrid , Yunis Reem , Kurtovich Elaine , Aghaee Sara , Kubo Ai , Ramsey Maya , Longmire Michelle , Neeman Elad , Liu Raymond
Published: September 2021

157

Background: There is increasing appreciation for the insight provided by combining low-burden home-based remote digital measurements with patient and observer reported outcomes. In this study, we assessed perspectives of cancer patients and their caregivers on the utility of a mobile app combined with a smartwatch for collection of specific outcomes and to provide clinically actionable data. Methods: In a decentralized clinical trial we consented and enrolled (10/12/2020-4/30/2021) dyads that consisted of a cancer patient and their informal caregiver. All participants had to own an Apple iPhone 6 or higher. Patients were provided with an Apple watch 3 or 4 and downloaded a patient informed mobile app (DigiBioMarC). Caregivers only download a caregiver informed mobile app (TOGETHERCare). Participants were asked to use their respective app for 28 days during which time specific surveys and activity requests were delivered through the mobile app; digital measures of physical activity were collected via the smartwatch. At the end of the app usage period, questions were asked in a video interview about the patient and caregiver perspectives on use of their respective apps and what they believed could be impacted if their doctor were to receive the app information. Respondents could select Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, or Strongly Disagree. Results: Fifty-four dyads were enrolled; four were unable to continue due to a decline in health. Questions were drafted and IRB approved in time to be asked of 45 dyads. The Table lists some results and the percent of respondents that selected Strongly Agree or Agree. Conclusions: Patients and caregivers reported that both apps would encourage them to take better care of themselves/be more physically active and would improve emotional wellbeing. A high proportion of respondents also felt the apps would improve communication with their doctor and provide early important information for the doctor to act upon compared to usual care. Additional work in a large randomized trial is planned to evaluate specific care outcomes. [Table: see text]
From community to validated measure: Development and validation of the patient-informed cancer communication scale (PICCS).
Authors: Hamel Lauren M. , Soulliere Roger , Baidoun Fatmeh , Foster Tanina , Heath Elisabeth I. , Eggly Susan
Published: September 2021

159

Background: Assessing patient-centered communication (PCC) is critical to improving quality patient-centered cancer care. While shown to be reliable and valid, most PCC measures were created by researchers, likely neglecting concerns of patients, families, and community members. PCC measures should be driven, in part, by the patient population of interest, especially given disparities in clinical communication. Our objective was to develop and validate a patient-informed PCC scale to assess cancer treatment discussions. Methods: As part of a larger study on communication and minority accrual to trials, we convened a panel of black and white cancer survivors, caregivers, and advocates. Panel members (n = 11) included 5 black and 3 white men and 1 black and 2 white women. Among them were 6 survivors and 5 caregivers. Panel members met regularly over six months to observe and discuss video-recorded treatment discussions between black and white men with prostate cancer and their physicians. Through an iterative process of generating and refining a list of physician communication behaviors they considered to be critical to PCC in a diverse patient population, they produced a list of 22 items, titled Patient-Informed Cancer Communication Scale (PICCS). We then applied the list as an observational scale to a set of video-recorded treatment discussions (n = 61) from the larger study. Trained raters applied the list and had acceptable inter-rater reliability. We used findings to determine constructs using scale development and factor analysis, then validated the scale through correlation with established scales. Results: We evaluated each item for content validity and feasibility. We divided some items that were assessing multiple attributes. The result was a 28-item scale. Using Classical Test Theory, we reduced the scale to 22 items. Using factor analysis, we identified five factors, including: 1. Treatment options (10 items a =.92); 2. Clinical relationship (6-items a =.92); 3. Prognosis and goals of treatment (2-items a =.79); 4. Explanations (2-items a =.43); and 5. Context (1-item). To validate, we correlated factors with two validated scales, one measuring physician PCC and the other patient active participation. Factor 1 was positively correlated with patient active participation ( r=.46; p=.003); Factor 2 with PCC ( r=.54, p. <.001); Factor 3 with patient active participation ( r=.48; p=.002); and Factor 5 with PCC ( r=.47, p=.002). The full PICCS scale was positively correlated with patient active participation ( r=.37, p=.02). PICCS Factor 4 was not correlated to the scales. Conclusions: This community-engaged research produced a reliable and valid patient-informed scale to assess PCC during cancer clinical interactions. Next steps include translating the findings by using PICCS to train physicians to communicate effectively in a diverse patient population.
“I think that she would have wanted...”: Caregiver reflections on goal-concordant care for patients with cancer at the end of life.
Authors: Durieux Brigitte N. , Berrier Anna , Catzen Hannah Z. , Gray Tamryn , Tulsky James A. , Sanders Justin J.
Published: September 2021

