The Development and Implementation of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology Programs: Teen Cancer America's Strategy

Reflecting a growing recognition that adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer have unique needs that demand novel approaches to care delivery, AYA-specific cancer programs are emerging across the United States to better serve this population. However, the limited availability of health system funding to support such efforts, in combination with the dearth of guidance that exists to guide AYA program development and implementation, has hampered the effective development and implementation of AYA oncology programs. In this article, we describe Teen Cancer America's strategy for partnering with hospitals to address this gap and improve care and outcomes for AYAs with cancer.

Guidance to Support the Implementation of Specialized Adolescent and Young Adult Cancer Care: A Qualitative Analysis of Cancer Programs

PURPOSE

The nearly 90,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer in the United States yearly have tended to occupy a no-man's land between medical and pediatric oncology, often reporting that existing models of care are misaligned with their needs and preferences. Although guidelines for optimal AYA cancer care are increasingly available, the implementation of such standards has been varied. This may be in part due to a lack of guidance for implementing specialized AYA care. In this study, we leveraged an implementation science framework to identify barriers and generate practical guidance to inform the implementation of specialized AYA cancer care.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured qualitative interviews, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research, with AYA care stakeholders (N = 32 from 14 cancer programs). Our multidisciplinary research team analyzed interview transcriptions using a template analysis approach and gleaned from interviews practical guidance for implementing specialized AYA care.

RESULTS

Participants reported barriers to implementing specialized AYA care across all five Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research domains: (1) intervention characteristics (eg, costs), (2) inner setting (eg, difficulties in collaborating between pediatric and medical oncology), (3) outer setting (eg, patient-level barriers to participating in AYA services), (4) individual characteristics (eg, attitudes about AYA oncology), and (5) process (eg, lack of metrics for program evaluation). They also shared practical guidance for addressing these barriers.

CONCLUSION

Emerging guidance on the core elements of AYA cancer care must be matched with guidance to support the implementation of specialized AYA care. This study contributes to the body of evidence available to inform future implementation efforts.

When and how to deliver oncology supportive care resources: An adolescent and young adult perspective

6569

Background: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative for Adolescents and Young Adults (CSOC AYA) is a multi-institution Chicago-based quality improvement collaborative consisting of representation from AYA-focused oncology teams at six hospitals and national patient advocacy organizations. Coping with cancer as an AYA is challenging given their complex and unique phases of life and dichotomy between pediatric and adult care. AYAs with cancer are a recognized underserved population within the cancer community and have unique supportive care needs that are often unmet. The CSOC AYA focuses on improving access to resources for supportive care. Methods: We implemented an online survey across six cancer treatment centers (5 academic, 1 community) engaging 50 AYAs. Participants were newly diagnosed (2), currently on treatment (18), or off treatment (30). Participant age range was representative of AYAs ( < 18years: 2%, 18 – 24: 36%, 25 – 34: 55%, and 35-39: 7%). Reported race was 60% Caucasian, 10% Black, 18% Latino, 8% Asian, 2% American Indian, and 2% other. Questions were asked to inform which supportive resources were desired by patients, when the resources would be most useful during the care continuum, and the preferred methods to receive information. Results: Greater than 54% percent of respondents desire social/emotional resources and peer connection at diagnosis. During treatment and after treatment, > 71% and > 56% respectively, desire guidance regarding nutrition/diet and physical activity/exercise, in addition to social/emotional support and peer connection (See table). Preferred methods to receive information were identified: 72% via email or text, 60% in person, and 45% via a patient portal. Conclusions: The CSOC AYA survey identified the type of supportive care resources AYAs need, when they are wanted, and their preferred methods for receiving them. Optimizing accessibility and availability of supportive care resources can enable AYA self-management and has the potential to improve quality of life. These survey results will serve as the basis for a patient-facing online intervention implemented throughout the care continuum with the intent to improve supportive care access for AYAs with cancer. [Table: see text]

Promoting patient health maintenance with cancer care planning at diagnosis and during treatment: baseline data of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

e24051

Background: CSOC conducts quality improvements (QI) for cancer patients that facilitate delivery of appropriate health maintenance and supportive cancer care at diagnosis and during treatment. CSOC is implementing a care planning QI starting at diagnosis using the 4R oncology model (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time), which provides patients a formal personalized care plan called Patient Care Sequence. Each Care Sequence includes health maintenance, cancer treatments and supportive care. As part of CSOC, we conducted provider surveys as a pre-intervention baseline to inform QI opportunities. Methods: Online survey of cancer providers from 8 cancer centers (4 academic, 4 community) conducted July 2018 - October 2019, prior to 4R implementation. The survey focused on current care planning practices and inclusion of guideline recommended health maintenance in care plans. Results: Survey response rate: 80% (180/225); respondents were 53% physicians, 20% advanced practice, 27% nurses. Only 59% (107/180) of respondents give patients care plans at diagnosis: 61% (65/107) verbally, 22% (24/107) written, 17% (18/107) using a printed form. Providers reported considerable gaps in including guideline-based health maintenance and promotion activities in care plans given to patients (Table). Additionally, 61% of providers reported concerns that it is challenging for their patients to manage their own health maintenance activities. Providers who are concerned about patients’ challenges in managing their own health maintenance are significantly more likely to give their patients a written or printed plan (76%, 32/42) compared to those providing care plans to patients verbally or not at all (56%, 77/138), p = .02. Conclusions: Guideline based health promotion activities are not consistently included in care plans, and care planning is not sufficiently conducted at cancer diagnosis. The CSOC 4R Oncology Model, which implements Patient Care Sequences at diagnosis, will address these gaps and examine the impact of formal care planning on improving utilization of health maintenance and promotion activities. [Table: see text]

