Oncology Team Members Research Articles

Precision medicine and multidisciplinary care in gastric and gastroesophageal junction (G/GEJ) cancers: Challenges and practice gaps in community cancer clinics.

385 Background: The advent of biomarker-driven therapeutic strategies brings increasing precision to the treatment of G/GEJ cancer, placing biomarker testing at the forefront of patient management. The management of evolving logistics for testing and related decision-making can be challenging, especially in community clinics. As part of a multi-center quality improvement initiative, we evaluated current gaps in biomarker testing and practice patterns including multidisciplinary care for G/GEJ cancers in community oncology centers. Methods: Between 5/2024 and 8/2024, oncology team members (N = 60) from 5 US-based community oncology practices completed surveys assessing attitudes, knowledge, competence, practice patterns, challenges, and gaps regarding biomarker testing and multidisciplinary care in G/GEJ cancers. Results: Despite practice guidelines, many patients with G/GEJ cancer did not receive testing for recommended biomarkers. While most providers report that biomarkers HER2 (67%) and PD-L1 (62%) are routinely reported in pathology reports, less than half said testing for MSI/MMR, TMB, and BRAF p.V600E were reported, and less than 25% reported analysis of NTRK1/2/3 , RET , CLDN.18.2, and FGFR2 . Biomarkers most frequently requested if not included in the original pathology work-up were PD-L1 (48%), TMB (32%), and BRAF p.V600E (32%). Top challenges reported by providers in integrating biomarker testing into practice were prioritizing testing for limited tissue (38%), determining whether to begin treatment prior to receipt of molecular testing results (35%), and optimizing specimen collection for molecular testing (27%). Only 23% of providers reported feeling very or extremely comfortable (4/5 on 5-point Likert scale) with interpreting and applying biomarker testing results to treatment decision-making. Additional challenges included turnaround time for biomarker testing, uncertainty interpreting biomarker results, and inconsistent or infrequent multidisciplinary tumor boards. Indeed, some providers (12%) reported not participating in multidisciplinary tumor boards at all, while others reported participating weekly (16%), once or twice a month (21%), every other month (12%), or less frequently (23%). Providers believed improving test ordering process (47%), decreasing testing turnaround time (42%), and standardizing panels for biomarker testing (40%) would be most impactful in implementation of biomarker testing into clinical workflows. Conclusions: Although most oncology teams reported use of some form of biomarker testing in treatment of G/GEJ cancer, testing was inconsistent and not as comprehensive as currently recommended. These data will be leveraged to develop multidisciplinary action plans with participating clinics to improve biomarker testing for treatment selection in G/GEJ cancers.

Bouncing Beyond Adversity in Oncology: An Exploratory Study of the Association Between Professional Team Resilience at Work and Work-Related Sense of Coherence.

Team resilience at work (TR@W) is an important resource for bouncing beyond adverse situations. Adopting a health-promoting salutogenic approach, this cross-sectional study explores whether oncology team resilience, which is significantly associated with work-related sense of coherence (Work-SoC), and examines the roles of team member characteristics, quality of work life, and perceived impact of COVID-19. Team members (n = 189) from four oncology settings in Québec (Canada) completed self-administered e-questionnaires. Structural equation modeling was used to identify the best-fitting model and significant relationships among study variables. The results showed a significant positive reciprocal relationship between TR@W and Work-SoC (R = 0.20) and between Work-SoC and TR@W (R = 0.39). These two variables were influenced by gender, gender roles, age, or COVID-19. The resulting model confirms our initial assumption that a higher level of TR@W is significantly associated with a more positive Work-SoC. Our findings provide new insights into subscale items perceived positively by oncology team members, such as perseverance, connectedness, and capability; and identify areas, such as self-care, within the team that may require greater attention to bounce beyond adversity. They also suggest there may be different levels (individual, team, and organizational) of resources under the health salutogenic umbrella.

Feasibility of an environmental scan-based approach to collecting information about factors impacting cancer genetics services in Latin American countries.

