Incorporating of telementoring (Project ECHO) into practice: Efficacy of Point Of Service Testing-Breast Cancer (ePOST-BC).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 113-113
Author(s):  
Lauren Elizabeth Nye ◽  
Anne O'Dea ◽  
Priyanka Sharma ◽  
Eve-Lynn Nelson ◽  
Traci McCarty ◽  
...  

113 Background: An estimated 327,630 breast cancers (BC) will be diagnosed in the US in 2020, and as high as 14% (45,868) may be related to a hereditary cancer syndrome. Testing eligible patients in clinical practice is hindered by multiple barriers including time, available workforce, cost, lack of organizational pathways, provider knowledge, as well as health disparities. To address some of these barriers, our team provided a telementoring and process improvement intervention for cancer care programs primarily serving rural patients across Kansas and Western Missouri using Project ECHO. We aimed to improve the process surrounding access to genetic education and testing for patients with BC. Methods: Rural and community cancer care teams were invited by the Masonic Cancer Alliance, the outreach arm of the University of Kansas Cancer Center, to participate in ePOST-BC. Five 1-hour Project ECHO sessions (community building, didactic, and case-based learning) covered topics included: 1) essential elements of HCS and genetic testing, 2) guidelines for genetic testing in BC 3) enhanced understanding of risk, screening, and management including precision medicine in HCS, and 4) overcoming barriers to genetic testing and management in low resource settings. Provider and practice readiness was assessed using the Organizational Readiness for Implementing Change survey. A REDCap database was used for registration, surveys and data collection. Results: Ten practices (6 = metro; 4 = rural) participated in the telementoring sessions and five practices participated in the optional process improvement intervention. Provider and clinic interest and participation was high and readiness was varied. Improvements were identified in knowledge, readiness, and patient access to genetic education and testing. The level of engagement in process improvement was impacted by an identified champion (either MD and/or APP), organizational commitment, and motivator (i.e., accreditation standard, business development). Conclusions: Rural and community oncology providers are interested and willing to engage in telementoring to improve implementation of point of service genetic education and testing. This improves provider knowledge, readiness and implementation of testing. Demonstrating a change in testing completion for eligible patients is difficult in a community setting without intensive data collection. Next steps include the incorporation of technology and standardized tools into practice to address provider and care team burden.

2018 ◽  
pp. 1-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivank Garg ◽  
Noelle L. Williams ◽  
Andrew Ip ◽  
Adam P. Dicker

Digital health constitutes a merger of both software and hardware technology with health care delivery and management, and encompasses a number of domains, from wearable devices to artificial intelligence, each associated with widely disparate interaction and data collection models. In this review, we focus on the landscape of the current integration of digital health technology in cancer care by subdividing digital health technologies into the following sections: connected devices, digital patient information collection, telehealth, and digital assistants. In these sections, we give an overview of the potential clinical impact of such technologies as they pertain to key domains, including patient education, patient outcomes, quality of life, and health care value. We performed a search of PubMed ( www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed ) and www.ClinicalTrials.gov for numerous terms related to digital health technologies, including digital health, connected devices, smart devices, wearables, activity trackers, connected sensors, remote monitoring, electronic surveys, electronic patient-reported outcomes, telehealth, telemedicine, artificial intelligence, chatbot, and digital assistants. The terms health care and cancer were appended to the previously mentioned terms to filter results for cancer-specific applications. From these results, studies were included that exemplified use of the various domains of digital health technologies in oncologic care. Digital health encompasses the integration of a vast array of technologies with health care, each associated with varied methods of data collection and information flow. Integration of these technologies into clinical practice has seen applications throughout the spectrum of care, including cancer screening, on-treatment patient management, acute post-treatment follow-up, and survivorship. Implementation of these systems may serve to reduce costs and workflow inefficiencies, as well as to improve overall health care value, patient outcomes, and quality of life.


1993 ◽  
Vol 1 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
W. G. Maxymiw ◽  
Linda M. Rothney

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 227-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christian Evensen ◽  
Kathleen J. Yost ◽  
San Keller ◽  
Tamika Cowans ◽  
Elizabeth Frentzel ◽  
...  