163

Background: Experts recognize goal-concordant care (GCC) as among the most important outcomes for those with advanced cancer. Despite a conceptual understanding about ways to measure goal-concordant care, we know little about what patient experiences align perceptions of goal concordance. Caregivers’ close proximity to patients give them a unique perspective on what factors contribute to perceived goal concordance. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 19 recently bereaved family caregivers of those with cancer to understand their experience of care, the extent to which they felt it was goal-concordant, and the factors of care which contextualized their experience. Caregivers were interviewed using a semi-structured guide based on the end-of-life planning module in Round 2 of the National Health and Aging Trends Survey (NHATS). We used template analysis to identify themes across the 19 interviews. Results: Most caregivers reported goal-concordant care when prompted, though many also recalled moments of goal discordance. Three high-level themes characterized their care perceptions: communication, relationships and humanistic care, and care transitions. Sub-themes of communication included clinician communication quality, prognostic communication, and information gaps. First, clear and transparent clinician communication facilitated GCC and high-quality care. Prognostic communication that did not align to patient preferences or consider patient hope was seen as harmful. Information gaps inhibited high-quality care as well as caregivers’ confidence that decisions were goal concordant. Second, relationships between patients and their clinicians enriched care, and humanistic care was seen as higher-quality. Lastly, logistical barriers, the need for relationship rebuilding, uncertain information communication, and a general lack of coordination characterized perceptions around care transitions and goal discordance. In particular, several caregivers noted issues and inter-specialty tensions around transitions specifically involving hospice. Conclusions: Caregivers consistently rated care as goal-concordant while also identifying areas of disappointing and low-quality care. Measures that capture goal-concordant care may be subject to psychological bias and may not clearly align with or predict other measures of care quality. Communication, relationships and humanistic care, and care transitions are all modifiable targets for quality improvement and deserve clear attention for patients with advanced cancer.
Documentation of goals of care discussions: Lessons from the Improving Goal Concordant Care Collaborative.
Authors: McNiff Landrum Kristen K. , Reddy Akhila Sunkepally , Ross Tom , Kolosky Jack ,   IGCC Collaborators
Published: September 2021

166

Background: Patients with advanced cancer do not reliably receive care consistent with their goals and values. Goal-concordant care requires effective, efficient and timely communications between patients and their providers, as well as systems to capture patient goals and ensure future accessibility. Currently, electronic health records (EHR) in most oncology settings do not adequately support structured documentation that is most relevant to goals of cancer care. Methods: The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC) initiated the Improving Goal Concordant Care (IGCC) Initiative in 2019. ADCC members are 10 U.S. freestanding, academic cancer hospitals, which are also the IGCC participants. In 2019 and 2020, we convened palliative care and oncology experts in the IGCC’s planning phase, via a series of structured consensus building sessions. We employed modified Delphi processes - including literature review, brainstorming, voting, and refinement - in conceptualization four core components considered essential to improving goal concordant care for cancer patients. One of these core components is EHR documentation of GOC discussions; an additional EHR workgroup created detailed recommendations. The three-year IGCC implementation phase launched in September 2020. Results: We achieved consensus on minimum desired fields for GOC documentation: intent of the current treatment, physician's estimated prognosis, prognosis disclosed/discussed with patient, patient prognostic awareness, patient goals, recommendations. Further, GOC documentation must be discrete and structured whenever possible to ease entry and facilitate retrieval/reporting. As GOC discussions evolve over time, documentation may be iterated over multiple encounters. GOC documentation is distinct from, but may rely on, advance directives or other ACP documentation, such as code status, POLST/MOLST, and healthcare agents. At IGCC collaborative launch, none of the 10 cancer hospitals had EHRs that were fully compliant. Progress toward development, training, and use of structured GOC documentation is ongoing. Conclusions: Establishing feasible and useful expectations for electronic documentation of GOC discussions by oncologists presented unique challenges for the IGCC. Ongoing and planned work in this area includes: Facilitating collaborative learning and promoting sharing of best practices; Measuring the presence of GOC documentation among priority patients, as well as other measures including patient and family reported outcomes; Assessing quality of the GOC documentation; Ongoing engagement of patient and family advisors, including regarding patient access to records containing GOC documentation; Potential application of natural language processing/artificial intelligence in prompting GOC documentation and facilitating retrieval.
Potential barriers to lung cancer screening in a minority population: Assessing attitudes, beliefs, and values towards screening with low-dose computed tomography amongst a high-risk minority population.
Authors: Sheppard Richard Stephen , Beale Stefani , Joseph Janet , Achi Sai Santhoshini , Showunmi Abosede , Ayinla Raji , Ahluwalia Meena
Published: September 2021