Clinical cancer genetics services are expanding globally, but national policy and health care systems influence availability and implementation. Understanding the environmental factors within a country is required to appropriately implement, adapt, and evaluate cancer genetics service delivery models. An environmental scan (ES) is an approach used in business, public health, health care and other sectors to collect information about an environment or system for strategic decision making and program planning. An ES has been previously used to assess cancer genetics clinic-level factors to inform quality improvement efforts in the United States. We assessed the feasibility of using an ES to collect information about factors that may influence cancer genetics service delivery in the outer-most socio-ecological model environmental levels (policy, national agencies, healthcare systems, cultural considerations) in three Latin American countries. Oncology and Genetics care team members at three participating sites used publicly available sources and personal experiences to complete a data collection form (DCF) that included questions about subtopics: laws and policies, relevant agencies and regulations, health care systems and insurance, and cultural considerations. Time to complete the DCF and DCF completeness were used to measure ES feasibility. Participating sites completed the DCF in 3 months, and most questions (average, 87.0%) were answered. Questions in the cultural considerations subtopic had the fewest answers (average, 77.8%). Overall, the ES was feasible and identified a lack of published literature related to cultural considerations impacting health care and genetics services uptake in Latin America. Environmental factors impact cancer genetics services, and identification of these factors will facilitate future collaborative research and genetics service delivery dissemination efforts.

"Look at You Having Fun With Your Markers in Here!": Child Life Specialists' Countering of Infantilizating Narratives in Adult Oncology.

Child life specialists are clinically trained and educated healthcare professionals who work in both healthcare environments and the community to address the needs of ill children and their families. However, child life specialists have previously reported potential for their role, responsibilities, and scope of practice to be misunderstood by their clinical colleagues. Using a narrative methodology, this paper presents the composite narrative of Diane, whose story encompasses the stories of the four child life specialists working in adult oncology environments in Ontario, Canada. Diane's narrative is a counter-story, which counters common assumptions, beliefs, and attitudes about child life specialists. Through spending significant time narrating the multitude of tasks that are encompassed within her scope of care, Diane reaffirms her identity as a valuable member of an interprofessional adult oncology team and counters infantilizing assumptions that she is merely a babysitter or child entertainer. Her story highlights how, while the introduction of child life specialists to adult healthcare environments is new, the work they do is of great benefit to families and their children. The lack of understanding from clinical colleagues of the role of child life specialists, however, hinders not only the development of relationships between colleagues, but also the care for these families.

Trend analysis of pharmacist involvement in cancer care in Japan from 2015 to 2020: A nationwide survey study on hospital pharmacy practice.

Pharmacists are needed as members of oncology teams. The Japanese Society of Hospital Pharmacists (JSHP) conducts a nationwide survey annually to analyze the actual situation and generate fundamental information about hospital pharmacy practice in Japan. Using data from this large-scale survey, we described pharmacists' involvement in cancer chemotherapy. We explored the factors related to the acceleration of pharmacists' tasks or involvement in clinical practice, primarily in oncology. Data were obtained from annual surveys conducted by JSHP from 2015 to 2020. All variables were expressed as categorical variables and tabulated. The Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests were used to compare the categorical variables. The Cochran-Armitage trend test was used to identify significant trends. From 2015 to 2020, 22,362 responses were recorded. After applying the exclusion criteria, 20,906 were analyzed. The proportion of hospitals enrolling pharmacists with oncology-related certifications significantly increased in all hospitals providing cancer care. Multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated that a smaller number of beds per pharmacist significantly correlated with additional fees for outpatient pharmacy services (p = 0.0002 for trend). Hospitals charging increased fees for outpatient oncology pharmacy services were associated with a smaller number of beds per pharmacist, regardless of hospital size. A balance between the number of beds and pharmacists, particularly certified oncology pharmacists, is crucial for safe and high-quality cancer treatment.