227 Background: The objective of this work was to develop a reliable and valid survey measuring aspects of cancer care important to patients to be used in both inpatient and outpatient settings, and that allows comparisons of patient experiences across treatment centers and treatment modalities (medical oncology, radiation, surgery). Other objectives included testing various modes of data collection and developing a standardized sampling methodology based on ICD diagnosis and procedure codes. Methods: We conducted focus groups with patients who had received cancer treatment and with family members of cancer patients. We convened a panel of experts representing quality improvement, oncology, shared decision-making, patient safety, and patient advocacy to obtain feedback on the development of the survey. We interviewed stakeholder groups representing oncology associations to obtain feedback on focal provider, attribution and sampling. We then conducted a field test of the survey among six cancer centers around the country, conducted psychometric analyses, revised the survey, conducted a second field test among four community oncology practices in CA, re-analyzed the data, and finalized the survey. Results: Final survey content was determined using results of the formative research, psychometric analyses, and input from the CAHPS Consortium. The core survey includes 56 questions, 23 of which map to eight composites: Provider Communication, Enabling Patient Self-management, Team Available to Provide Information, Access to Care, Care Coordination, and Office Staff. Supplemental item sets include seven items assessing Shared Decision Making, four items measuring Keeping Patients Informed, and two additional Access to Care items. Mail-only, mail-telephone mixed-mode, and web-mail mixed-mode are recommended methods of data collection. The survey and all recruiting materials are available in English and Spanish. Conclusions: The CAHPS Cancer Care Survey is a rigorously developed, well-tested, reliable and valid survey of patient experiences with their cancer care. The survey and supporting materials are available free of charge on the CAHPS website (www.ahrq.gov/cahps).


2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. TPS4162-TPS4162
Author(s):  
Matthew B. Yurgelun ◽  
C. Sloane Furniss ◽  
Barbara Kenner ◽  
Alison Klein ◽  
Catherine C. Lafferty ◽  
...  

TPS4162 Background: 4-10% of PDAC patients harbor pathogenic germline variants in cancer susceptibility genes, including APC, ATM, BRCA1, BRCA2, CDKN2A, EPCAM, MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, PALB2, PMS2, STK11, and TP53. For families with such pathogenic variants, the greatest potential impact of germline testing is to identify relatives with the same pathogenic variant (cascade testing), thereby providing the opportunity for early detection and cancer interception of PDAC and other associated malignancies. Numerous factors limit cascade testing in real-world practice, including family dynamics, widespread geographic distribution of relatives, access to genetic services, and misconceptions about the importance of germline testing, such that the preventive benefits of cascade testing are often not fully realized. The primary aim of this study is to analyze two alternative strategies for cascade testing in families with inherited PDAC susceptibility. Methods: 1000 individuals (from approximately 200 families) with a confirmed pathogenic germline variant in any of the above genes in a 1st/2nd degree relative and a 1st/2nd degree relative with PDAC will be remotely enrolled through the study website (www.generatestudy.org) and randomized between two different methods of cascade testing (individuals with prior genetic testing will be ineligible): Arm 1 will undergo pre-test genetic education with a pre-recorded video and live interactive session with a genetic counselor via a web-based telemedicine platform (Doxy.me), followed by germline testing through Color Genomics; Arm 2 will undergo germline testing through Color Genomics without dedicated pre-test genetic education. Color Genomics will disclose results to study personnel and directly to participants in both arms. Participants in both arms will have the option of pursuing additional telephone-based genetic counseling through Color Genomics. The primary outcome will be uptake of cascade testing. Secondary outcomes will include participant self-reported genetic knowledge, cancer worry, distress, decisional preparedness, familial communication, and screening uptake, which will be measured via longitudinal surveys. Enrollment will begin February, 2019. Clinical trial information: NCT03762590.


1993 ◽  
Vol 1 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 45
Author(s):  
W. G. Maxymiw ◽  
Linda M. Rothney

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (1) ◽  
pp. 522-522
Author(s):  
Suraj Trivedi ◽  
Dennis Danforth ◽  
Ramon Sanchez ◽  
Ulrich Schmidt

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document