Search

PURPOSE Routine collection of patient-generated health data (PGHD) may promote earlier recognition of symptomatic and functional decline. This trial assessed the impact of an intervention integrating remote PGHD collection with patient nudges on symptom and functional status understanding between patients with advanced cancer and their oncology team. METHODS This three-arm randomized controlled trial was conducted from November 19, 2020, to December 17, 2021, at a large tertiary oncology practice. We enrolled patients with stage IV GI and lung cancers undergoing chemotherapy. Over 6 months, patients in two intervention arms received PROStep--weekly text message--based symptom surveys and passive activity monitoring using a wearable accelerometer. PGHD were summarized in dashboards given to patients' oncology team before appointments. One intervention arm received an additional text-based active choice prompt to discuss worsening symptoms or functional status with their clinician. Control patients did not receive PROStep. The coprimary outcomes patient perceptions of oncology team symptom and functional understanding at 6 months were measured on a 1-5 Likert scale (5 = high understanding). RESULTS One hundred eight patients enrolled: 55% male, 81% White, and 77% had GI cancers. Patient-reported clinician understanding did not differ between control and intervention arms for symptoms (4.5 v 4.5; P = .87) or functional status (4.5 v 4.3; P = .31). In the intervention arms, combined patient adherence to weekly symptom reports and daily activity monitoring was 64% and 53%, respectively. Intervention patients in the PROStep versus PROStep + active choice arms reported low burden from wearing the accelerometer (mean burden [standard deviation], 2.7 [1.3] v 2.1 [1.3]; P = .15) and completing surveys (2.1 [1.2] v 1.9 [1.3]; P = .44). CONCLUSION Patients receiving PROStep reported high understanding of symptoms and functional status from their oncology team, although this did not differ from controls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PURPOSE The median overall survival (OS) for metastatic pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (mPDAC) is < 1 year. Factors that contribute to quality of life during treatment are critical to quantify. One factor—time spent obtaining clinical services—is understudied. We quantified total outpatient time among patients with mPDAC receiving palliative systemic chemotherapy. METHODS We conducted a retrospective analysis using four patient-level time measures calculated from the medical record of patients with mPDAC receiving 5-fluorouracil infusion, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan; gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel; or gemcitabine within the University of Pennsylvania Health System between January 1, 2011 and January 15, 2019. These included the total number of health care encounter days (any day with at least one visit) and total visit time. Total visit time represented the time spent receiving care (care time) plus time spent commuting and waiting for care (noncare time). We performed descriptive statistics on these outpatient time metrics and compared the number of encounter days to OS. RESULTS A total of 362 patients were identified (median age, 65 years; 52% male; 78% white; 62% received gemcitabine plus nab-paclitaxel). Median OS was 230.5 days (7.6 months), with 79% of patients deceased at the end of follow-up. On average, patients had 22 health care encounter days, accounting for 10% of their total days survived. Median visit time was 4.6 hours, of which 2.5 hours was spent commuting or waiting for care. CONCLUSION On average, patients receiving palliative chemotherapy for mPDAC spend 10% of survival time on outpatient health care. More than half of this time is spent commuting and waiting for care. These findings provide an important snapshot of the patient experience during ambulatory care, and efforts to enhance efficiency of care delivery may be warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Acute hospital encounters in patients undergoing curative-intent radiation therapy (RT) have not previously been well characterized. Understanding acute visit patterns among RT patients yields insights for risk assessments and cancer urgent care clinics that could decrease hospitalization rates and reduce health care costs. This study aims to identify patient, disease-site, and treatment characteristics associated with emergency department visits and inpatient admissions in cancer patients treated with definitive RT.Methods and Materials: A retrospective cohort study was conducted using data from a quaternary-care cancer center. The cohort was defined as all consecutive patients aged ≥ 18 years who began RT between July 1, 2011, and December 31, 2013; were without metastases; and were treated with curative intent. An acute encounter was defined as an emergency department visit or inpatient admission during RT or within 30 days after the conclusion of RT.Results: Among 1852 unique RT courses, 666 RT courses (36.0%) involved at least 1 acute encounter, and a total of 1418 acute encounters were identified. RT courses with at least 1 acute encounter corresponded to patients more likely to be on their second (odds ratio [OR], 1.96; P < .001) or third (OR, 3.82; P < .05) RT course and undergoing concurrent chemotherapy (OR, 6.38; P < .001). Among the RT courses with at least 1 acute encounter, the most common disease site was thoracic (22.8%), followed by head and/or neck (22.2%) and gastrointestinal (18.3%). Central nervous system tumors had the greatest proportion of RT courses with acute encounters (77.1%).Conclusions: In this retrospective analysis, more than one-third of curative-intent RT courses were associated with at least 1 acute hospital encounter during or shortly after irradiation. Given that acute encounters varied by patient, disease-site, and treatment characteristics, these findings can inform targeted preventive measures to reduce cancer-related acute hospital encounters and guide improved management protocols. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background High-reliability organizations (HROs) focus on continuous identification and improvement of safety issues. We sought to advance a large, multisite radiation oncology department toward high reliability through the implementation of a comprehensive safety culture (SC) program at the University of Pennsylvania Department of Radiation Oncology. Methods In 2011, with guidance from safety literature and experts in HROs, we designed an SC framework to reduce radiation errors. All state-reported medical events (SRMEs) from 2009 to 2016 were retrospectively reviewed and plotted on a control chart. Changes in SC grade were assessed using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Hospital Survey. Outcomes measured included the number of radiation treatment fractions and days between SRMEs, as well as SC grade. Results Multifaceted safety initiatives were implemented at our main academic center and across all network sites. Post intervention results demonstrate increased staff fundamental safety knowledge, enhanced peer review with an electronic system, and special cause variation of SRMEs on control chart analysis. From 2009 to 2016, the number of days and fractions between SRMEs significantly increased, from a mean of 174 to 541 days (P <.0075) and 21,678 to 113,104 fractions (P < .0028) preintervention and postintervention, respectively. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality results demonstrate a high patient SC grade over time. Conclusion Our journey toward becoming an HRO has led to the development of a robust SC through a comprehensive safety framework. Our multifaceted initiatives, focusing on culture and system changes, can be successfully implemented in a large academic radiation oncology department to yield measurable improvements in SC and outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Importance: Serious illness conversations (SICs) that elicit patients' values, goals, and care preferences reduce anxiety and depression and improve quality of life, but occur infrequently for patients with cancer. Behavioral economic implementation strategies (nudges) directed at clinicians and/or patients may increase SIC completion., Objective: To test the independent and combined effects of clinician and patient nudges on SIC completion., Design, Setting, and Participants: A 2 × 2 factorial, cluster randomized trial was conducted from September 7, 2021, to March 11, 2022, at oncology clinics across 4 hospitals and 6 community sites within a large academic health system in Pennsylvania and New Jersey among 163 medical and gynecologic oncology clinicians and 4450 patients with cancer at high risk of mortality (≥10% risk of 180-day mortality)., Interventions: Clinician clusters and patients were independently randomized to receive usual care vs nudges, resulting in 4 arms: (1) active control, operating for 2 years prior to trial start, consisting of clinician text message reminders to complete SICs for patients at high mortality risk; (2) clinician nudge only, consisting of active control plus weekly peer comparisons of clinician-level SIC completion rates; (3) patient nudge only, consisting of active control plus a preclinic electronic communication designed to prime patients for SICs; and (4) combined clinician and patient nudges., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a documented SIC in the electronic health record within 6 months of a participant's first clinic visit after randomization. Analysis was performed on an intent-to-treat basis at the patient level., Results: The study accrued 4450 patients (median age, 67 years [IQR, 59-75 years]; 2352 women [52.9%]) seen by 163 clinicians, randomized to active control (n = 1004), clinician nudge (n = 1179), patient nudge (n = 997), or combined nudges (n = 1270). Overall patient-level rates of 6-month SIC completion were 11.2% for the active control arm (112 of 1004), 11.5% for the clinician nudge arm (136 of 1179), 11.5% for the patient nudge arm (115 of 997), and 14.1% for the combined nudge arm (179 of 1270). Compared with active control, the combined nudges were associated with an increase in SIC rates (ratio of hazard ratios [rHR], 1.55 [95% CI, 1.00-2.40]; P = .049), whereas the clinician nudge (HR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.64-1.41; P = .79) and patient nudge (HR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.73-1.33]; P = .93) were not., Conclusions and Relevance: In this cluster randomized trial, nudges combining clinician peer comparisons with patient priming questionnaires were associated with a marginal increase in documented SICs compared with an active control. Combining clinician- and patient-directed nudges may help to promote SICs in routine cancer care., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04867850.

Drawing from insights from communication science and behavioral economics, the University of Pennsylvania Telehealth Research Center of Excellence (Penn TRACE) is designing and testing telehealth strategies with the potential to transform access to care, care quality, outcomes, health equity, and health-care efficiency across the cancer care continuum, with an emphasis on understanding mechanisms of action. Penn TRACE uses lung cancer care as an exemplar model for telehealth across the care continuum, from screening to treatment to survivorship. We bring together a diverse and interdisciplinary team of international experts and incorporate rapid-cycle approaches and mixed methods evaluation in all center projects. Our initiatives include a pragmatic sequential multiple assignment randomized trial to compare the effectiveness of telehealth strategies to increase shared decision-making for lung cancer screening and 2 pilot projects to test the effectiveness of telehealth to improve cancer care, identify multilevel mechanisms of action, and lay the foundation for future pragmatic trials. Penn TRACE aims to produce new fundamental knowledge and advance telehealth science in cancer care at Penn and nationally., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Incident learning programs have been recognized as cornerstones of safety and quality assurance in so-called high reliability organizations in industries such as aviation and nuclear power. High reliability organizations are distinguished by their drive to continuously identify and proactively address a broad spectrum of latent safety issues. Many radiation oncology institutions have reported on their experience in tracking and analyzing adverse events and near misses but few have incorporated the principles of high reliability into their programs. Most programs have focused on the reporting and retrospective analysis of a relatively small number of significant adverse events and near misses. To advance a large, multisite radiation oncology department toward high reliability, a comprehensive, cost-effective, electronic condition reporting program was launched to enable the identification of a broad spectrum of latent system failures, which would then be addressed through a continuous quality improvement process., Methods: A comprehensive program, including policies, work flows, and information system, was designed and implemented, with use of a low reporting threshold to focus on precursors to adverse events., Results: In a 46-month period from March 2011 through December 2014, a total of 8,504 conditions (average, 185 per month, 1 per patient treated, 3.9 per 100 fractions [individual treatments]) were reported. Some 77.9% of clinical staff members reported at least 1 condition. Ninety-eight percent of conditions were classified in the lowest two of four severity levels, providing the opportunity to address conditions before they contribute to adverse events., Conclusions: Results after approximately four years show excellent employee engagement, a sustained rate of reporting, and a focus on low-level issues leading to proactive quality improvement interventions.