Targeted interventions to address local challenges in HR+/HER2- and HER2+ breast cancer treatment in community-based settings.

e23213 Background: Advancements in novel targeted agents and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have dramatically improved patient outcomes and survival for breast cancer patients, yet the successful utilization of these agents remains a key challenge for clinicians, particularly in the community. To improve the care of HR+/HER2- and HER2+ patients, a quality improvement (QI) initiative was conducted across 6 community-based oncology practices. Methods: Between 7/2023 and 10/2023, multidisciplinary oncology team members (N = 98) across 6 US-based community oncology practices were surveyed to identify gaps in the treatment and management of patients with HR+/HER2- and HER2+ breast cancer. Providers then participated in audit/feedback (AF) sessions where they (a) assessed site-specific practice gaps identified via the provider surveys; (b) received targeted education based on their specific gaps; and (c) developed action plans for improvement. Follow-up surveys administered 90 days after AF sessions will evaluate the impact of practice changes driven by the QI initiative. Results: Top challenges reported by providers in caring for patients with HR+/HER2- and HER2+ breast cancer were providing patient-centered supportive care measures (37%), individualizing treatment plans (18%), and managing treatment-related adverse events (14%). Reported challenges in treatment sequencing included rapidly evolving guideline recommendations (44%) and knowing which treatment to select when patients are eligible for multiple lines of therapy (34%). Additionally, oncology team members reported having the most difficulty managing treatment-related neurological effects (32%), neutropenia (16%), and GI toxicities (14%). Providers believed improved collaboration across interprofessional teams (28%) and increased patient education/referrals for supportive care (26%) would most improve care for breast cancer patients. To address the identified gaps at each location, teams participated in targeted AF sessions focused on addressing their specific gaps and developed action plans, such as developing new workflows for improving care coordination, implementing institutional protocols for identifying and managing adverse events, and improving patient supportive care, quality-of-life assessments, and distress screenings. Full findings from baseline surveys will be presented, along with follow-up surveys measuring real-world impact of the system-level practice changes. Conclusions: Through this QI initiative, teams identified gaps/barriers in their own practices, and developed and implemented action plans for improvement. These data and actionable insights support safe, effective, and evidence-based integration of novel therapies into HR+/HER2- and HER2+ breast cancer care to optimize patient outcomes.

Community oncology preparedness and perceptions of challenges in care with HER2/HER3 therapy for NSCLC.

e21010 Background: The rapid pace of advances in molecular testing and targeted treatment for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) can make it difficult to stay up to date with new developments. Accelerating the integration of practice-changing data requires clarification of actionable vs non-actionable mutations, relevance for therapeutic decisions, and treatment options for patients. To address this need further an educational program was designed in 2023. Methods: A one-hour online, video-based program was designed for clinicians and their teams and hosted on OMedLive from February 2023. Knowledge and competence questions were administered pre-, and immediate post-activity. and the intersection of patient and clinician perspectives, including behavioral impact, and qualitative insights. Behavioral impact, perception, and practice pattern questions were also assessed immediately post-activity. Results: More than 1,700 participants have engaged in the educational program to date. Of the participants in the clinician program, 94% were physicians and 93% noted their specialty as oncology with 67% identifying as treaters seeing an average of 8 patients with NSCLC on a monthly basis. Low baseline (8% - 40%) knowledge and competence was observed for awareness of NGS-based approaches to detect ERBB2 mutations, trial eligibility criteria and outcomes, time to onset of drug-related toxicities, and ability to identify patients who would benefit from clinical trials with HER3 investigational therapies. Only 28% were confident in their ability to appropriately test for HER2 mutational status and 47% likely to incorporate testing for HER2 expression level or amplification prior to the selection of targeted therapy. The greatest challenges in managing patients with HER2-mutated NSCLC was identified as managing side effects (33%), affordability of therapy for patients (27%), and adherence to treatment schedules (17%). Conclusions: The outcomes of this educational program demonstrate a need for greater alignment and education among pathology and oncology team members on HER2 testing for patients with NSCLC. Additional education is needed relevant to investigational HER3 therapeutics, the appropriate patient to receive these therapies, and the potential application within the current treatment landscape. As these agents deepen their impact in the NSCLC landscape, it is important to prepare teams for timely management of adverse events.

