M037 SAFETY AND TOLERABILITY OF OMAZILUMAB IN A 4-YEAR-OLD ONCOLOGY PATIENT

Abstract INTRODUCTION The Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has uprooted healthcare systems worldwide, disrupting care and increasing dependence on alternative forms of health care delivery. It is yet to be determined how the pandemic affected neuro-oncology patient outcomes, given that the majority of even “elective” neurosurgical oncology procedures are time-sensitive. This study quantifies changes in neuro-oncological care during the height of the pandemic in New York City and investigates patient outcomes in 2020 compared to a historical control. METHODS We performed a retrospective review of patients with brain tumor diagnoses (primary or secondary) who were seen at the Weill Cornell Brain and Spine Center between March 13, 2020 and May 1, 2020. A control cohort from the corresponding time period in 2019 was also reviewed. Alterations in care, including shift from in-person to telehealth, delays in evaluation and intervention, and treatment modifications were evaluated. These variables were analyzed with respect to brain tumor control and mortality. RESULTS 114 patients from 2020 and 171 patients from 2019 were included, with no significant difference in baseline demographics between the groups. There was no significant difference in outcomes between the cohorts, despite significantly more treatment delays (p= 0.0154) and use of telehealth (p< 0.0001) in 2020. For patients treated during the pandemic in 2020, patients who experienced delays in care did not suffer from worse outcomes compared to those without delays. Patients who utilized telehealth visits had significantly more stable tumor control (P = 0.0027), consistent with appropriate use of in-person visits for patients with progression. CONCLUSION Our study showed that use of telehealth and selective alterations in neuro-oncological care during the COVID-19 pandemic did not lead to adverse patient outcomes. This suggests that adaptive physician-led changes during the pandemic were successful and effective. Further studies are needed to evaluate impact on long-term survival.

Download Full-text

What matters to patients? A mixed method study of the importance and consideration of oncology patient demands

BMC Health Services Research ◽

10.1186/s12913-021-06247-0 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mathias WAELLI ◽

Etienne Minvielle ◽

Maria Ximena Acero ◽

Khouloud Ba ◽

Benoit Lalloué

Keyword(s):

Cancer Patients ◽

Mixed Method ◽

New Technologies ◽

Care Pathway ◽

Scale Up ◽

Healthcare Delivery ◽

Delivery Systems ◽

Breast Cancer Patients ◽

Structured Interviews ◽

Oncology Patient

Abstract Background A patient-centred approach is increasingly the mandate for healthcare delivery, especially with the growing emergence of chronic conditions. A relevant but often overlooked obstacle to delivering person-centred care is the identification and consideration of all demands based on individual experience, not only disease-based requirements. Mindful of this approach, there is a need to explore how patient demands are expressed and considered in healthcare delivery systems. This study aims to: (i) understand how different types of demands expressed by patients are taken into account in the current delivery systems operated by Health Care Organisations (HCOs); (ii) explore the often overlooked content of specific non-clinical demands (i.e. demands related to interactions between disease treatments and everyday life). Method We adopted a mixed method in two cancer centres, representing exemplary cases of organisational transformation: (i) circulation of a questionnaire to assess the importance that breast cancer patients attach to every clinical (C) and non-clinical (NC) demand identified in an exploratory inquiry, and the extent to which each demand has been taken into account based on individual experiences; (ii) a qualitative analysis based on semi-structured interviews exploring the content of specific NC demands. Results Further to the way in which the questionnaires were answered (573 answers/680 questionnaires printed) and the semi-structured interviews (36) with cancer patients, results show that NC demands are deemed by patients to be almost as important as C demands (C = 6.53/7 VS. NC = 6.13), but are perceived to be considered to a lesser extent in terms of pathway management (NC = 4.02 VS C = 5.65), with a significant variation depending on the type of non-clinical demands expressed. Five types of NC demands can be identified: demands relating to daily life, alternative medicine, structure of the treatment pathway, administrative and logistic assistance and demands relating to new technologies. Conclusions This study shows that HCOs should be able to consider non-clinical demands in addition to those referring to clinical needs. These demands require revision of the healthcare professionals’ mandate and transition from a supply-orientated system towards a demand-driven approach throughout the care pathway. Other sectors have developed hospitality management, mass customisation and personalisation to scale up approaches that could serve as inspiring examples.

Download Full-text

Incidence of Mucosal Barrier Injury Bloodstream Infections Reported to the National Healthcare Safety Network

Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology ◽

10.1017/ice.2020.871 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 41 (S1) ◽

pp. s293-s294

Author(s):

Prachi Patel ◽

Margaret A. Dudeck ◽

Shelley Magill ◽

Nora Chea ◽

Nicola Thompson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Infection Type ◽

National Level ◽

Bloodstream Infections ◽

Mucosal Barrier ◽

Risk Models ◽

Oncology Patient ◽

Model Calculations ◽

Specific Patient ◽

Mucosal Barrier Injury ◽

The Impact

Background: The NHSN collects data on mucosal barrier injury, laboratory-confirmed, bloodstream infections (MBI-LCBIs) as part of bloodstream infection (BSI) surveillance. Specialty care areas (SCAs), which include oncology patient care locations, tend to report the most MBI-LCBI events compared to other location types. During the update of the NSHN aggregate data and risk models in 2015, MBI-LCBI events were excluded from central-line–associated BSI (CLABSI) model calculations; separate models were generated for MBI-LCBIs, resulting in MBI-specific standardized infection ratios (SIRs). This is the first analysis to describe risk-adjusted incidence of MBI-LCBIs at the national level. Methods: Data were analyzed for MBI-LCBIs attributed to oncology locations conducting BSI surveillance from January 2015 through December 2018. We generated annual national MBI-LCBI SIRs using risk models developed from 2015 data and compared the annual SIRs to the baseline (2015) using a mid-P exact test. To account for the impact of an expansion in the MBI-LCBI organism list in 2017 from 489 organisms (32 genera) to 1,003 organisms (89 genera), we removed the MBI-LCBI events that met the newly added MBI organisms and generated additional MBI SIRs for 2017 and 2018. Results: The annual SIRs remained above 1 since 2015, indicating a greater number of MBI-LCBIs identified than were predicted based on the 2015 national data (Fig. 1). Each year’s SIR was significantly different than the national baseline, and the highest SIR was observed in 2017 (SIR, 1.377). In 2017, 12% of MBI events were attributed to an organism that was added to the MBI organism list, and in 2018 it was 10%. After removal of MBIs attributed to the expanded organisms, the 2017 and 2018 SIRs remained higher than those of previous years (1.241 and 1.232, respectively). Conclusions: The distinction of MBI-LCBIs from all other CLABSIs provides an opportunity to assess the burden of this infection type within specific patient populations. Since 2015, the increase of these events in the oncology population highlights the need for greater attention on prevention strategies pertinent to MBI-LCBI in this vulnerable population.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Download Full-text