351 Background: One key challenge of practice transformation activities, such as remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), is identification of patients starting treatment. In real-world settings, reliance on referrals is likely to miss patients. We describe the difficulties encountered in patient identification and the subsequent changes implemented in protocol to remediate this. Methods: We conducted two PDSA cycles focused on identification and engagement of patients for RSM at the Mitchel Cancer Institute (MCI). Target patient capture was > 75%. Modifications to the patient identification process were documented. Schedules of physicians participating in the RSM program were reviewed from 6/2021 – 5/2022 to identify eligible patients. Patients were considered eligible if they were starting chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. Patients seeking a second opinion were excluded. Patient demographics, cancer type, cancer stage, and PROs were abstracted from electronic health records and the PRO platform (Carevive). Initial clinic roll-out was conducted in gynecologic oncology, with expansion to breast and thoracic oncology in 10/2021 and 3/2022, respectively. The proportion of eligible patients approached per month was reported.Results: In the first PDSA cycle, the eligibility criteria was defined. Although clinical trials included advanced disease, non-clinical staff screening expressed concern about determining advanced vs. early-stage disease. Thus, inclusion criteria was broadened to include all patients starting treatments. From 6/2021 –8/2021, navigators identified patients by screening patients who presented for chemo-education visits. The navigation team approached 23 patients during this period. However, this process didn’t identify all eligible patients as not all patients beginning treatment received chemo-education visits. In PDSA Cycle 2, the process for new patient contact from initial call for appointment through treatment was reviewed. The implementation team screened all patients in a physician’s schedule a week prior to the office visit as well as on the day of visit. This updated process identified all eligible patients starting either intravenous or oral chemotherapy. The recruitment process was modified to screen the physician schedules rather than chemo educator visits. From 9/2022-5/22, the proportion of eligible patients identified and approached remained high at 100%. This methodological screening process helped the navigation team identify all eligible patients in an efficient manner and they reported comfort in expanding to additional disease teams. Conclusions: Systematic screening of physician schedules can be successfully leveraged for patient identification and reduce time spent manually screening for eligible patients by non-clinical navigators. Clinical trial information: NCT04809740.
"QIM21-084: Perceived Needs and Patient Satisfaction of Psychosocial Distress Screening and Management in Inpatient Hematology Oncology Specialty Care" published on 17 Mar 2021 by National Comprehensive Cancer Network.
98 Background: Patients with cancer are at risk for severe COVID-19 and may be vulnerable to health care delays. Delays or interruptions in care may lead to adverse cancer outcomes. Little is known about the relationship between fear of COVID-19 and disruptions in cancer care delivery. Methods: This longitudinal survey was distributed to individuals with cancer who received services July 2019-April 2020 from Patient Advocate Foundation, a non-profit organization that provides case management and financial aid to patients with chronic illness. Data was collected twice - early pandemic (5/20/20-7/11/20) and later pandemic (12/3/20-12/23/20). Fear of COVID-19 was assessed with the Fear of COVID-19 Scale and dichotomized as more (≥22) vs less (< 22) fearful. Respondents reported delays in care or treatment interruptions due to the pandemic and reasons for delays or interruptions. Respondents rated concern about potential long-term health issues due to delays on a 5-point Likert-like scale. We estimated predicted percentages and 95% confidence intervals (CI) using logistic regression models to assess the association of fear of COVID-19 (more vs less fearful) with delay in care or treatment interruption (any vs none) at each time point. We adjusted models for age, sex, race/ethnicity, region, annual household income, marital status, employment status, household size, Area Deprivation Index category, Rural-Urban Commuting Code category, county-level COVID-cases per 100,000, cancer type and number of comorbidities. Results: Amongst the 1,199 early pandemic survey respondents, the majority were female (72%), had household income < $48,000 (73%), and had ≥1 comorbidity (60%). 448 of the early pandemic survey respondents also completed the later survey. 464 (39%) and 166 (37%) respondents were categorized as more fearful at the early and later time points respectively. 567 (47%) and 191 (43%) reported delays or interruptions at the early and later time points respectively. The most common reported reasons for delays or interruptions were hospital/provider restrictions (early: 27%, later: 19%) and patient choice (early: 13%, later: 15%). Among respondents with delays or interruptions at each time point, > 70% were at least moderately concerned about potential long-term health issues due to delays. In adjusted models, more fearful respondents had higher predicted percentages of delayed care or treatment interruptions compared to less fearful respondents early (more fearful: 56%, 95% CI 39%-72%; less fearful: 44%; 95% CI 28%-61%) and later (more fearful: 55%, 95% CI 35%-73%; less fearful: 38%; 95% CI 22%-57%) in the pandemic. Conclusions: Fear of COVID-19 is common among patients with cancer and is linked with delays in care and treatment interruptions. System-wide strategies are needed to address fear of COVID-19 and to ensure equitable, timely, and safe access to cancer care throughout the pandemic.