Multi-institution quality improvement in supportive oncology: Results of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

33

Background: The Institute of Medicine and Commission on Cancer recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology care for cancer patients. The CSOC is focused on quality improvement (QI) of supportive care across Chicago cancer centers (Weldon ASCO ’17). Supportive oncology includes distress, practical, family, physical, nutrition, pain, fatigue and care concerns. To support QI, cross-institution teams developed unique, relevant tools, methods, care delivery processes, patient handouts and online training. Methods: Ten centers (5 academic, 1 VA, 1 public, 2 safety net, 1 community) implemented supportive oncology screening and care delivery quality improvements. Centers collected data for relevant Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) metrics. Analyses used simple frequencies and Fishers exact test. Results: Five of six QOPI measures were improved at statistically significant levels from 2014 to 2017, p < .00001. Improvements are more modest in 2016 & 2017 as 4 of the centers started this QI in 2017. Conclusions: The CSOC achieved significant improvements in supportive oncology screening and identifying and addressing patients’ needs and concerns. Additional work is needed to improve these measures to achieve the best quality of cancer care possible for every patient based on their needs and concerns.

[Table: see text]

Correlates of distress for cancer patients: Results from multi-institution use of holistic patient-reported screening tool

199

Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action for cancer patients. NCCN and ASCO supportive care and age-related guidelines include patient reported concerns beyond distress. This study compares PHQ4 scores to other patient reported concerns. Methods: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative aggregated “best of” screening tools to assess patient reported needs and concerns aligned with CoC, NCCN and ASCO guidance. This supportive care screening tool was implemented at 8 sites from July 2015 thru July 2018. Analysis used chi squared test. Results: Most patients, 86% (10,635/12,295), reported one plus concerns and/or above threshold scores on PHQ4, PROMIS Pain, Fatigue or Physical Function. A chi squared comparison of patients with at least mild distress on PHQ4 to patients with no distress resulted in p values < .0001 for every screening category. Conclusions: Patients with a PHQ4 distress score of mild, moderate or severe also reported statistically significant levels of practical, family, physical, nutrition and treatment concerns. These patients also scored threshold levels for PROMIS Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function. Screening only for distress without screening for other patient concerns may direct patients to services that do not address or focus on the underlying cause of the distress.

[Table: see text]

Multi-institution quality improvement in supportive oncology: Results of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

6606

Background: The Institute of Medicine and Commission on Cancer recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology care for cancer patients. The CSOC is focused on quality improvement (QI) of supportive care across Chicago cancer centers (Weldon ASCO ’17). Supportive oncology includes distress, practical, family, physical, nutrition, pain, fatigue and care concerns. To support QI, cross-institution teams developed unique, relevant tools, methods, care delivery processes, patient handouts and online training. Methods: Ten centers (5 academic, 1 VA, 1 public, 2 safety net, 1 community) implemented supportive oncology screening and care delivery quality improvements. Centers collected data for relevant Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) metrics. Analyses used simple frequencies and Fishers exact test. Results: Five of six QOPI measures were improved at statistically significant levels from 2014 to 2017, p < .00001. Improvements are more modest in 2016 & 2017 as 4 of the centers started this QI in 2017. Conclusions: The CSOC achieved significant improvements in supportive oncology screening and identifying and addressing patients’ needs and concerns. Additional work is needed to improve these measures to achieve the best quality of cancer care possible for every patient based on their needs and concerns. [Table: see text]

Correlates of distress for cancer patients: Results from multi-institution use of holistic patient-reported screening tool

11587

Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action for cancer patients. NCCN and ASCO supportive care and age-related guidelines include patient reported concerns beyond distress. This study compares PHQ4 scores to other patient reported concerns. Methods: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative aggregated “best of” screening tools to assess patient reported needs and concerns aligned with CoC, NCCN and ASCO guidance. This supportive care screening tool was implemented at 8 sites from July 2015 thru July 2018. Analysis used chi squared test. Results: Most patients, 86% (10,635/12,295), reported one plus concerns and/or above threshold scores on PHQ4, PROMIS Pain, Fatigue or Physical Function. A chi squared comparison of patients with at least mild distress on PHQ4 to patients with no distress resulted in p values < .0001 for every screening category. Conclusions: Patients with a PHQ4 distress score of mild, moderate or severe also reported statistically significant levels of practical, family, physical, nutrition and treatment concerns. These patients also scored threshold levels for PROMIS Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function. Screening only for distress without screening for other patient concerns may direct patients to services that do not address or focus on the underlying cause of the distress. [Table: see text]

Incorporating geriatric patient reported outcomes into novel screening tool of distress and supportive care concerns

