Oral chemotherapy education: Hitting the mark?

221 Background: ASCO’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) includes process measures on oral chemotherapy education. Whether achievement of these measures has an impact on clinical outcomes and if an intervention to improve these measures can improve outcomes is not yet known. Methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted of patients initiated on oral chemotherapy in an academic medical center site and a community oncology practice between January 2016 and October 2019. The primary aim was to compare the time to emergency department (ED) within 90 days from initiation of oral chemotherapy of patients who met the QOPI process measure through an intervention of pharmacist-driven education with a comparison group of patients who had not received formal education. A secondary aim was to assess for a difference in oral chemotherapy medication persistence. Data were also analyzed by demographics, concurrent parenteral therapy, intent of therapy, and disease group. Results: 285 patients in the education group and 284 patients in the non-education group were analyzed. The education group had a higher proportion of patients with gastrointestinal and gynecologic cancers, and a lower proportion of patients with hematologic malignancies, compared to the non-education group. The education group also had a higher proportion of patients treated at the community practice compared to the non-education group. There was no statistical difference in median time-to-ED, with 49 days (IQR 37-74) in the education group and 59 days (IQR 41-60) in the non-education group (p=0.15). Conclusions: In patients receiving oral chemotherapy, pharmacist-driven education with improvement in QOPI process measures did not result in an improvement in time to ED. One factor contributing to this result may be that only 20% of patients required ED-level care within 90 days of starting oral We continue to collect data regarding medication persistence, which may be a more sensitive outcome measure. At this point, further work is needed to determine if achievement or modification of the QOPI oral chemotherapy process measures results in a clinically significant change in outcome. [Table: see text] </jats:p

Validating a Novel Framework to Classify Inpatient Hematology Consultation Requests

Background: Consistent classification of consult requests may lead to more productive, efficient, and collegial conversations about patient care, which can facilitate improved work satisfaction and an enhanced learning environment. We propose an organizing framework of 7 specific consultation types: ideal, obligatory, procedural, S.O.S., confirmatory, inappropriate, and curbside. We aimed to obtain validity evidence for this rubric to consistently classify consultation requests in an academic setting. Methods: A random sample of 100 de-identified hematology oncology consultation requests made through the online consult portal from a single academic center were selected and independently coded as 1 of the 7 consultation types by 3 hematologists and 3 hospitalists. Perfect (same consult assignment by all coders) and partial (same consult assignment by &amp;gt;4/6 coders) concordance was calculated. Perfect and partial (&amp;gt;2/3 coders) inter-rater concordance based on consult subtypes and provider specialty was also calculated. To assess if length of consult request has an impact on the classification of consult, the length of the request was compared across concordant, partially concordant, and discordant requests. Results: Of the 100 consults, perfect concordance was 57%, and partial concordance was 92% (Figure 1). Perfect concordance was 69% amongst hematologists and 78% amongst hospitalists. In cases without perfect concordance (n=43), hematologists agreed with each other 76% of the time, while hospitalists agreed with each other 81% of the time. Of the consults that at least 4 coders classified in the same way, hospitalists were more likely than hematologists to have perfect concordance for ideal consults (89% vs. 66%, respectively; P=0.001) but less likely to have perfect concordance for S.O.S consults (56% vs. 100%, respectively; P=0.003). Hematologists were twice more likely than hospitalists to classify a consult request as S.O.S (26.7% vs. 12.3%, P&amp;lt;0.001), while a greater proportion of hospitalists classified consults as ideal (74% vs. 61%, P=0.007). There was no significant difference in the word count of requests that were perfectly concordant (68+35), partially concordant (65+51), or discordant (39+22) (P=0.18). Conclusion: Hematology oncology consult requests can be classified into a novel rubric of 7 specific subtypes. Overall, partial concordance between primary providers and consultants was high, and perfect concordance was moderate. Hematologists were more likely to classify consult requests as S.O.S (without specific questions) than primary providers. Opportunities exist to utilize the rubric to improve communication between health care providers and to improve the medical education of trainees. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare. </jats:sec

Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With New Oral Chemotherapy Prescriptions at an Academic Site and a Community Site

PURPOSE Oral chemotherapy challenges providers' abilities to safely monitor patients' symptoms, adherence, and financial toxicity. COVID-19 has increased the urgency of caring for patients remotely. Collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated efficacy for patients on intravenous chemotherapy, but limited data support their use in oral chemotherapy. We undertook a pilot project to assess the feasibility of implementing an ePRO system for patients starting oral chemotherapy at our cancer center, which includes both an academic site and a community site. METHODS Patients initiating oral chemotherapy were asked to participate. A five-question tool was built in REDCap. Concerning responses triggered outreach within one business day. The primary outcome was time to first symptom assessment. For comparison, we used a historical cohort of patients who had been prescribed oral chemotherapies by providers in the same disease groups at the cancer center. RESULTS Twenty-five of 62 (40%) patients completed ePRO assessments. Fifty historical charts were reviewed. Time to first symptom assessment was 7 days (IQR, 4-14 days) in the historical group compared with 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days) in the ePRO group. Time to clinical action was 14 days (7-35 days) in the historical group compared with 8 days (4-19 days) in the ePRO group. No statistically significant differences were detected in 30-day emergency department visit or hospitalization (12% for both groups) or 90-day emergency department visit or hospitalization rates (historical 28% and ePRO 20%). CONCLUSION An ePRO tool monitoring patient concerns about adherence, cost, and toxicities for patients with new oral chemotherapy regimens is feasible and improves time to symptom assessment. Further investigation is needed to improve patient engagement with ePROs and evaluate the long-term impacts for patients on oral chemotherapy. </jats:sec