Search

337 Background: While many patients with advanced NSCLC have complex medical needs, emergency department (ED) visits may be preventable if clinicians predict, identify and treat symptoms early and deliver outpatient interventions. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) evaluated how cancer centers participating in a multi-phase initiative found ways to reduce preventable ED visits in patients with advanced NSCLC. Methods: After holding QI workshops, ACCC followed-up with three centers located in AL, OK, and OH. These centers aimed to improve lung cancer symptom management, patient education, and care coordination related to the CMS Measure #OP-35 diagnoses: dehydration, diarrhea, emesis, nausea, pain, or pneumonia. Results: Patient Education and Reminders: Patients who undergo systemic treatment often need to be reminded to call their medical oncology team if they develop symptoms. Examples of effective practices include: a patient education and reminder campaign to “call-first” before visiting the ED; wallet cards with phone numbers; and ongoing reminders whenever patients come for infusion or clinician visits. Intensive Care Coordination: Some patients with advanced NSCLC may be “high risk” for ED utilization (eg, co-morbidities, social determinants, etc.). Intensive care coordination delivered by nurses may be directed specifically at these patients. Interventions may include scheduled phone calls and/or telehealth visits to assess symptoms and coordinate outpatient interventions. Immune-related Adverse Events (irAEs): Patients with advanced NSCLC may receive immune checkpoint inhibitors which may cause irAEs. Colitis may lead to dehydration, diarrhea, emesis, nausea; pneumonitis may be misdiagnosed as pneumonia. One center began using a patient symptom questionnaire delivered by a nurse navigator and managed 94% of irAE symptoms in the outpatient setting. Another center surveyed ED providers to assess gaps in identifying irAE symptoms an formed a multidisciplinary irAE work group to discuss patient management and facilitate increased awareness and early recognition. These efforts led to a series of education programs for ED staff. Early Palliative Care: Since early palliative care is associated with reduced ED utilization, one center streamlined palliative care referrals in the outpatient setting by developing an electronic pathway. 91% of patients with advanced cancer enrolled after initial consult; only 24% made an ED visit. Conclusions: While many ED visits are necessary, some may be preventable, especially if members of the multidisciplinary cancer care team risk-stratify patients, proactively identify and empower patients to “call first,” treat symptoms early, and provide early palliative care. The collective insights from these cancer centers provide guidance around sustainable strategies that can potentially reduce preventable ED visits.

52 Background: When combination medical therapy incorporates both IV and oral anti-cancer agents, patients may experience compound side effects and face challenges with treatment adherence. To assess how community cancer programs may improve care coordination for patients receiving combination IV/oral systemic therapy, the Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a mixed-methods study that involved healthcare professionals (HCPs), patients and caregivers. Methods: The study followed a sequential quantitative-qualitative design to answer questions around the barriers or challenges associated with combination IV/oral systemic therapy. The quantitative phase included an online survey of HCPs (by ACCC) and a survey of patients and caregivers (by Edge Research, in collaboration with several patient advocacy organizations). In the quantitative phase, the survey results were contextualized through two HCP focus groups and individual HCP interviews. Results: Comparing and contrasting the patient survey (n = 113) and HCP survey (n = 157) results revealed insights around the following themes: Top Challenges: Patients felt their top challenges were side effects (57.5%); inconvenience going to medical appointments (37.2%); and financial burden (36.3%). HCPs perceived top challenges as cost of care to the patient (24.0%); coordination and delivery of oral agents (22.1%); and health insurance coverage (21.9%). In focus groups, HCPs explained how they were investing significant staffing resources to prevent and mitigate financial toxicity, especially for patients receiving oral therapies. Methods of Communication: 35.4% of patients “highly preferred” using email to communicate with HCPs about their combination regimens. However, HCPs felt that email was one of the least effective methods of communicating with patients. In focus groups, HCPs agreed that email is convenient when communicating about non-urgent matters. However, they were concerned that some patients may use email to communicate about urgent issues. Treatment-related AEs: When patients experienced treatment-related AEs, 30.1% said their clinicians tried a dose modification or hold. HCPs had mixed perceptions regarding the effectiveness of dose holidays. Those who felt this was highly effective included: advanced practice providers (42.9%), nurses (28.1%); oncologists (16.7%); and pharmacists (16.7%). Conclusions: This study identifies opportunities to improve care coordination for patients receiving combination IV/oral systemic anti-cancer regimens. These findings may inform the creation and dissemination of effective practices and quality improvement projects. These results may also help cancer programs tailor resources and incorporate proactive steps to address some of the key challenges patients may face.