37

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. The Supportive Oncology Collaborative, collaborative of 100+ clinicians funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool (CSOC-ST) adapted from ASCO Distress, NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, and other validated sub-tools (Weldon, ASCO-Q 2017). The Collaborative then revised the CSOC-ST tool to align with geriatric guidelines. Methods: Literature and guidelines review of geriatric screening, added items to CSOC-ST, and piloted at 4 sites. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test used. Results: 473 patients screened with added geriatric relevant items to CSOC-ST: self-care concerns (PROMIS Instrumental Support), living alone (ASCO Distress 2014), and memory / cognition (PROMIS item bank). Treatment/care concern items were revised to identify health care power of attorney and advance directive interest. Geriatric related items endorsed by patients, see Table. PHQ4, Anxiety and Depression, average score 2.4 (mild > 3). Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: self-care concerns, memory/cognition concerns and specific treatment/care concerns (p < .0001). Conclusions: Pilot results and comparison to geriatric guidelines identified important items to support geriatric patient reported outcomes screening. After pilot, added 3 items for falls/frailty. Eight sites implementing this CSOC-ST.[Table: see text]

Utilization of a web-based supportive oncology training curriculum for healthcare professionals (HCPs)

59

Background: A challenge in supportive oncology is training the HCP workforce. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative clinicians (faculty) from 25 institutions (academic, community & safety net) developed a unique and easily accessible supportive oncology training curriculum (Trosman JR JNCCN 2017). Methods: Using data provided by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Continuing Education team, we evaluated completion rates of survivorship and supportive oncology education courses using simple frequencies. Results: Over 4748 on-line courses were completed (pretest, course, post-test, evaluation) of 7184 accessed. Of 4748 courses, nurses completed 45%, physicians 17%, advance practice clinicians 16%, and others 22% (social workers, chaplains, MAs). Course completion improved from 65% to 69% after articles describing collaborative work were published in Cure and Oncology Nursing News, p = 0.0014. Conclusions: A variety of HCPs successfully completed supportive oncology guideline education via the NCCN’s education portal. These on-line courses are an efficient way to train HCPs in supportive oncology. Curriculum advertising improves course completion.[Table: see text]

“Getting to Know You and Your Child” screening questionnaire: Results from a Chicago pediatric collaborative

163

Background: In 2012, a congressional symposium identified the need for services to address psychosocial issues of children with cancer. In 2013, the Institute of Medicine recommended supportive oncology services be initiated at cancer diagnosis. Chicago providers of pediatric cancer are collaborating to improve care for children with cancer and their families focusing on psychosocial stressors and quality of life. Methods: The collaborative conducted a structured review of tools: Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), Social Work Assessment Tool (SWAT), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Problem List, and √IN; with input from providers on stressors throughout the care continuum. The resulting screening tool was created and piloted in English and Spanish at 7 pediatric cancer hospitals. Social workers (SW) informally reported assessment of its usefulness. Results: Parents (n = 85) completed “Getting to Know You and Your Child” screening tool which inquired about caregivers, siblings, child’s interests, school, SSI/SNAP, challenges, and cultural/religious preferences. Providers reported families found the tool useful “to think about support needs.” The tool assessed 12 psychosocial stressors; the mean per patient/family was 2.4 (range 0-11). Most frequent stressors included: lack of support from friends, family, community (29%), paying for food (26%), job flexibility (26%), paying for utilities (25%), medical costs (23%), emotional support for family (22%), school concerns (21%). All who reported temporary residence also reported difficulty paying for housing (p < 0.01). Ten SWs reported this screening tool generated new insight into family structures, identified stressors and informed resolution efforts. Provider recommended adjustments to the screening tool: simplify terms for siblings, hobbies and spiritual, add pet question. Conclusions: Pilot testing of a psychosocial screening tool for pediatric and adolescent oncology informed providers of patient/family needs in a standard manner. Six of the seven pilot sites are implementing this tool as a standard practice. Preliminary data suggests patients and providers find the screener easy to use and informative.

Incorporating geriatric patient-reported outcomes into novel screening tool of distress and supportive care concerns

198

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. The Supportive Oncology Collaborative, collaborative of 100+ clinicians funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool (CSOC-ST) adapted from ASCO Distress, NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, and other validated sub-tools (Weldon, ASCO-Q 2017). The Collaborative revised the CSOC-ST tool to align with ASCO geriatric guidelines. Methods: Literature and guidelines review of geriatric screening, added items to CSOC-ST, and piloted at 4 sites. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test used. Results: 473 patients screened with added geriatric relevant items to CSOC-ST: self-care concerns (PROMIS Instrumental Support), living alone (ASCO Distress 2014), and memory / cognition (PROMIS item bank). Treatment/care concern items were revised to identify health care power of attorney and advance directive interest. Geriatric related items endorsed by patients, see Table. PHQ4, Anxiety and Depression, average score 2.4 (mild > 3). Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: self-care concerns, memory/cognition concerns and specific treatment/care concerns (p < .0001). Conclusions: Pilot results and comparison to ASCO geriatric guidelines identified important items to support geriatric patient reported outcomes screening. After pilot, added 3 items for falls/frailty. Eight sites implementing this CSOC-ST.[Table: see text]