17

Background: While the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) has shown a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with the application of the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for the use of Low-Dose Computed Tomography (LDCT) in a select high risk population, many studies have shown that the rate of screening has been below the national average in minority population. Furthermore, lung cancer mortality still appears to be disproportionately higher amongst minority populations. With this study, we aim to evaluate the attitudes, beliefs and values towards lung cancer screening with LDCT in a predominantly Black and Hispanic population in our outpatient clinic. Methods: A survey was conducted over a 3-month period in our outpatient department at an urban inner-city safety net hospital. We included high risk smokers, aged 50 to 80 years who reported no evidence of symptoms. The survey consisted of 20 questions; these included utilizing the Health Belief Model to assess beliefs on perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits and barriers to screening, questions exploring fears of cancer screening and questions assessing overall willingness to undergo lung cancer screening with LDCT. We also included a question on the willingness of participants to engage in educational sessions with regards to lung cancer screening and risk reduction. Results were collected and analyzed via univariate logistic regression model to compare patient populations. Results: 67 patients participated in our survey. 62% were Black, 34% were Hispanic and 4% were Asian/Pacific Islanders. The mean age of our population was 64.5 years and they had an average of 27.2 pack-years of smoking. Issues related to insurance coverage and co-pay were identified as the most significant concern with regards to the unwillingness to undergo screening (p < 0.05). Other concerns identified were the fear of a positive screening result, fear of radiation exposure and lack of understanding of the association with smoking history and lung cancer (p = 0.12). All participants responded yes to being open to be educated on reducing their risk of lung cancer (p < 0.05). Conclusions: While many factors still exist with regards to lung cancer screening in minority populations, the cost of medical care, fear of radiation exposure and anxiety were identified as potential barriers to willingness to screen. Structured educational programs were identified as a possible measure that can be implemented to address these factors, with the potential to increase the willingness to undergo screening in a high risk minority population.
Potential surrogates for performance status and survival in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).
Authors: Akerley Wallace L. , Puri Sonam , Jo Yeonjung , Coletta Adriana M , Kerrigan Kathleen Claire , Patel Shiven B. , Moynahan Kelly , Cannon Laura , Gumbleton Matthew , Hillman Nicole , Embrey Kelsey , Haaland Benjamin
Published: September 2021

170

Background: Performance status (PS), a physician-based, subjective assessment of a patient’s symptoms and ambulatory state, is an eligibility criterion for most clinical trials and a key clinical decision tool for treatment of NSCLC. Methods: Patients with metastatic NSCLC were asked to participate in a prospective, observational study of potential prognostic factors that includes demographics, laboratory, patient reported outcomes (PROs) by the patient reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS), PS reported by patient, PS assessed by physician, FitBit tracker (includes steps, distance, heart rate (HR), calories, METs), physical challenge and proteomics (Veristratâ). Correlation and regression analyses were performed for the initial 55 patients enrolled prior to COVID restrictions. Tracker data was collected and averaged over the first 7 days with wear > 500 minutes/day. Other data were collected at baseline. Results: We enrolled 55 patients with metastatic NSCLC. There were 35 females and 20 males with a median age of 67 years. A majority of patients were never (38%, n = 21) or former smokers (40%, n = 22); adenocarcinoma (83%, n = 83%) was the most common histology. 30% (n = 17) patients were 2nd or greater line of therapy. 52 were included for survival analysis and 21 expired with median survival 226 days (149, NA). There were minimal gender related differences in the study population except a higher incidence of adenocarcinoma in women (94% vs 65%, p = 0.012 and longer FiTBit assessed daily “very active minutes” (defined as METs > = 6) in men compared to women (4.21 vs 0.43, p = 0.036). Patient- and physician assessed PS were not statistically different, although patients tended underestimated their PS relative to physicians. Physician assessed PS, patient assessed PS, two-minute walk distance, proteomics by Veristratâ, total daily steps, total daily distance covered, and heart rate/activity mismatch were independent predictors of survival. Age, gender, smoking, BMI, histology, and various CBC-based indices were not prognostic. Conclusions: Patient- and physician-assessment of PS do not always match, many alternate measures to PS are prognostic of survival and tracker-based methods are objective and feasible in clinical practice.
Development of PRO-PMs assessing symptoms following completion of curative-intent chemotherapy.
Authors: Chenok Katherine Eresian , Ye Feifei , McNiff Landrum Kristen K. , Hoo Emma , Kong Valerie , Griggs Jennifer J. , Brodie Rachel
Published: September 2021

