Search

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]

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]

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

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]

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]

96 Background: The IOM 2013 report recommends comprehensive supportive oncology care from diagnosis through survivorship to end of life. The Coleman Foundation supported a baseline assessment of supportive oncology care using key COC, ASCO-QOPI and NQF measures. Methods: Data extracted from medical records at 6 Chicago cancer centers in 2014 (n = 843 patients), including stage I-III (n = 391) and stage IV solid tumor or refractory hematologic malignancy (n = 452). Results: Fifty-four percent of patients had discussions on understanding of illness, 24% were informed of prognosis timeframe, and 5% had a documented healthcare power of attorney. Only 6% of stage IV patients received distress screening within 2 weeks of diagnosis and 15% of Stage IV patients had referrals to palliative care. Among patients with Stage I-III cancer, 38% had a supportive oncology screening, and 2% received treatment summaries and a SCPs. Conclusions: There are still large gaps in important supportive care processes based on IOM 2013 recommendations, COC, and ASCO QOPI measures. Future steps include implementing supportive care processes that address gaps across the 6 cancer centers. [Table: see text]