TEAM participation in the irradiation of IROC phantoms for cooperative group clinical trials

The participation of radiation oncology team members in the irradiation of Imaging and Radiation Oncology Core (IROC) phantom for cooperative group clinical trials is essential to comply with the latest quality management philosophy. Medical dosimetrists are expected to develop treatment plans for the irradiation of IROC phantoms. For advanced treatment techniques, such as three-dimensional conformal radiation therapy (3DCRT), intensity-modulated radiation therapy (IMRT), and volumetric-modulated arc therapy (VMAT), the irradiation of the IROC phantoms serves as quality audit. If successful, the irradiation processes demonstrate that the institution has the knowledge of the protocol, and has the appropriate equipment to comply with the protocol requirements. This article describes three IROC phantoms used for credentialing external beam photon beam therapy, delivered using conventional medical linear accelerators, to the medical dosimetry community. Guidance and strategies for the development of treatment plans are discussed. Our institutional irradiation of the three IROC phantoms, delivered using the Truebeam medical linear accelerator, resulted in consistent dose accuracy to within ±1%. The participation of the team members may reduce the overall published failing rate stated to be about one-third of all participating institutions.

Shared Decision-Making and Cardiovascular Complications of Androgen Deprivation Therapy: an Educational Initiative for Oncology Team Members in Colorado, USA.

Patients with prostate cancer may experience side effects of androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) such as cardiovascular (CV) complications. Oncology team members should actively communicate with patients about these complications. On the other hand, shared decision-making (SDM) has been shown to improve patient-physician communication. We developed brochures focused on CV complications of ADT and SDM. We proceeded to deliver these brochures to participating oncology offices and then carried out a survey of team members in these offices. We obtained responses from 31 oncology team members. Our survey revealed that about half of the participants (48%) rarely applied SDM in their oncology practice, and only about one-third (32%) sometimes applied SDM. After reading our brochures, the majority of respondents could correctly answer questions about SDM and CV complications of ADT. Improvement in scores after reading our materials was significant for both CV complications of ADT and SDM (e.g., CV complications of ADT: z = 6.153, p-value < 0.001, and SDM z = 6.456, p-value < 0.001). Implementation of SDM and an improved awareness of the CV complications of ADT can lead to significant benefits. It is therefore important to take steps to further raise such implementation and awareness among oncology team members in other geographic locations and clinical settings.

Patient Portals to Elicit Essential Patient-Reported Elements of Communication Supporting Person-Centered Oncologic Care: A Pilot Study of the PERSON Approach.

Patient portal technology offers important new opportunities to support person-centered clinician-patient communication. Questionnaires relating to understanding of illness and treatment intent were sent quarterly via portal to all patients scheduled for follow-up in GI medical oncology clinics. For patients in selected clinics, items eliciting health-related values were added. Patient responses were available to all oncology team members in the electronic health record. Workflow and content of clinician-patient discussions about illness, treatment, and care goals stayed within clinicians' discretion. Feasibility (patient response rate), patient understanding, acceptability (three-item patient questionnaire), and efficacy (quality of clinician communication) were evaluated. From May 2021 through December 2022, a total of 12,233 questionnaires about illness/treatment understanding were sent to 6,325 patients (one to six per patient), with 97% response, including 9,358 with both open- and closed-ended responses. Fewer than 0.1% of patients indicated distress related to the questionnaire/process. Open-ended responses complemented closed-ended answers by revealing prognostic awareness and illness concerns. Of 48 patients approached to complete the full questionnaire including values items via portal, 15 first received and completed them in clinic (5 on iPad, 10 on paper), while 33 received and 27 (82%) completed the portal questionnaire. Patients found the portal process acceptable, and ratings of clinician communication were higher after clinic visits informed by patients' questionnaire responses (average prescore 6.8 v 5.9 post; P = .03). Almost all patients in this large GI cancer cohort responded via the portal about their understanding of illness and treatment goals. Eliciting their personal values by portal was also feasible, accepted by patients, and improved patient ratings of clinicians' communication. Portals represent a promising tool for scaling assessment of essential patient-reported elements of person-centered communication.