"Getting to know you and your child" screening questionnaire: Results from a Chicago-based collaborative

150

Background: In 2013 the Institute of Medicine recommended that supportive oncology services be initiated at time of cancer diagnosis. Providers of pediatric cancer care in the Chicago metro area, supported by The Coleman Foundation, created and pilot tested a standard psycho-social stressors screening instrument for children with cancer and their families. Methods: The collaborative conducted structured review of tools: Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), Social Work Assessment Tool (SWAT), National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Problem List, and √IN; and collected input from social workers and oncology providers on stressors throughout the care continuum. The resulting tool was piloted in English and Spanish at 7 pediatric cancer hospitals. Providers qualitatively reported assessment of its usefulness. Results: Patients/family (n = 57) completed the “getting to know you and your child” instrument which inquired about caregivers, siblings, child’s likes/hobbies, school situation, SSI/SNAP, challenges, and cultural/religious preferences. Providers reported that almost all families found the tool useful “to think about support needs”; one said it was invasive. The tool assessed 12 psychosocial stressors; the mean per patient/family was 2.49 (range 0-11). The most frequent stressors were support from friends, family, community (30%), paying for food (26%), job flexibility (26%), school concerns (25%), emotional support for family (25%), and medical costs (23%). All who reported temporary housing also reported difficulty paying for a place to live (p < 0.0001). Providers reported that the standard tool generated new insight into family structures, challenges and needs informing resolution efforts. Provider recommended adjustments: simplify terms for siblings, hobbies and spiritual, adding question about pets in the home. Conclusions: Pilot testing of a psycho-social screening tool for pediatric and adolescent oncology informed providers of patient/family needs in a standard manner. Four of the seven sites involved in the pilot are now implementing this tool as a standard practice; the remaining sites are performing analyses on how to incorporate the tool into their care processes.

Utilization of a web-based survivorship and supportive oncology training curriculum for clinicians

19

Background: A challenge in supportive oncology, integral to patient care, is training the health professional workforce. A collaborative funded by The Coleman Foundation of 30+ clinicians (faculty) from 25 institutions (academic, community & safety net) developed a unique fundamental survivorship care (Weldon JCO 2017) and supportive oncology training curriculum (Trosman JNCCN 2017). Methods: Using data from The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Continuing Education team, we analyzed utilization of survivorship and supportive oncology education courses using simple frequencies. Results: Over 3200 courses were completed (pretest, course, post-test, evaluation) and 4850 accessed. Nurses completed 56%, physicians 15%, social workers/psychologists/support staff 14%, advance practice clinicians 8%, and various roles for the rest. Courses in table. Conclusions: NCCN’s education portal achieved strong utilization from a variety of healthcare professionals in these courses. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative supports improvement in supportive care with tools, processes and training and will continue to update/offer courses through this portal.[Table: see text]

Results of implementing a novel supportive oncology screening tool for comprehensive evaluation of distress and other supportive care needs

61

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool adapted from NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, with validated sub-tools: PHQ-4 for anxiety and depression and PROMIS short forms for pain, fatigue and physical function. Novel treatment/care and other concerns were included. The screening tool was implemented at 4 cancer centers (2 academic, 1 public & 1 safety-net). End points included correlation of PHQ-4 score with other supportive oncology needs. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact test were used. Results: 2805 patients were screened. Average scores were: PHQ4 – Anxiety and Depression 1.8 (mild > 3), Pain 4.5 (mild > 4), Fatigue 8.8 (mild > 6), Physical Function 20.2 (mild < 20), see table for additional items. Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: greater pain, fatigue, , nutritional and specific treatment/care concerns, and lower physical function (p<.0001). (See Table). Conclusions: Patients with higher anxiety and depression also have many other supportive oncology concerns. Our results support the use of a comprehensive tool capturing a spectrum of each patient’s unique concerns. This may enable earlier interventions and personalized delivery of supportive care. [Table: see text]

Areas for quality improvement in pediatric supportive oncology services

146

Background: In 2013, the Institute of Medicine report recommended that supportive oncology services be initiated at time of diagnosis. Providers of pediatric cancer care in the Chicagoland community, supported by The Coleman Foundation, sought to define areas for quality improvement of supportive oncology delivery to children. Methods: Focus groups and surveys with clinicians providing pediatric cancer care and supportive services at 14 sites were used to prioritize areas needing improvement. Results: 100% (14/14) of sites participated. Of the eligible sites, 6 were pediatric cancer treatment sites and 8 cancer care community organizations. Sites demonstrated consistent agreement for 8 of the 12 areas of focus for improvement. Over 50% of sites reported areas of focus (table) as important or very important. Conclusions: Sites identified the need for quality improvement in delivery of psychosocial, survivorship and palliative care for pediatric cancer patients. Survey results demonstrate a need for collaboration and efforts to guide care delivery improvement across sites. [Table: see text]

