Aligned and Divergent Perceptions of Support Persons’ Role in Triadic Gynecologic Cancer Communication

Health care providers routinely advise cancer patients to involve support persons in oncology care to fulfill critical support roles. This qualitative descriptive study explored alignment of triadic perceptions of support person involvement in oncology treatment visits and cancer-related care from the perspectives of patients with gynecologic cancer ( n = 18), regular visit-attending support people ( n = 16), and health care providers ( n = 10), including oncologists, nurses, and medical assistants. Semi-structured interviews ( N = 44) captured perceptions of facilitation and interference of support persons' roles within and outside appointments with oncology providers. Thematic analyses revealed alignment and divergence regarding support persons' instrumental, informational, and emotional support behaviors. Perspectives aligned regarding what support functions companions provide. However, patients and support persons emphasized the significance of instrumental followed by informational and emotional support, whereas oncology providers highlighted informational, followed by emotional and instrumental support. Discussion provides insight into each role’s perspective in the triad.

Mainstreaming Genetic Testing for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer by Oncology Providers: A Survey of Current Practice

PURPOSE With limitations in early detection and poor treatment response, ovarian cancer is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Up to 25% of epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) is related to a hereditary predisposition. Current National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend that all individuals diagnosed with EOC be offered germline genetic testing. Although this would ideally be performed by genetics professionals, a shortage of genetic counselors can affect timely access to these services. This study sought to investigate the current genetic testing practices of oncology providers to determine the feasibility of oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC. METHODS A survey was distributed to members of the Society of Gynecologic Oncologists with questions regarding timing, frequency, and type of cancer genetic testing, referrals to genetics professionals, confidence with aspects of genetic testing, and any barriers to these processes. RESULTS We received 170 evaluable responses. Eighty-five percent of providers always ordered genetic testing for patients with EOC. Most providers ordered germline multigene panel testing (95.8%), generally at diagnosis (64.5%). Provider confidence with the genetic testing process was generally high and significantly differed by providers' testing practices, namely, respondents who reported always ordering genetic testing tended to be more confident in ordering testing ( P = .008), interpreting results ( P = .005), and counseling a patient ( P = .002). Patient disinterest and concerns for insurance coverage were commonly cited as barriers to testing and referrals. CONCLUSION The findings from this study suggest that oncologist-led genetic testing for patients with EOC, with referrals to genetics professionals when appropriate, has the potential to be a viable alternative service delivery model to increase access to genetic testing for patients diagnosed with EOC.

QOLP-06. THE CHALLENGE OF FACING A NEW MALIGNANT GLIOMA DIAGNOSIS: PATIENT EXPERIENCES LEARNING ABOUT THEIR ILLNESS AND COMMUNICATING WITH THEIR PROVIDERS IN THE NEURO-ONCOLOGY CLINIC

BACKGROUND Patients with newly diagnosed malignant gliomas (MG) face the sudden and unexpected news that they have a terminal neurological illness. However, little is known about these patients’ experiences learning about their illness and communicating with their oncology providers. METHODS We conducted semi-structured interviews with patients with MG who had recently completed chemoradiation, to explore patient-clinician communication and evaluate how patients process information about their diagnosis. We excluded patients with marked cognitive dysfunction, with eligible patients required to have a Mini-Mental Status Exam score of 24/30 or greater. We terminated enrollment once we reached thematic saturation, after a total of 9 patient interviews. We thematically analyzed qualitative data to describe patterns common to the patients’ experiences. RESULTS Most patients were male (6/9, 66.7%), with median age of 55 years (range 26-72) and had a diagnosis of glioblastoma (6/9, 66.7%). The majority of patients described a positive experience communicating with their providers, noting that information was delivered clearly, and visits were not rushed. Despite this, patients found it difficult to absorb and process the large volume of new information, particularly in the setting of their shock and dismay about the diagnosis and their ongoing neurological deficits. Emergent themes included concerns about the impact of the disease on their loved ones, struggles in coping with uncertainty, and worries about preserving their quality of life and functioning. Additionally, patients described their efforts to balance their knowledge about their poor prognosis with their desire to maintain hope, with many patients expressing a goal to “beat the odds” or exceed expectations with respect to their survival. CONCLUSION Although patients with newly diagnosed MG describe effective communication with their providers, they face many challenges coping with their terminal diagnosis. Supportive interventions aimed at this population are needed.