Introduction Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) allows patients to electronically self-report symptoms to their healthcare team for individual management. Clinical trials have demonstrated overarching benefits; however, little is known regarding patient-perceived benefits and limitations of RSM programs used during patient care. Methods This prospective qualitative study from December 2021 to May 2023 included patients with cancer participating in standard-of-care RSM at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) in Birmingham, AL, and the Univeristy of South Alabama (USA) Health Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) in Mobile, AL. Semi-structured interviews focused on patient experiences with and perceptions surrounding RSM participation. Interviews occurred over the phone, via digital videoconference, or in person, at the convenience of the patient. Grounded theory was used to conduct content coding and identify recurring themes and exemplary quotes using NVivo. Results Forty patients (20 UAB, 20 MCI) were interviewed. Participants were predominately female (87.5%), aged 41-65 (50%), and married (57.5%). Data is consistent with local demographics, comprising mainly White (72.5%) and 27.5% Black individuals. Three main themes emerged regarding perceived benefits of RSM: (1) Facilitation of Proactive Management, identifying the patient’s needs and intervening earlier to alleviate symptom burden; (2) Promotion of Symptom Self-Management, providing patients autonomy in their cancer care; and (3) Improvement in Patient-Healthcare Provider Relationships, fostering genuine connections based on healthcare team’s responses. However, participants also noted Perceived Limitations of RSM; particularly when support of symptom management was unnecessary, ineffective, or felt impersonal. Conclusion This study focused on patient experiences when utilizing a RSM program while undergoing treatment for cancer and found benefits to its implementation that extended beyond symptom management. At the same time, patients noted drawbacks experienced during RSM, which can help with future tailoring of RSM programs. Patient perceptions should be regularly assessed and highlighted for successful and sustained implementation.
Distress is defined in the NCCN Guidelines for Distress Management as a multifactorial, unpleasant experience of a psychologic (ie, cognitive, behavioral, emotional), social, spiritual, and/or physical nature that may interfere with the ability to cope effectively with cancer, its physical symptoms, and its treatment. Early evaluation and screening for distress leads to early and timely management of psychologic distress, which in turn improves medical management. The panel for the Distress Management Guidelines recently added a new principles section including guidance on implementation of standards of psychosocial care for patients with cancer.
272 Background: Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers. Methods: This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman’s Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (Phase I) and workflow (Phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semi-structured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation. Results: Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real-time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.
345 Background: Use of electronic patient-reported outcome data allows patients to report symptoms in real time. This analysis aims to better understand the trajectory for symptoms reported via Remote Symptom Monitoring (RSM) by patients receiving gastrointestinal (GI) cancer treatment. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients initiating GI cancer treatment (chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and immunotherapy) between August 2022 and April 2023 at USA Health Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI). Patients were eligible if they were starting a new treatment or had started treatment in the past 30 days. Patients received a weekly symptom survey over the course of 24 weeks through text message or e-mail. Patients were monitored for a total of 24 weeks regardless of their enrollment date. Patients reported symptoms as mild, moderate, severe, or very severe. All moderate and severe alerts were sent to the clinical nurse via the electronic medical record (EMR) to be acknowledged. After enrollment, health information including age, race, sex, zip code, ethnicity, cancer type, and cancer stage were extracted from the EMR. Descriptive statistics were calculated to examine frequencies of reported symptoms and their severity over time. Results: Of 75 GI patients approached, 63 patients (84%) were enrolled in RSM; 44% were female; 30% of patients were Black or African American, and median age was 65 (range 30-82). GI cancer types varied; Pancreatic (21%), Rectal (13%), Colorectal (14%), Colon (13%), Gastric (11%), Liver (11%), and other (17%). Over 24 weeks, 424 alerts were reported. Pain (31%), nausea and vomiting (21%), and decreased appetite (17%) were the most reported symptoms. 311 alerts were moderate (73%) and 113 were severe (27%). At week 0 (baseline; n = 63) 37 moderate alerts and 21 severe alerts were reported. At week 24 (final week; n = 63) 7 moderate alerts and 6 severe alerts were reported. Overall, there was a decreasing trajectory from week to week for moderate and severe alerts, with outliers noted at weeks 8 and 20. Conclusions: Findings suggest that RSM allows for an improvement in symptom trajectory for GI cancer patients based on the decrease in moderate and severe alerts reported from baseline to week 24. This decrease suggests that reported symptoms are being appropriately monitored and addressed by the patient's clinical care team due to improvement of symptoms or improvement of symptom management. Future research is needed to determine the benefits of prolonged RSM utilization by patient-reported quality of life as well as survival rate.