Results of implementing a novel supportive oncology screening tool for comprehensive evaluation of distress and other supportive care needs

e21644

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool adapted from NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, with validated sub-tools: PHQ-4 for anxiety and depression and PROMIS short forms for pain, fatigue and physical function. Novel treatment/care and other concerns were included. The screening tool was implemented at 4 cancer centers (2 academic, 1 public & 1 safety-net). End points included correlation of PHQ-4 score with other supportive oncology needs. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact test were used. Results: 2805 patients were screened. Average scores were: PHQ4 – Anxiety and Depression 1.8 (mild > 3), Pain 4.5 (mild > 4), Fatigue 8.8 (mild > 6), Physical Function 20.2 (mild < 20), see table for additional items. Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: greater pain, fatigue, nutritional and specific treatment/care concerns, and lower physical function (p<.0001). Conclusions: Patients with higher anxiety and depression also have many other supportive oncology concerns. Our results support the use of a comprehensive tool capturing a spectrum of each patient’s unique concerns. This may enable earlier interventions and personalized delivery of supportive care. [Table: see text]

A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress

47

Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice-improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing patients’ screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (providers) were surveyed after use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 175 patients, 81 assessors, and 26 referral providers (social workers, chaplains, subspecialists). The majority of patients (160/175, 91%) completed the screening in <10 minutes, across all patients the screening tool averaged 4 ½ minutes. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent <5 minutes reviewing screening results. Most patients, assessors, and providers reported the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, identified unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variability in supportive oncology screening practices may decline, thus improving patient care. The tool has implications for quality improvements and national dissemination. [Table: see text]

Training a survivorship care workforce with a novel web-based training curriculum

16

Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.3 requires survivorship care plan (SCP) delivery to patients who complete treatment with curative intent. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC) is focused on improving supportive and survivorship care through tools, processes and training of health professionals. Methods: A collaborative of 30+ clinicians (faculty) from 25 institutions (academic, community and safety net), funded by The Coleman Foundation, reviewed existing supportive oncology and survivorship care training for content, availability, and cost. They developed a unique fundamental survivorship care training curriculum. Results: Although SCP dissemination training is available, it lacks 1+ attributes: <15 minutes to complete; online access; and CME/CEU credit at no cost. Utilizing existing guidelines and literature, the CSOC identified survivorship (9), palliative (11) and distress (6) modules supporting CoC requirements developed by 2+ expert faculty. Standardized modules include references and a slide presentation with links to additional training, guidelines and literature. Modules were reviewed by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) scientists, and edited. Audio was recorded by faculty. Tech assistance aligned video, graphics and narrated audio into a MP4 (movie) format. Survivorship modules include: Cancer Survivorship Defined, Patient Needs at Survivorship Visit and Coc Requirements for SCPs; Cancer Survivor Care; Survivorship Factors (Lifestyle & Behavior, Psychosocial Challenges and Late and Long Term Effects); Cancer Survivors’ Screening and Prevention Strategies; and Genetic Testing for Patients, Families and Survivors. The NCCN Education Portal published the training (https://education.nccn.org/supportive-oncology-care) available publicly (w CME/CEU) for no charge. Conclusions: Various forms of survivorship training for health professionals exist, but they lack needed attributes. The CSOC developed 9 concise survivorship training modules for NCCN’s education portal, with CME/CEU credit available at no cost to participants. CSOC will collect feedback from training enrollees to determine effectiveness and future training needs.

Supportive Oncology Collaborative: Initial impact of supportive oncology screening and care

180

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 report recommends supportive oncology care from diagnosis through survivorship, to end of life. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC) developed a city-wide plan to improve supportive oncology. Metrics derived from the Commission on Cancer (CoC), ASCO Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (ASCO-QOPI) and National Quality Forum (NQF) were used to assess the CSOC impact. Methods: Medical records of consecutive cancer patients from 6 practice improvement cancer centers in Chicago (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public) were reviewed for 2 periods: 2014 (n = 843) and Q1 of 2015 (n = 313). Descriptive statistics assessed differences in quality metrics. Results: Significant improvement was achieved in 6 of 8 core supportive oncology metrics (see table). Conclusions: Consolidated metrics are feasible to assess supportive oncology quality. Early data indicate improvement and effectiveness of the collaborative approach. [Table: see text]

A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress

72

Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress Problem List, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing each patient’s screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (referral providers) were surveyed after each use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 29 patients, 81 assessors and 26 referral providers (SW, chaplain, subspecialist). The majority of patients (22/29, 75%) completed the screening in < 10 minutes without assistance and will complete at every visit. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent < 5 minutes reviewing screening results. The majority of patients, assessors, and referral providers reported that the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, discovered unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variations in supportive oncology screening may decline, thus improving access to supportive oncology care with implications for national dissemination. [Table: see text]

Abstract A84: Do patient follow-up improvements, at hospitals caring for medically underserved patients, impact no-show rates

Background: In Chicago Black women are 62% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women. Previous data from 39 Chicago hospitals suggested the existence of significant variation in mammography quality across facilities (Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium, 2010). We developed process improvement recommendations for sites that participated in our care process assessment (Weldon CB, et al, ASCO-Abstract-6120-2012). This study was funded through a generous grant from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. Appointment reminder calls and follow-up calls to patients that do not attend their appointments are effective in increasing breast cancer screening and diagnosis completion rates of (Goel A, et al, JHCPU 2008). We provided technical assistance to implement breast imaging care process improvements and compared pre and post process improvement appointment no-show rates and follow-up call rates at 14 sites.