QOLP-28. COMPARING KNOWLEDGE OF AND BELIEFS ABOUT PALLIATIVE CARE AMONG NEURO-ONCOLOGY PATIENTS, CAREGIVERS, PROVIDERS AND A NATIONALLY-REPRESENTATIVE U.S. SAMPLE

INTRODUCTION There is increasing recognition that palliative care (PC) can benefit patients with advanced cancers. However, early referral to PC is not yet a reality for patients diagnosed with a primary brain tumor. We hypothesize that lack of knowledge and/or misperceptions regarding PC by patients, caregivers, or their providers remain barriers. METHODS This is an IRB-exempt, one-time QR-accessible REDcap questionnaire administered to patients, caregivers, and providers at the Preston Robert Tisch Brain Tumor Center between September 2020 and May 2021. We administered 9 questions regarding knowledge and beliefs about PC from the Health Information National Trends Survey 5, Cycle 2: results of this nationally representative U.S. sample are publicly available and used for comparison. RESULTS We had 141 survey respondents: 25 providers, 59 patients, and 57 caregivers. The median patient and caregiver ages were 49 (21-74) and 50 years (24-73), respectively. Caregivers were more likely female (55.2 %) and identified as a spouse or domestic partner (58.2%). Providers, were equally distributed by years of experience. Compared to patients and caregivers, providers reported more baseline knowledge of PC (p< 0.0001, p< 0.0001) and better understood the role of PC in pain/symptom management (p=0.0038, p=0.0087) and social/emotional support (p=0.0044, p=0.0279). Interestingly, most providers (76.0%) disagreed with the statement “the goal of palliative care is to give patients more time at the end of life.” Compared to a general U.S. sample (n=1,162) our patients (n=39) were better informed in only 2 of 9 questions. Whereas, caregivers (n=48) were better informed in 6 of 9 questions. CONCLUSION Neuro-oncology providers were knowledgeable, but a minor gap in understanding the goal of PC was identified. Caregivers were overall more knowledgeable than patients. However, Neuro-oncology patients, had similar knowledge and beliefs compared to a nationally representative sample. PC interventions should prioritize filling knowledge gaps for Neuro-oncology patients.

Assessment of Oncology Provider Knowledge and Cardiovascular Screening Practices: A Call for Heightened Screening

Cardiac risk factors are known to compound the development of cardiotoxicities (CTx) in patients exposed to anthracycline (ANT) chemotherapy agents. National oncology and cardiology organizations have published recommendations for cardiovascular risk stratification and screening cancer patients following exposure to ANTs. The frequency with which oncology providers are integrating these principles into practice is unknown. This knowledge-based quality improvement (QI) project was designed to heighten oncology provider competencies such that screening frequency of cancer patients for CTx in the post-ANT setting aligns more closely with national guidelines for care. A web-based educational intervention, cardiac screening tool, and evidence-based literature were shared with 20 oncology providers over the course of 5 months. Retrospective chart reviews and pre- and post-project surveys were performed to assess competencies and practice trends. Qualitative and quantitative data were analyzed to illustrate whether the interventions improved knowledge and changed practice. Findings revealed an increase in the number of provider-perceived percentage of high cardiac risk patients and the number of patients screened, knowledge did not improve, and the frequency by which oncology providers ordered echocardiograms increased minimally. Factors such as organizational system changes, time constraints, and change fatigue limited effective and consistent implementation of the project interventions. The trajectory of cancer survivorship is affected by cardiovascular disease. Cardiac screening of cancer patients is a critical component of cancer care that has the potential to positively impact economic and health outcomes of this susceptible population.