Implementing geriatric assessment and management for older Canadians with cancer: Adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention, results of the 5C study

IntroductionGeriatric assessment and management (GAM) is recommended by professional organizations and recently several randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated benefits in multiple health outcomes. GAM typically leads to one or more recommendations for the older adult on how to optimize their health. However, little is known about how well recommendations are adhered to. Understanding these issues is vital to designing GAM trials and clinical programs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to examine the number of GAM recommendations made and adherence to and satisfaction with the intervention in a multicentre RCT of GAM for older adults with cancer. Materials and MethodsThe 5C study was a two-group parallel RCT conducted in eight hospitals across Canada. Each centre kept a detailed recruitment and retention log. The intervention teams documented adherence to their recommendations. Medical records were also reviewed to assess which recommendations were adhered to. Twenty-three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 members of the intervention teams and 11 oncology team members to assess implementation of the study and the intervention. ResultsOf the 350 participants who were enrolled, 173 were randomized to the intervention arm. Median number of recommendations was seven. Mean adherence to recommendations based on the GAM was 69%, but it varied by type of recommendation, ranging from 98% for laboratory tests to 28% for psychosocial/psychiatry oncology referrals. There was no difference in the number of recommendations or non-adherence to recommendations by sex, level of frailty, or functional status. Oncologists and intervention team members were satisfied with the study implementation and intervention delivery. DiscussionAdherence to recommendations was variable. Adherence to laboratory investigations and further imaging were generally high but much lower for recommendations regarding psychosocial support. Further collaborative work with older adults with cancer is needed to understand how to optimize the intervention to be consistent with patient goals, priorities, and values to ensure maximal impact on health outcomes.

Evaluating root causes contributing to real-world disparities in ovarian cancer care: Insights from an implementation science initiative utilizing tethered patient-provider surveys and chart reviews.

e18665 Background: Quality ovarian cancer care is significantly impeded by racial disparities in treatment and survival outcomes for black women with ovarian cancer. In this implementation science (IS) initiative, we evaluated root causes for disparities in care among patients with ovarian cancer at 3 diverse health systems and implemented focused action plans to facilitate improved care quality and promote health equity. Methods: Between 11/2020 and 3/2021, we surveyed oncology team members (n = 53) and ovarian cancer patients (N = 41), and performed randomized and retrospective baseline chart audits (N = 100) at 3 health systems to assess current practices, challenges/barriers, and areas for improvement in equitable care of ovarian cancer patients. Providers then participated in audit/feedback (AF) educational sessions and developed and implemented action plans to address identified gaps. Follow-up chart audits measured practice change following the educational initiative. Results: Significant differences were found between Black and non-Black patients in chart documentation patterns and self-reported survey responses. For example, Black patients were significantly less likely to have chart-documented practices of biomarker testing (BRCA testing 47% of Black patients, and 70% on non-Black patients), assessments for treatment-related adverse events and supportive care (40% vs 70%), fertility counseling (4% vs 17%) and shared decision-making (57% vs. 81%). Patient survey and data suggest racial/cultural differences in the emphasis placed on different treatment decision-making factors, as well as differences in the time/extent to which treatment risks and benefits are discussed with patients. Oncology team members participating in AF sessions developed action plans to improve equitable ovarian cancer care, including increasing education and patient counseling, increasing use of patient navigators, and improving documentation. After implementing action plans, follow-up chart audits showed improvement in the provision of patient education, shared decision-making, biomarker testing, and supportive care for both Black and non-Black patients with ovarian cancer. Conclusions: These findings reveal important factors contributing to racial disparities in ovarian cancer outcomes. The identified gaps may inform future IS initiatives and represent key opportunities for improvement in equitable ovarian cancer patient care. Study Sponsor Statement: The study reported in this abstract was funded by an educational grant from AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Merck &amp; Co. Inc., who had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting.

Advancing TNBC care in the community oncology practice: Insights from a quality improvement initiative.