Procedures: Using Deming's PDCA cycle for continuous improvement, we created care process improvement recommendations for 27 Chicago institutions with the patient base averaging more than 50% medically underserved patients (22 community, 3 academic and 2 public hospitals), 17 of the sites are safety net institutions. Recommendations were based on analysis across sites, literature, and input from institution staff. We provided 14 of the sites with technical assistance to implement “rapid cycle” care process improvements (RCI sites). Sites were selected for technical assistance based on their need and their commitment to improving breast imaging care processes. Thematic and statistical analyses were performed using simple frequencies, and McNemar's test.

Summary of Results: Detailed results are shown in the table below. Technical assistance was utilized by 14 of 17 safety net sites (RCI sites) to which it was offered. 10 sites adjusted their processes to conduct appointment reminder calls to patients. 12 sites implemented processes to conduct follow up phone calls with patients who missed an appointment, with a focus on answering patient questions and to schedule a new appointment. 6 sites adjusted their processes to conduct phone calls to inform patients of abnormal breast screening results (BIRADS 0, 4, 5) in addition to sending each patient a letter (MQSA requires at least a letter). Working with the 14 sites resulted in an improvement in no-show rates from 29% to 21%.

Appointment reminder call:

baseline 48% (13/27) all sites, 21% (3/14) RCI sites

post-improvement 85% (23/27) all sites, 93% (13/14) RCI sites

pvalue = 0.0044, Chi squared: 8.100 w 1 degree of freedom

Call no-show patients :

baseline 19% (5/27) all sites, 0% (0/14) RCI sites

post-improvement 63% (17/27) all sites, 86% (12/14) RCI sites

pvalue = 0.0015, Chi squared: 10.083 w 1 degree of freedom

Call to follow up with patients who have abnormal results:

baseline 56% (15/27) all sites, 50% (7/14) RCI sites

post-improvement 78% (21/27) all sites, 93% (13/14) RCI sites

pvalue = 0.0412, Chi squared: 4.167 w 1 degree of freedom

No show rate for screening mammograms

baseline 22% all sites, 29% RCI sites :

post-improvement 18% all sites, 21% RCI sites

Conclusions: Conducting phone calls to remind patients about appointments improves no-show rates at sites that care for the medically underserved. Further analysis may show a reduction in loss-to-follow-up for sites that implement follow up phone calls to patients who miss appointments and to patients who need additional diagnostic assessment. Findings from this study have generalizable application to health facilities beyond breast imaging sites. Given persistent and growing disparities in health outcomes for vulnerable populations and the limited resource availability; these findings suggest that implementation of basic patient tracking strategies have substantial benefit to improve patient outcomes and health care quality.

Citation Format: Christine B. Weldon, Teena L. Francois, Julia R. Trosman, Betty Roggenkamp, Danielle M. Dupuy, Jimmie T. Knight, David A. Ansell, Anne Marie Murphy. Do patient follow-up improvements, at hospitals caring for medically underserved patients, impact no-show rates. [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the Sixth AACR Conference: The Science of Cancer Health Disparities; Dec 6–9, 2013; Atlanta, GA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2014;23(11 Suppl):Abstract nr A84. doi:10.1158/1538-7755.DISP13-A84

Do hospitals in a large metropolitan area utilize published breast cancer care practices and guidelines?

151

Background: Insufficient utilization of guideline and evidence based care practices contribute to the cancer crisis (IOM 2013). We examined utilization of published breast cancer (BC) care practices and guidelines at hospitals in a large metropolitan area. Methods: IRB approved web survey of all 35 hospitals in a large metro area that provide BC treatment. Using guidelines/recommendations (NCCN, NAPBC, ADA, IOM) and peer-reviewed literature (62 studies) we developed a survey on BC care practices. Results analyzed by simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test. Results: Response rate: 91% (32/35 sites). Care practices, included in the table, are utilized by < 50% of sites. Radiation oncologist preoperative consults (53%, 8/15) and offering indicated pre-operative chemo* (67%, 10/15) are associated with 15 sites that have high volume (67+/year, Chen CS 2008) BC surgeons, compared to 17 sites without high volume BC surgeons (12%, 2/17) and (24%, 4/17) respectively, p=0.02, p=0.03. Indicated supportive services, such as a dental checkups (ADA 2008), are more likely at sites with patient-centered written treatment plans (IOM 2011) (58%, 7/12) than at sites without written treatment plans (10%, 2/20), p=0.006. Conclusions: Low utilization of published care practices and guidelines is concerning and requires attention. Other metro areas and regions should be examined as our findings indicate that patients may have limited local choices of care that is up-to-date on published guidelines and practices. [Table: see text]

Do breast cancer treatment and imaging providers follow hereditary breast and ovarian cancer risk screening guidelines?