Cancer Provider and Survivor Experiences With Telehealth During the COVID-19 Pandemic

PURPOSE The COVID-19 pandemic led to rapid shifts in cancer survivorship care, including the widespread use of telehealth. Given the swift transition and limited data on preferences and experiences around telehealth, we surveyed oncology providers and post-treatment survivors to better understand experiences with the transition to telehealth. METHODS We distributed provider (MD, PA or NP, nurse, navigator, and social worker) and survivor surveys through the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer in mid-October 2020. Survivor surveys were also disseminated through patient advocacy organizations. We included questions on demographics, experiences with telehealth, and preferences for future telehealth utilization. RESULTS Among N = 607 providers and N = 539 cancer survivors, there was overwhelmingly more support from providers than from survivors for delivery of various types of survivorship care via telehealth and greater comfort with telehealth technologies. The only types of appointments deemed appropriate for survivorship care by both > 50% of providers and survivors were discussion of laboratory results or imaging, assessment and/or management of cancer treatment symptoms, nutrition counseling, and patient navigation support. Only a quarter of survivors reported increased access to health care services (25.5%), and 32.0% reported that they would use telehealth again. CONCLUSION Although there have been drastic changes in technological capabilities and billing reimbursement structures for telehealth, there are still concerns around delivery of a broad range of survivorship care services via telehealth, particularly from the patient perspective. Still, offering telehealth services, where endorsed by providers and if available and acceptable to cancer survivors, may provide more efficient and accessible care following the COVID-19 pandemic.

Feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of a cancer survivorship care delivery intervention.

19 Background: A large and rapidly increasing number of US cancer survivors who have completed active treatment continue to seek oncology care. Low-risk survivors who continue to seek oncology care incur greater costs but experience worse care quality and outcomes than those who seek primary care. In this study, we assessed the feasibility and preliminary effectiveness of START (Supporting Transitions AfteR Treatment), a theory-driven, stakeholder-engaged intervention intended to improve the transition of low-risk survivors to primary care. Methods: To pilot START, beginning in August 2020, we engaged oncology providers (n = 5) and staff (n = 4) at a small community affiliate of our academic comprehensive cancer center. We worked with a nurse navigator, office manager, and physician champion to refine START’s content and delivery to accommodate the needs of a busy community cancer center. We queried electronic health records (EHRs) to assess the feasibility of identifying low-risk survivors and measuring key outcomes (i.e., receipt of recommended health maintenance services). In a formal meeting, we introduced providers to START and helped them to identify survivors whom they agreed should be transitioned to primary care. Front desk staff flagged these survivors to remind providers to transition them in upcoming appointments. Beginning in July 2021, we will conduct in-depth, semi-structured interviews with oncology providers and staff and survivors regarding their perspectives on START’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results: We successfully identified survivors using EHRs and engaged the nurse navigator and providers in identifying the subset of survivors whom they deemed eligible for transitioning to primary care. Preliminary results indicate that START helped providers to transition eligible survivors to primary care. We have successfully engaged cancer center data managers in measuring relevant outcomes using EHRs. Informal provider and staff feedback suggests that START is an acceptable, appropriate, and feasible approach to transitioning survivors. Conclusions: At the conference, we will report on oncology provider and staff and survivor perceptions of START’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility for improving survivorship care delivery and preliminary findings regarding START’s effectiveness in increasing survivors’ receipt of recommended health maintenance services. Findings will be used to refine START and form the basis of a clinical trial to evaluate its effectiveness in improving survivorship outcomes.

Veterans Affairs hematology/oncology clinic video telehealth experience.