171

Background: Few patient-reported outcome performance measures (PRO-PMs) have been validated for the cancer population. The testing that has occurred mostly focuses on advanced cancers despite the fact that the majority of people with cancer are diagnosed with earlier stage disease. We developed and tested PRO-PMs to assess quality of life, pain and fatigue in adult patients completing curative-intent chemotherapy for breast, colon and non-small cell lung cancers. Our goal is to develop measures that target symptoms that impact entry into the survivorship phase. Methods: We recruited 20 diverse test sites from the Michigan Oncology Quality Collaborative (MOQC) and the Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC). Test sites enrolled patients, administered surveys, and collected clinical and demographic data. A Technical Expert Panel and the Patient and Caregiver Council selected PROMs and provided testing guidance. We assessed data collection feasibility and clinician/staff/patient burden throughout the testing process. Results: PROMIS instruments were selected due to psychometric testing in the target population, public availability and acceptability to patients and test sites. 1,753 patients were enrolled between 10/1/19 – 3/31/21. The COVID public health emergency disrupted testing and resulted in lower than expected enrolled patients/completed surveys; however, adaptations led to expansions in survey administration methods. Preliminary practice-level performance results from 10 sites show variation across sites for pain interference (mean = 50.5, SD = 2.8, with a range of 44.6—54.6) and fatigue (mean 49.2, SD = 2.8, with a range of 44.6--54.3). Some test sites reported PRO implementation to be burdensome; however, most patients evaluated did not find survey completion to be burdensome. Conclusions: Next steps include testing risk adjustment variables/model, creating adjusted performance scores, reliability and validity testing. Despite the consensus goal of PRO-PMs in oncology, barriers to implementation persist and important methodologic barriers exist (e.g., ability to achieve sufficient sample size in an oncology practice; defining the most appropriate numerator calculation that reports the desired quality concept and is appropriate for the PROM being used; analytic best practices for PRO-PM adjustment/testing). This project is contributing to the knowledge base as we seek to ensure that PRO-PMs provide meaningful, actionable, patient-centered quality data with benefits that outweigh the burden of implementation.
Patients’ perspective on the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care.
Authors: Wollersheim Barbara M. , van der Poel Henk G. , van Asselt Kristel M. , Pos Floris J. , Akdemir Emine , Vis Andre , Lampe Menuhin I. , van den Bergh Roderick , Somford Diederik Meindert , Knipscheer Ben , Cauberg Evelyne C.C. , Noordzij Arjen , Aaronson Neil K , Boekhout Annelies H. , van de Poll-Franse Lonneke V
Published: September 2021

175

Background: Information about prostate cancer patients’ perspective on the quality of their follow-up care in the hospital is important to optimize survivorship care. This study assessed the quality of prostate cancer follow-up care as experienced by cancer patients and its association with patients’ sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and treatment-related symptom burden. Methods: We surveyed 385 (response rate, 100%) patients with localized prostate cancer participating in a randomized controlled trial comparing the (cost)effectiveness of specialist- versus primary care-based prostate cancer follow-up. For this study, we used baseline data that were collected during patients’ first follow-up visit at the hospital (2-34 weeks) after primary treatment (radical prostatectomy or radiotherapy) prior to randomization. We assessed patients’ ratings of the quality of follow-up care using the Assessment of Patient Experiences of Cancer Care survey. This survey consists of thirteen scales: getting needed care, timeliness of care, waiting time in physician’s office, information exchange, physician’s affective behavior, physicians’ knowledge about patients’ life, interaction with nurses, interaction with office staff, symptom management, symptom information provision, health promotion, coordination of care, and overall rating of care. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify factors associated with perceived quality of follow-up care. Results: Patients reported positive experiences with follow-up care for 10 of 13 scales, with mean scores ranging from 72 to 97 (on a 0-100 response scale). The three scales where patients reported suboptimal follow-up care were symptom management (mean score of 43), health promotion (mean score of 45), and physicians’ knowledge about patients’ life (mean score of 66). Overall, patients’ report of suboptimal quality of follow-up care was associated significantly with being more highly educated, not having a partner, being older, having multiple comorbidities, and experiencing symptoms (urinary, bowel, and hormonal symptoms). Conclusions: Prostate cancer patients were generally positive about their initial, hospital-based follow-up care after primary surgery or radiation. However, physicians’ knowledge about patients’ lives, symptom management, and health promotion was rated as suboptimal. The findings point to areas where prostate cancer survivorship care can be improved.
Patient responses to weekly electronic patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: Dent D'Ambra , Ingram Stacey A. , Lawhon Valerie , Jamy Omer , Giri Smith , Scott Julie , Still Nadia , Wujcik Debra , Rocque Gabrielle Betty
Published: September 2021