207

Background: Women with personal or family history suggestive of susceptibility to hereditary breast or ovarian cancer (HBOC) should be referred to genetic assessment (USPSTF, Ann Intern Med. 2005). Women with HBOC have a 50-85% lifetime risk of breast cancer, 30-50% of breast cancer before 50 years old,15-50% lifetime risk of ovarian cancer, and 40-60% chance of developing a second breast cancer (ASCO Cancer.net HBOC 8/2013). Our goal is to examine if this almost decade old guideline is followed in breast cancer treatment and breast cancer imaging centers in a large metropolitan area. Methods: We conducted an IRB approved web survey of all 35 breast cancer treatment sites (5 academic, 21 community, 9 public or safety net) and 58 breast imaging sites (5 academic, 27 community, 26 public or safety net) in Chicago. Results were analyzed using simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test. Results: We achieved a response rate of 91% (32/35 treatment sites, 53/58 imaging sites). We found that 56% (18/32) of treatment sites have a hereditary cancer syndrome (HBOC) screening process for newly diagnosed breast cancer patients. Most of these sites, 83% (15/18), always use genetic test results in surgical decisions, as compared to 21% (3/14) of sites that do not have an HBOC screening process, p=0.0009. Only 8% (4/53) of breast imaging sites have an HBOC screening process and provide indicated patients genetic assessment information and/or referrals. While 38% (20/53) of imaging sites conduct daily internal staff discussions of hereditary risk, only 15% of them (3/20) provide genetic assessment information to indicated patients. We found no statistically significant difference between practices of academic, community, public and safety net sites. Conclusions: Breast cancer treatment sites have partial adherence to HBOC risk screening guidelines; while breast imaging sites rarely adhere to HBOC risk assessment guidelines. Consistent HBOC risk screening protocols are needed in breast cancer treatment and breast cancer imaging sites that include providing indicated patients information about, and access to, genetic assessment.

Process improvement in breast cancer care: Is mammography volume associated with a greater need for process improvement?

45

Background: Chicago black women are 62% more likely to die from breast cancer than white women. Previous data from 39 Chicago hospitals suggested significant variation in mammography quality (Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium, 2010). We developed process improvement recommendations for sites that participated in our care process assessment (Weldon CB, et al, ASCO-Abstract-6120-2012). This study was funded through a generous grant from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. We compared improvement needs between high and low patient volume institutions. Methods: Using Deming’s PDCA cycle for continuous improvement, we created care process improvement recommendations for 25 Chicago institutions with the patient base averaging more than 50% minority patients (20 community, 3 academic and 2 public hospitals). Low mammography volume (< 5,000 mammograms/ year) was reported by 12 of the 25 sites. Recommendations are based on analysis across sites, literature, and input from institution staff. Thematic and statistical analyses were performed using simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test. Results: Improvement recommendations are classified into nine areas (see Table). We found that 100% (12/12) of low mammography volume institutions have specific improvement needs in 6 or more process improvement areas, as compared to 23% (3/13) of the high mammography volume institutions (p value > 0.0001). Conclusions: Lower volume mammography sites have a larger need for breast cancer care process improvements. [Table: see text]

Process improvement in breast cancer care: Is mammography volume associated with a greater need for process improvement?

6609

Background: Chicago Black women are 62% more likely to die from breast cancer than White women. Previous data from 39 Chicago hospitals suggested significant variation in mammography quality (Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium, 2010). We developed process improvement recommendations for sites that participated in our care process assessment (Weldon CB, et al, ASCO-Abstract-6120-2012). This study was funded through a generous grant from the Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation. We compared improvement needs between high and low patient volume institutions. Methods: Using Deming’s PDCA cycle for continuous improvement, we created care process improvement recommendations for 25 Chicago institutions with the patient base averaging more than 50% minority patients (20 community, 3 academic and 2 public hospitals). Low mammography volume (< 5000 mammograms/ year) was reported by 12 of the 25 sites. Recommendations are based on analysis across sites, literature, and input from institution staff. Thematic and statistical analyses were performed using simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test. Results: Improvement recommendations are classified into nine areas, see table. We found that 100% (12/12) of low mammography volume institutions have specific improvement needs in 6 or more process improvement areas, as compared to 23% (3/13) of the high mammography volume institutions (pvalue > 0.0001). Conclusions: Lower volume mammography sites have a larger need for breast cancer care process improvements. [Table: see text]

Why do breast cancer programs fail to refer patients to genetic counseling upon obtaining family history?

1553

Background: Women with personal or family history suggestive of susceptibility to hereditary breast or ovarian cancer should be referred to genetic counseling (US Preventive Services Task Force, Ann Intern Med. 2005). Our goal is to examine whether this guideline is followed by breast cancer programs providing screening and treatment in a large urban area; and if not followed, why. Funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure. Methods: Using the framework approach of qualitative research, we conducted interviews with 130 providers of breast cancer screening and treatment at 26 institutions in Chicago (18 community, 4 academic and 4 public hospitals). We interviewed radiologists, mammography technologists, nurses, surgeons, oncologists, internists, and patient navigators. Interviews were transcribed and coded; theme analysis was conducted; simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test were calculated. Results: While all 26 programs collect patient personal and family history, only one program has both a protocol for referral to genetic counseling and a genetic counseling service. All six interviewees from that program (6/130, 5%) report referring appropriate patients to genetic counseling, compared to none from other programs (p<0.0001). 90% of interviewees (118/130) did not perceive any role in raising patient awareness or referring them to genetic counseling. Among the 124 interviewees not referring to genetic counseling, 51 (41%) have genetic counseling available, but only 12% (6/51) of them view referring or making patients aware of genetic services as their responsibility; while none of the interviewees without genetic counseling services view this their responsibility (p<0.0001). None of the interviewees noted reimbursement of genetic counseling as a barrier to referral. Conclusions: The lack of accountability by care providers is a barrier to referring patients with personal or family history of breast or ovarian cancer to genetic counseling, even when the service is available. A comprehensive approach addressing access to genetic counseling, adoption of referral protocols and clear assignment of referral responsibilities is needed to ensure that women appropriately receive genetic assessment.