281 Background: Many of the 40,000 veterans annually diagnosed with cancer have limited access to Hematology/Oncology care. An existing method to improve access in the Veterans Affairs (VA) system is the e-consultation, which allows text-based consultation by specialty services. However, many patients require more in-depth care than is feasible by e-consult. Amidst the COVID-19 pandemic, the James A. Haley VA (JAHVA) Hematology/Oncology department implemented VA video connect (VVC) telehealth visits to allow providers to connect with patients in their homes. Our aim was to assess the implementation of this novel telehealth service and assess provider perceptions via questionnaires. Methods: We reviewed charts of patients seen via VVC by the JAHVA Hematology/Oncology department. We gathered data including patient demographics, zip code, primary visit diagnosis, and date of visit. We adapted a previously validated telehealth usability questionnaire by Parmanto et al. Providers were surveyed about perceptions of VVCs prior to implementation and 1 year later. Responses were assessed via 5-point Likert scale. Results: From May 2020 to April 2021, 1290 VVCs were conducted. Median VVCs per month was 106 (range 26 to 161), with peak in June 2020. 71% of patients were ³65 years, 24% were 45-64 years, and 5% were <45 years. 77% of patients were white, 16% African American, 3% other, and 4% declined to answer or were of unknown race. 87% of patients were male. 12.5% of visits were for new consults. 41% of visits were for primary neoplasm-related diagnoses, 27% for hematologic diagnoses, and 32% for other. The mean residential distance from our clinic was 37.2 miles (range 0-212.7 miles). Sixteen Hematology/Oncology providers (faculty, fellows, advanced practice providers) completed the initial questionnaire, and 12 completed the follow-up questionnaire. See table for selected results. Conclusions: VVCs are a feasible method to provide remote access to care for patients. Utilization peaked in summer 2020, at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic. Providers were overall satisfied with video visits, though preference for in-person visits increased with time. Provider concern regarding personal and patient exposure to COVID-19 may have impacted perceptions regarding VVCs. Utilizing the PDSA cycle, future steps include identifying specific patient diagnoses and identifying reasons for VVC failure and using this data to optimize the experience for pati ent and providers.[Table: see text]

Interdisciplinary clinician perspectives on an embedded palliative oncology model in pediatric cancer care.

9 Background: Integration of palliative care into cancer care is recognized as best practice by international oncology and pediatrics organizations. However, optimal strategies for integration of pediatric palliative care (PPC) within cancer care remain understudied. While the majority of PPC provision for cancer patients occurs through subspeciality consultation, growing evidence suggests that models embedding PPC within cancer care have the potential to improve quality of care. Embedded models rely on partnerships with multidisciplinary clinicians, whose perspectives regarding this model are not well known. Methods: We conducted 25 focus groups with 175 clinicians in an academic pediatric cancer center, with groups stratified by discipline (physicians, advance practice providers (APPs), nurses, psychosocial providers) and by care team (hematologic malignancy, bone marrow transplant, solid tumor, brain tumor). Focus groups were led by trained research facilitators and audio-recorded for subsequent targeted content analysis to identify clinician perspectives regarding embedded PPC models. Results: Across 4 physician, 5 APP, 12 nurse, and 4 psychosocial focus groups, 25 physicians, 30 APPs, 71 nurses, and 49 psychosocial providers participated, respectively. When asked to describe features of an “ideal” PPC model, physicians, APPs, and nurses predominantly discussed care delivery and identified early integration of PPC into cancer care as a core feature of an ideal model. Physicians, nurses, and psychosocial providers also emphasized the importance of having a formalized, structured care model. The need for collaboration was the dominant theme for psychosocial providers. Clinicians in all disciplines identified potential benefits from an embedded model, including access to PPC across care settings, normalization of PPC integration, and emphasis on collaboration, teamwork, communication, and earlier PPC involvement. Physicians, APPs, and nurses anticipated similar challenges with an embedded model, including possible reticence of oncology providers and inadequate PPC staffing. Nurses, APPs, and psychosocial providers also voiced concern about potential lack of clarity in delegation of roles and responsibilities between PPC and oncology providers. Conclusions: Pediatric oncology multidisciplinary providers recognize the potential value of an embedded model for integration of PPC in the care of children with cancer. Though providers at times identified similar themes with respect to ideal PPC provision and the benefits and challenges to an embedded model, some identified priorities varied by discipline. These findings highlight the importance of integrating varied interdisciplinary perspectives when developing an embedded care model to align with priorities of diverse pediatric cancer stakeholders.