346 Background: Biomarker testing is critical in management of aNSCLC, but timely testing for newly diagnosed patients is challenging. Clinician and patient perspectives on barriers to timely biomarker testing for patients with health disparities have been reported (Boehmer et al 2021, 2022; Martin et al 2022). To address barriers, we are developing a novel intervention to integrate biomarker testing into aNSCLC workup using the 4R Oncology Model (Trosman et al 2016, 2021). The intervention facilitates timing and sequencing of key care events enabling biomarker testing as well as incorporating clinician and patient perspectives. We report care events which form the foundation of the intervention. Methods: We conducted focus groups with 12 clinicians at 3 Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) member programs. Each clinician treats patients with NSCLC and socioeconomic and/or health disparities. Results: We identified 5 key care events facilitating biomarker testing that should be integrated into workup for patients newly diagnosed with aNSCLC (Table). For each event, we defined dependency to enable timing and sequencing of care and considerations for clinicians and patients. Conclusions: The 5 key care events, dependencies, and clinician and patient considerations represent a basis for incorporating biomarker testing into the aNSCLC workup that is both patient and clinician centric. Implementation and evaluation of the 4R Oncology model incorporating the 5 key care events are underway at 3 cancer centers.[Table: see text]

254 Background: Quality improvement (QI) in cancer care delivery requires understanding the setting, clearly defining problem(s), and identifying targeted solutions. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a national project to identify and provide guidance on key issues in care for patients with stage III/IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). We report the problems and solutions identified after a mixed-methods baseline data evaluation. Methods: The multi-phase ACCC QI initiative was guided by an expert steering committee. A request for applications was advertised to all ACCC programs, with committee members ranking each site in pre-specified categories (ex., replicability, practice champion engagement). After selection of sites, baseline data assessed programs’ patient populations, current care delivery practices, processes of care, and biomarker testing rates. A full-day workshop was conducted with multidisciplinary team members and expert faculty to review baseline data, refine problem statements, and identify site-specific QI solutions. Results: The 6 participating US sites were regionally diverse with a rural/urban mix. In baseline data, median patient ages were 65-72 years and patients treated were 50% stage III/50% stage IV. Biomarker testing practices, use of multidisciplinary tumor board, and clinical care pathways varied across sites. Five key QI areas were identified: 1.Management of immune related adverse events (irAE), 2.Biomarker testing, 3.Emergency visit management (EVM), 4.Access to clinical trials, and 5.Smoking cessation. Two sites identified problems with irAE management during immunotherapy (IT). The first identified needs for proactive symptom identification, assessment, and management. Solutions included: 1. a patient questionnaire to identify early signs of irAEs and 2. pilot testing a nurse-administered questionnaire. A second site identified that front-line clinicians may not be properly identifying possible irAEs. Solutions included: 1. form an IT toxicity working group and 2. educate front-line clinicians about irAEs. Two sites focused on biomarker testing. The first problem identified was inefficient tracking of testing results. Solutions were: 1. assign a nurse navigator to track, enter, and communicate test results and 2. proactively coordinate appointments for patients with positive test results. The second site identified delayed care when inadequate tissue was obtained. Solutions included: 1. pathology-driven reflex testing and 2. liquid biopsy order at diagnosis. Similar problems/solutions were developed for EVM, clinical trial access, and smoking cessation. Conclusions: Challenges in lung cancer care delivery can be identified and addressed using an intentional QI approach. Clearly defining the problem and identifying potential solution(s) are critical steps and should occur before implementation.