182

Background: Home-based symptom monitoring using patient reported outcomes has been shown to reduce symptom burden and hospitalizations, while improving quality of life and overall. The primary goal of this study was to evaluate the early feasibility of home-based symptom monitoring. Methods: This prospective single-arm pilot study evaluated a two-part education and technology intervention (home-based symptom monitoring) for clinicians treating Multiple Myeloma (MM) and Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) patients. Inclusion criteria included patients ≥ 60 who were anticipating a treatment decision. Participants completed a baseline survey and then enrolled into the PROmpt® symptom monitoring platform, which used text or email to prompt weekly symptom surveys. Patients receive an auto-generated self-management plan based on electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO). If severe symptoms were reported (score of > 7/10), alerts were sent to clinical nurses. Outcomes for this study included proportion of patient approach who agreed to participate, patient completion rates (completion of weekly surveys), compliance rate (completion of total surveys), number of alerts generated, and type of alert. Feasibility was defined as a completion rate of > 70%. Results: Between September 1, 2020 –May 19, 2021; 114 patients were screened, 77 were approached, and 35 were enrolled (18) MM, (17) AML patients. Of non-participants, 11 were not seeking care at the institution, 10 patients were uninterested or did not have a smartphone, 9 patients were ineligible, and 9 were unsure and left with information about the study, 3 declined enrollment. The majority (80%) or participants were ages 60-74; 20% of patients were ages 75+. Over the 13-week period, AML patients completed 195/220 (compliance rate of 89%). The average completion rate was 92%. For MM, 192/233 surveys were completed (82% compliance rate). The average completion rate was 94%. For AML, 9 was the average number of completed surveys and the average number for MM was 8. Over 3 months, there were 294 moderate to severe alerts generated for AML and MM patients. For AML patients, there were 40 fatigue, 25 constipation, 21 pain, 17 decreased appetite, 11 insomnia, 11 rash, 6 anxiety, 7 dyspnea/cough, 7 diarrhea, 5 depression/sadness, 4 nausea/ vomiting, 4 mouth/ throat sores, 3 neuropathy, 3 fever, and 2 alerts for other symptoms. Within a 3 month time span for MM patients, there was 35 pain, 21 constipation, 18 fatigue, 11 rash, 10 neuropathy, 9 anxiety, 7 insomnia, 6 depression/sadness, 4 decreased appetite, 4 other symptom, and 1 nausea/vomiting alert. Conclusions: This study demonstrated early feasibility with over 80% of patient completing their surveys with a high compliance rate. Future analysis will include both final implementation outcomes as well as patient outcomes for all patients within the study.
Older adult guidelines: What is patient reported experience across five cancer programs?
Authors: Bandini Lindsey , Weldon Christine B. , Trosman Julia R. , Kircher Sheetal Mehta , Mohindra Nisha Anjali , Benson Al Bowen
Published: September 2021

186

Background: ASCO’s Guideline for Geriatric Oncology (Mohile SG, Et al 2018) and NCCN’s Guideline for Older Adult Oncology (v1.2021) include patient self-assessment for falls, memory/concentration, and activities of daily living. Our study collected patient reported experience with self-assessing these concerns, discussing them with clinicians, and receiving relevant referrals across adult patients with cancer. We also examined differences in reported experiences between younger and older patients. Methods: We surveyed patients 18 and over with breast, colorectal, lung or head neck cancer who received care from January 2020 to April 2021 across 5 cancer programs in Chicago: 3 academic and 2 community based. Survey included 7 items adapted from older adult oncology guidelines and associated instruments including PROMIS. Analyses used chi-square method with Yate’s correction. Results: 243 patients completed a survey, about half over and half under 65. Only 16% of patients reported that clinicians asked them about falls/walking, concentration/memory, or daily activity concerns; an additional 28% of patients brought up these concerns with clinicians (Table). Over half (51%) of all patients had at least once concern, 17% falls/walking, 30% concentration/memory and 35% daily activities. About 1/3 (35%) of patients were referred to services. Importantly, the rates of experiencing concerns associated with older adult care, initiating relevant discussions with clinicians, and receiving referrals were similar between younger and older patients (Table). Patients with concerns were more likely to get PT/OT, Geriatrics, or home health support, p =.02, p =.03, p =.04, respectively (data not shown). Conclusions: Regardless of age, half of patients reported at least one concern that is typically associated with older cancer patients. Future studies should study concerns for falls, memory, concentration, and daily activities among younger patients, with the potential to expand the guidelines accordingly. We also found gaps in identifying these concerns even within the older patient cohort, suggesting that quality improvement interventions are necessary.[Table: see text]
Feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a cancer survivorship care delivery intervention.
Authors: Birken Sarah A. , Peluso Alexandra , Wagi Cheyenne , Wentworth Stacy , Weaver Kathryn E.
Published: September 2021