Do patient tracking, follow-up, and referral practices contribute to breast cancer disparities in a large urban area?

6120

Background: Chicago Black women are 62% more likely to die from breast (BC) cancer than White women. Previous data from 39 Chicago hospitals suggested significant quality deficits in breast cancer screening and treatment (Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium, 2010). Patient tracking, follow up and referral practices may influence quality of care for minority women (Mojica et al, Cancer Control, 2007). Our goal is to evaluate tracking, follow up and referral practices during screening, diagnosis and treatment of BC at Chicago hospitals servicing Black women. Methods: Using the framework approach of qualitative research, we conducted interviews with providers of BC screening and care from 20 Chicago institutions with Black patients averaging 50% of patient base (15 community, 3 academic and 2 public hospitals). Informants included surgeons, medical oncologists, radiologists, mammography technicians, internists, nurses, administrators, and patient navigators. Interviews were transcribed, and thematic and statistical analyses were performed (simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test). Results: Six of the 20 sites (30%) follow up with patients who did not show for a scheduled mammography visit. Five of these sites (83%, 5/6) have a low “no-show” rate (below 20%), compared to 4 sites (29%, 4/14) with low “no-show” rates among the 14 sites without follow-up (p=0.05). Seven of the 20 sites (25%) direct diagnosed patients to their next step in care by providing referrals and guidance, while other 13 sites rely on a primary care physician or leave the patient without a clear care plan. BC patients at 6 of the 7 sites directing care (83%, 5/6) are referred to a mid- or high-volume surgeon (3+ BC surgeries / month), compared to patients from only 1 of the 13 sites not directing care (p=0.001). Nine of the 20 sites track diagnosed BC patients through their care. Five of them (56%, 5/9) also track survivors, compared to none (0%, 0/11) of the 11 sites who do not track patients (p=0.008). Conclusions: Poor tracking, follow up and referral practices for breast cancer screening and treatment are associated with suboptimal care and may contribute to outcome disparities for Black women in Chicago.

Abstract A38: Are breast cancer screening patients with family cancer history directed to genetic counseling/testing?

Background: The death rate from breast cancer for black women in Chicago, Illinois is 62% higher than for white women, and is much higher than the U.S. disparity of 41% and the New York City disparity of 27% (Sinai Urban Health Institute, 2010). The Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium, funded by Susan G. Komen for the Cure Foundation, previously collected data from 43 Chicago hospitals identifying significant quality deficits in breast cancer screening and treatment (Chicago Breast Cancer Quality Consortium, 2010). Women with a BRCA1/2 mutation have a significantly higher risk for breast and ovarian cancer. While most primary care physicians are aware of BRCA testing, only a minority follow guidelines for BRCA evaluation (Bellcross CA, et al 2011). Our aim was to examine the collection of personal and family cancer history during breast cancer imaging and the resulting referrals to genetic counseling/testing that are or are not initiated from the breast imaging care process.

Methods: We conducted 113 semi-structured interviews with cross-discipline providers involved in breast cancer screening and care. These interviews were across 26 institutions including 18 community, 4 academic, and 4 public hospitals in the Chicago metro area. Participating institutions provide care to diverse populations. For 22 institution's, African American and Hispanic women comprised more than 50% and for the other 4 institution's more than 30% of the patient population. 10 of the participating community hospitals are classified as low resource. Interviewees included: radiologists, mammography technologists, nurses, surgeons, medical oncologists, internists, administrators, registrars and patient navigators. Interviews were transcribed, thematic analysis was conducted following the framework approach, and statistical analysis was performed using simple frequencies and Fisher's exact test.

Results: All (26/26) institutions ask patients at breast cancer screening about their personal and family breast cancer history. One (1/26) institution had a process to refer breast screening patients with a personal or family history to genetic counseling. 10 institutions (38%) had access to genetic counseling within their organizations. Of institutions with internal access to genetic counseling, 80% (8 of 10) referred diagnosed breast cancer patients with familial or personal history to genetic counseling/testing as compared to 31% (5/16) of institutions that do not have internal access to genetic counseling (p=0.0414).

Conclusions: While all institutions collected personal and family history of breast cancer, only one institution had a process for and regularly referred appropriate high risk breast screening patients to genetic counseling/testing. Several of the breast imaging centers are now considering methods to implement genetic counseling referrals in their screening protocols. The biggest challenge the institutions noted was not having a clear place to send the patients for genetic counseling. Further research is needed to investigate factors of access to genetic counseling and testing for low resource hospitals serving diverse populations, as well as to develop the needed services and care processes for all institutions participating in our Consortium.

Citation Information: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2011;20(10 Suppl):A38.