271 Background: Financial toxicity can be a devastating side effect for patients with cancer and their families, and may impact access to and delivery of care, treatment compliance, and outcomes. Financial advocates mitigate financial toxicity for patients and their families, liaise between payers/providers/pharmacies/patients, support shared decision-making and care planning processes through provision of cost and coverage information, and mitigate institutional financial toxicity. Training on effective financial navigation interventions, financial health literacy, patient engagement, oncology fundamentals, and measurement of impact is critical for advocates. Methods: The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) Financial Advocacy Boot Camp is a self-paced eLearning program consisting of 9 modules designed to build knowledge and skills of financial advocates. Users interact with education across two levels within the ACCC Learning Management System. To evaluate effectiveness of this content, pre- and post-assessments and evaluation forms for registered learners from 1/1/2020 to 12/31/20 were exported and exploratory analysis was performed on this data set of 538 participants. Results: 51% of respondents are oncology financial advocates; 7% are industry representatives; and the remaining 42% are a mix of patient navigators, nurse navigators, social workers, pharmacists, APPs, and nurses. 363 participants fully completed at least one of two levels. Most participants agreed or strongly agreed that each of the modules improved their knowledge and skills: 94% increased their ability to incorporate effective screening methods to identify patients at risk of financial toxicity, 95% are better able to review the evolving landscape of health insurance provided by public and private payers, and 97% both increased their ability to find patient assistance programs and resources for patients and can describe how to guide patients through the process of improving insurance coverage. 79% identified specific examples of what they will do differently after the training, including implementing screening and follow-up protocols, adjusting communication approaches with patients, proposing quality improvement projects, and accessing resources. Conclusions: Training, such as the Financial Advocacy Boot Camp, that builds knowledge and skills in financial screening, communication, and navigation can help cancer programs improve staffs’ ability to mitigate patient and institutional financial toxicity. Future research efforts should further define financial advocacy competencies, measure patient and institutional impact of financial navigation interventions, and assess effective practices for implementation of financial advocacy training in cancer programs.

236 Background: Older adults are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer than their younger counterparts. Because the underlying health status of older adults with cancer is generally heterogeneous, geriatric assessment (GA) is helpful for uncovering age-related vulnerabilities and guiding subsequent care planning. GA provides multidimensional, multidisciplinary evaluations of pertinent health domains. When used to evaluate an older adult with cancer prior to initiating therapy, GA and screening tools can help oncologists differentiate between fit and frail patients and tailor their treatment accordingly. Methods: The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) conducted a 4-round Delphi method to achieve expert consensus (≥75%) related to 9 domains of geriatric oncology care from a multidisciplinary perspective. A survey was conducted with 70 international clinicians working in geriatric oncology to assess perspectives on guideline-recommended GA tools in clinical practice. Facilitator led focus groups were conducted to review the results in a large group format and come to consensus. Aggregated results were shared back with the group to ensure effective capture of group discussion regarding validated clinical practice tools to include as resources in the gap assessment instrument. Results: A 32 question geriatric oncology gap assessment was developed in an online survey platform. This tool was beta tested by 30 individuals at cancer programs of various types and regions across the US. A final version was published and made accessible for multidisciplinary teams to self-assess care delivery for older adults with cancer in 9 domains: Functional Status; Cognition; Comorbidities; Decision Making: Screening, Life Expectancy, Chemo Toxicity; Pharmacy/Medication Management; Psychological Health; Nutrition; Patient Goals and Needs; and Communication and Workforce Training. Within each domain, respondents select the level (see Table) that most closely represents the practice(s) at their institution. A personalized report is generated. Sample Question. Conclusions: The ACCC geriatric oncology gap assessment offers cancer programs a validated way to evaluate care delivery for older adults with cancer. To optimize workflow, cancer programs should consider utilizing gap assessment results to develop and advance scalable quality improvement programs at their institution, taking into consideration resource level and infrastructure.[Table: see text]

186 Background: An estimated 250k Americans are currently living with MBC. While breast cancer is a high-profile disease receiving significant public funding, patients with metastatic breast cancer face unique challenges. ACCC seeks to expand the conversation to address gaps between early & metastatic disease and improve the management of MBC in the community setting. Communication challenges that cancer care teams face with MBC patients include: using a tailored and thoughtful approach, balancing hope and realism, patient engagement during conversations, incorporating principles of shared decision making, patient financial concerns, and family/caregiver involvement. Methods: An environmental scan was completed of nationally available resources. A survey on MBC Communication strategies was administered in a variety of oncology provider settings from Dec. 2018-Jan 2019. Results: Patient psychosocial needs were identified as the top challenge for working with MBC patients vs. Stage 1-3. 57% reported difficulty managing patient expectations, 55% reported patient financial concerns. While 66% of cancer programs offer a general breast cancer support group, only 27% offer a Stage 4 group. 59% of respondents rely on casual conversations with patients to assess what they want, only 34% ask patients to define what quality of life would mean for them. 33% document goals in the EMR. Over 150 free resources specific to MBC were categorized from diagnosis through hospice, resulting in a curated online library that clinicians can use with their patients. Conclusions: This patient population should be given specialized care to address their unique diagnosis and improve communications with their care team. The ACCC Resource Library gives both low and highly resourced programs access to more supportive care tailored to metastatic breast cancer.