19

Background: A large and rapidly increasing number of US cancer survivors who have completed active treatment continue to seek oncology care. Low-risk survivors who continue to seek oncology care incur greater costs but experience worse care quality and outcomes than those who seek primary care. In this study, we assessed the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of START (Supporting Transitions AfteR Treatment), a theory-driven, stakeholder-engaged intervention intended to improve the transition of low-risk survivors to primary care. Methods: To pilot START, beginning in August 2020, we engaged oncology providers (n = 5) and staff (n = 4) at a small community affiliate of our academic comprehensive cancer center. We worked with a nurse navigator, office manager, and physician champion to refine START’s content and delivery to accommodate the needs of a busy community cancer center. We queried electronic health records (EHRs) to assess the feasibility of identifying low-risk survivors and measuring key outcomes (i.e., receipt of recommended health maintenance services). In a formal meeting, we introduced providers to START and helped them to identify survivors whom they agreed should be transitioned to primary care. Front desk staff flagged these survivors to remind providers to transition them in upcoming appointments. Beginning in July 2021, we will conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews with oncology providers and staff and survivors regarding their perspectives on START’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results: We successfully identified survivors using EHRs and engaged the nurse navigator and providers in identifying the subset of survivors whom they deemed eligible for transitioning to primary care. Preliminary results indicate that START helped providers to transition eligible survivors to primary care. We have successfully engaged cancer center data managers in measuring relevant outcomes using EHRs. Informal provider and staff feedback suggests that START is an acceptable, appropriate, and feasible approach to transitioning survivors. Conclusions: At the conference, we will report on oncology provider and staff and survivor perceptions of START’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for improving survivorship care delivery and preliminary findings regarding START’s effectiveness in increasing survivors’ receipt of recommended health maintenance services. Findings will be used to refine START and form the basis of a clinical trial to evaluate its effectiveness in improving survivorship outcomes.
Range, effectiveness, and implementation of decision aids supporting cancer survivors’ decisions over health services participation in the post-treatment phase: A systematic review.
Authors: Ke Yu , Tan Tze Xin Eunice , Chan Ray , Chan Alexandre
Published: September 2021

203

Background: Cancer patients and survivors encounter a myriad of complex medical decisions starting from their diagnosis of cancer. However, current decision aids (DAs) largely focused on acute treatment and fertility decisions, and not on health service-related decisions such as adoption of supportive care services and programs targeting risk factor modification. This systematic review aims to identify and describe DAs supporting health service-related decisions after the completion of primary treatment until the end of life. Secondary objectives included assessing the effectiveness of these DAs and outlining implementation barriers. Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed and EMBASE) were searched comprehensively for relevant publications in English from inception through April 2020. Additional manual searches were performed on Google Scholar and from reference lists. We included studies that described the purpose and usage of DAs related to health services among cancer survivors 6 months post-diagnosis, after the typical acute treatment phase. Depending on the study design, included studies were assessed for quality using the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool and Critical Appraisal Skills Programme qualitative checklist. Results: Of 896 records screened, 11 studies describing seven DAs met the inclusion criteria. Non-interventional studies were generally of good quality, whereas most (4/6) interventional trials had a high risk of detection bias from failure to blind outcome assessors. DAs described were purposed for the creation of advanced directives, substance use behavior, preference for post-treatment follow-up care schedule, and health insurance were identified. All DAs adopted a multimedia format. DAs were generally acceptable and were associated with higher knowledge and satisfaction among users. No significant effects were observed for decision-making related outcomes, including decisional conflict and self-efficacy. Implementation barriers included time constraints, poor health statuses, limited perceived DA’s usefulness, and inadequate navigational support. Conclusions: The seven DAs identified addressed a diverse range of survivorship issues. Building on preliminary results reporting favorable acceptability, satisfaction, and knowledge, future work should explore the development and utility of DAs as facilitators to quality cancer survivorship care delivery, expanding into areas such as health promotion and choice of survivorship follow-up care models.
A systematic approach to improving oral chemotherapy consent compliance in a rural cancer center.
Authors: Benner Paula , Fields Jina , Mani Shylaja , Mathey Julie
Published: September 2021

