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

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

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

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