Raising all boats in supportive oncology: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

e18205 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology and survivorship care to all cancer patients. CSOC aims to improve the quality of supportive care across Chicago-area providers. Methods: 35 CSOC participating institutions (cancer centers, support centers, hospice) formed care delivery design teams Distress, Survivorship & Palliative. Teams collaboratively developed solutions to supportive oncology gaps: patient screening tools, care delivery processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess supportive oncology quality and the CSOC impact. Six implementation centers (2 safety-net, 3 academic & 1 public) reviewed charts at baseline (2014 diagnoses) and after the initial implementation period (2015 diagnoses), compared by frequencies and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at 2 time points; improvements were seen in 7/8 metrics. Conclusions: CSOC developed supportive oncology screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation across diverse settings. Ongoing work will further evaluate the impact of CSOC efforts on patient care. [Table: see text

Raising all boats in supportive oncology: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

150 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology and survivorship care to all cancer patients. CSOC aims to improve the quality of supportive care across Chicago-area providers. Methods: 35 CSOC participating institutions (cancer centers, support centers, hospice) formed care delivery design teams - Distress, Survivorship and Palliative. Teams collaboratively developed solutions to supportive oncology gaps: patient screening tools, care delivery processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess supportive oncology quality and the CSOC impact. Six implementation centers (2 safety-net, 3 academic & 1 public) reviewed charts at baseline (2014 diagnoses) and after the initial implementation period (2015 diagnoses), compared by frequencies and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at 2 time points; improvements were seen in 7/8 metrics. (See Table). Conclusions: CSOC developed supportive oncology screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation across diverse settings. Ongoing work will further evaluate the impact of CSOC efforts on patient care. [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

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

Supportive oncology and survivorship care: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative

27 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend supportive oncology and survivorship care. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC) aims to improve quality of supportive care and survivorship in Chicago. Methods: CSOC includes 35 institutions (cancer centers, support and hospice), structured in two design teams (Distress & Survivorship and Palliative). Participants identified opportunities and gaps in supportive and survivorship care in an iterative development of: screening tools, follow-up processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess CSOC impact. Six process improvement sites (2 safety-net, 3 academic, and 1 public) reviewed patient charts at baseline and Q1 2015, compared by Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at the 2 time points; improvements were seen in 6/8 metrics. Conclusions: CSOC successfully developed supportive oncology, survivorship screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation in diverse settings. Ongoing work will continue to evaluate the impact of the CSOC on patient care.[Table: see text

Muenke syndrome (FGFR3-related craniosynostosis): expansion of the phenotype and review of the literature.

Muenke syndrome is an autosomal dominant disorder characterized by coronal suture craniosynostosis, hearing loss, developmental delay, carpal and tarsal fusions, and the presence of the Pro250Arg mutation in the FGFR3 gene. Reduced penetrance and variable expressivity contribute to the wide spectrum of clinical findings in Muenke syndrome. To better define the clinical features of this syndrome, we initiated a study of the natural history of Muenke syndrome. To date, we have conducted a standardized evaluation of nine patients with a confirmed Pro250Arg mutation in FGFR3. We reviewed audiograms from an additional 13 patients with Muenke syndrome. A majority of the patients (95%) demonstrated a mild-to-moderate, low frequency sensorineural hearing loss. This pattern of hearing loss was not previously recognized as characteristic of Muenke syndrome. We also report on feeding and swallowing difficulties in children with Muenke syndrome. Combining 312 reported cases of Muenke syndrome with data from the nine NIH patients, we found that females with the Pro250Arg mutation were significantly more likely to be reported with craniosynostosis than males (P < 0.01). Based on our findings, we propose that the clinical management should include audiometric and developmental assessment in addition to standard clinical care and appropriate genetic counseling