206

Background: Ensuring quality and comprehensive cancer care for our patients, families and our communities have been goals for the Cancer Center since its inception. To achieve these goals we must encourage collaborative decision-making, patient autonomy and promote a culture of patient safety with regards to all aspects of care, including treatment planning. Oral chemotherapy consent compliance has been a measured monthly Quality metric by the Cancer Center since 2018. A steady decline in compliance began in June 2019. 38% of all patients prescribed new oral chemotherapy did not sign an Informed Consent prior to beginning therapy. Lack of compliance may compromise patient safety and autonomy. In order to ensure our patients are fully informed regarding recommended treatment options, we evaluated our compliance to ASCO’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) Core Module, Measure 14 which requires a signed patient consent for chemotherapy. This project was initiated during the 2020 Quality Training Program (QTP) in Alexandria, Virginia and progressed through the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Using the systematic approach and quality improvement tools taught during the QTP, we engaged a multidisciplinary Quality Improvement (QI) team to assist in gathering, organizing and interpreting data. The QI team sought input from all providers, their associated teams and Navigators regarding current processes and barriers. Process maps were created for each team; with both variables and percent of consent compliance being compared. The QI team identified common barriers to obtaining consent. A Cause and Effect Diagram, Pareto Chart and Prioritization Matrix were used narrowing the focus for the changes developed for improvement. Two quarterly Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were conducted from March through September 2020. Results: PDSA cycle one was implemented in March of 2020 immediately prior to the COVID-19 pandemic affecting our area. Despite the competing priority of COVID Pandemic, results improved to 76% compliance over a 4 month period. PDSA cycle 2 was implemented at the end of July 2020. Following PDSA cycle 2, compliance rates improved to 91%. With no additional process changes, compliance continues to maintain through April of 2021 at 92%. Conclusions: The use of the QTP systematic approach improved oral chemotherapy consent compliance to just short of our 92% improvement goal. In spite of the obstacles brought about by COVID-19, compliance rates for August-October 2020 increased to 91%. As a result of the study process, we are now more cognizant of the variability in practices among our providers. This awareness will aid us in development and success of future processes. We continue to monitor compliance and adjust processes related to oral chemotherapy informed consent to accommodate on-going COVID-19 implications, staffing variances and ever-changing approved chemotherapy regimens.
Perceived provider barriers to collecting and documenting a complete family history in a statewide oncology consortium.
Authors: Weiner Shayna , Amini Erika , Koeppe Erika , Resnicow Ken , Stoffel Elena Martinez , Griggs Jennifer J.
Published: September 2021

221

Background: A complete family history is essential in identifying patients who may benefit from genetic evaluation for hereditary cancer syndromes. Fewer than 40% of patients with cancer have a complete family history documented in their medical record. As part of a larger study of patient- and provider-focused interventions for increasing genetic testing, we conducted a survey of provider barriers to collecting and documenting a complete family history in a statewide, physician-led quality consortium of nearly all medical and gynecologic oncologists in Michigan. Methods: A novel survey instrument was created by adapting existing literature and clinician input. Surveys were mailed to medical and gynecologic oncologists with follow up electronic surveys sent to non-respondents. Questions addressed patient-specific barriers as well as known constraints faced by oncologists. Each barrier was rated from low to high using a 10-point Likert scale. Descriptive statistics, including mean scores and standard deviations (SD), were calculated. Results: Of 317 surveys sent, 194 (61.2%) were returned. Oncologists rated constraints on their time lower than lack of patient knowledge and understanding of their family history and its importance as a barrier. Open-ended responses indicated that the processes of collecting a family history (e.g. templates for collecting family history that omit age at diagnosis) and patients being overwhelmed at the time of consultation also interfered with collecting a complete family history. Conclusions: Oncologists perceive patient knowledge of their family history, including the ages of affected family members, and understanding of its importance as barriers to completion and documentation of a family history. Explaining the importance of the family history to patients, prompting new patients to provide their family history, and improving the process, including the timing of collection, may increase the proportion of oncology patients who have a complete family history collected and documented.[Table: see text]
Impact of an automatic palliative care consultation trigger on healthcare use in patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia.
Authors: Xiang Jenny Jing , Prsic Elizabeth Horn , Adelson Kerin B. , Ozyck Rosemary , Prebet Thomas
Published: September 2021

224

Background: Patients with relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have poor outcomes and high levels of healthcare use at end of life. Palliative care remains underused in hematology and questions remain on how best to integrate palliative care for high-risk patients. We conducted a prospective cohort study evaluating palliative care consultation triggers for patients admitted to a tertiary academic center with advanced AML. Methods: Criteria were developed for all hospitalized patients with hematologic malignancy on the inpatient hematology floors and included: 1) persistent disease after ≥ 2 lines of therapy, 2) length of stay (LOS) > 7 days for symptom management, 3) ECOG performance status > 2, and 4) refractory GVHD ≥ 3 lines of therapy. Patients with relapsed/refractory AML were included if they met criteria 1. A nurse coordinator performed chart review of admitted patients 1-2 times/week from June to December 2020 on the inpatient hematology floor at Smilow Cancer Hospital and contacted the primary team when patients met eligibility. Patient characteristics and healthcare outcomes were compared with patients with AML meeting criteria 1 admitted pre-intervention (June to December 2019) using Fisher t-tests. Results: A total 110 admitted patients were eligible (64 pre-intervention and 46 post-intervention). Baseline patient and disease characteristics were similar, including mean age at admission (60.4 vs 60.9 years, p = 0.848), gender (64% vs 59% male, p = 0.691), prior transplant (56% vs 52%, p = 0.702), and AML risk stratification (67% vs 78% adverse risk, p = 0.283). In the post-intervention group, 61% of eligible patients were screened. Of the screened patients, 54% received a palliative care consult, 18% were declined by the primary team, 14% were marked as not eligible, and 14% did not have consult with reason unspecified. Overall, palliative care consults increased in the post-intervention group (22% vs 43%, p = 0.021). There was a significant increase in advance care planning and/or advanced directive documentation post-intervention (13% vs 28%, p = 0.049). There was no differences in pre- and post-intervention groups in LOS (12.13 vs 12.33 days, p = 0.941), 30-day readmissions (52% vs 39%, p = 0.557), critical/intermediate care escalation (22% vs 13%, p = 0.318) and non-palliative chemotherapy post-discharge (48% vs 39%, p = 0.246). Conclusions: A triggered palliative care referral intervention is feasible and doubled palliative care use in patients with relapsed/refractory AML, a group with high mortality and high healthcare utilization. Our intervention improved documentation of advance care planning. Although there were directional reductions in other healthcare use measures, the differences were not statistically significant, likely from the small sample sizes leading to the study being underpowered.
Preventing 30-day readmissions for patients with cancer: A root-cause analysis.
Authors: Shah Manan P , Tan Irena , Garrigues Sarah K. , Hansen Jennifer , Blayney Douglas W. , Divi Vasu
Published: September 2021

226

Background: The high rate of unplanned 30-day readmissions for patients with cancer is a significant driver of costs and a marker of poor quality. In this study, we analyzed 30-day readmissions at our cancer center to determine causality and propose key drivers to prevent them. Methods: Patients with known cancer who were readmitted to our academic medical center within 30 days of a previous hospitalization were identified in our electronic health record by a third-party algorithm. Among patients with hematologic malignancies, only those undergoing bone marrow transplant care were included. Surveys querying causality and preventability of the readmissions were sent to the patients’ attending oncologists. Electronic chart documentation of readmissions were reviewed by two investigators to assess causality and preventability of each readmission. Results were discussed in focus groups to determine key drivers to prevent 30-day readmissions. Results: 437 readmissions were identified between 9/1/19 and 8/31/20, and 182 readmissions with corresponding surveys completed by their oncologists were identified (Table). Based on survey responses, 30 (16%) of the 182 readmissions were preventable, whereas based on our review, 56 (31%) were preventable. The top three causes of the 56 preventable readmissions were: underutilized ambulatory care (43%), premature discharge (23%), and goals of care discordance (16%). For underutilized ambulatory care, the primary treatments provided during those readmissions were: procedures such as thoracentesis and paracentesis (42%), medication administration for pain or nausea (33%), and infusions or transfusions (25%). Notably, most of these patients either did not attempt to seek outpatient care (42%) or were not able to secure an ambulatory appointment (29%) prior to their readmission. Through focus group discussions, we found that the key drivers to reduce preventable 30-day readmissions at our institution are (1) timely access to outpatient pleural effusion and ascites management, (2) timely access to ambulatory management of cancer-related symptoms (e.g., pain, nausea, weakness), (3) increased systems-wide awareness and utility of avenues of urgent care, and (4) increased palliative care efforts in patients with readmissions. Conclusions: Systematic review of 30-day readmissions revealed a greater than anticipated portion of preventable readmissions. Root-cause analysis yielded key drivers to reduce 30-day readmissions at our cancer center.[Table: see text]