e18762 Background: New and emerging treatments for metastatic triple negative breast cancer (mTNBC) are improving outcomes for patients. However, given the fast pace of innovation, staying informed about the latest clinical trial data, guideline recommendations, and adverse event management, is challenging, particularly in community-based settings. To improve the care of mTNBC patients, we conducted a quality improvement (QI) initiative across 10 community-based oncology practices. Methods: Between 9/7/2021 and 2/11/2022, we surveyed multidisciplinary oncology team members (N = 121) at 10 community oncology clinics to assess current practices, challenges/barriers, and areas for improvement in mTNBC care. Providers then participated in audit/feedback (AF) educational sessions (N = 150) where they (a) assessed system-specific practice gaps identified via the provider surveys, (b) prioritized areas for improvement, and (c) developed action plans for addressing root causes of the identified gaps. Results: Providers reported the top challenge in caring for patients with mTNBC as sequencing treatment options across multiple lines of therapy (33%). Providers participating in the AF sessions identified impact on overall survival (55%), molecular test results (49%), and impact on patient quality of life (44%) as their primary considerations when differentiating among new and emerging targeted therapies for mTNBC. Additionally, clinicians reported having the most difficulty managing gastrointestinal distress (31%), cardiotoxicity (31%), and endocrinopathies (31%) associated with novel therapies. Providers believed improved collaboration across interprofessional teams (32%) and increased patient education for aspects of supportive care (28%) would improve care for mTNBC patients. To address the identified gaps at each location, teams developed action plans to improve coordinated mTNBC care, provide patient-centered supportive care, increase testing for targeted therapies, improve symptom and adverse event management, and create standardized order sets. Conclusions: Through this QI initiative, clinical teams identified gaps/barriers in their own practices, and developed and implemented action plans for improvement. These data and actionable insights support safe, effective, and evidence-based integration of novel therapies into mTNBC care to optimize patient outcomes. Study Sponsor Statement: The study reported in this abstract was funded by an educational grant from Gilead Sciences, Inc., who had no role in the study design, execution, analysis, or reporting.

Radiology and radiation oncology considerations for transgender and intersex patients: A qualitative study.

In this qualitative study, we explored experiences of radiologists and radiation oncologists in providing clinical care to transgender, gender diverse (TGD), and intersex patients by asking about comfort level, relevant past training and training gaps, and clinical recommendations for TGD and intersex patient care. A purposive sample of radiology and radiation oncology professionals (n= 16) from diverse practice settings were interviewed on a videoconferencing platform. Transcripts were auto-populated and checked manually for accuracy. Two coders used a mix of deductive and inductive coding to identify key themes. Member checking was conducted with interviewees. Participants reported major gaps in training, knowledge, and confidence related to all aspects of TGD and intersex patient care. Recommendations for improvements included training that encompassed key terminology, how to conduct a physical exam on TGD and intersex patients, radiology and radiation oncology adaptations for TGD and intersex patients, and care coordination among multi-disciplinary oncology team members and gender affirming care providers. Exposure to diverse TGD and intersex persons in personal and professional life contributed to higher levels of comfort among providers in caring for TGD and intersex patients. Gaps in knowledge and limited confidence characterized the sample. Training at all levels is needed to improve radiology and radiation oncology care for TGD and intersex patients.

The Screen of Cancer Survivorship-Occupational Therapy Services (SOCS-OTS): A Delphi Study for Tool Validation

<h3>Research Objectives</h3> To formally validate The Screening of Cancer Survivorship-Occupational Therapy Services (SOCS-OTS) which researchers developed for oncology team members to identify the need for OT services. <h3>Design</h3> Researchers used a classic Delphi methodology to develop and validate the SOCS-OTS. In Round 1, a blend of deductive and inductive approaches guided item writing. The deductive approach was used to thematically analyze oncology literature using the OT Practice Framework to guide item writing. An inductive approach was then used to verify items were issues relevant to expert panelists living with and beyond cancer. In Rounds 2-4, researchers assessed 14 expert panelists' opinions to indicate which items from Round 1 met consensus for inclusion on the SOCS-OTS. <h3>Setting</h3> Content experts were survivors were living in the community and expert panelists were from various practice settings, healthcare organizations, and oncology research labs. <h3>Participants</h3> Content experts varied in age, cancer type, and activity limitations. Inclusion criteria consisted of individuals diagnosed with cancer, 18 + years, fluent in English, with access to a computer with internet. Expert panelists included OTs, OTAs, and OT researchers. Inclusion of OT practitioners required panelists to have five years of experience with a 30% caseload of survivors. OT researchers required a published oncology-related article. <h3>Interventions</h3> N/A. <h3>Main Outcome Measures</h3> Items that did not reach 80% consensus were removed from the final tool. <h3>Results</h3> The final rendition of the SOCS-OTS included 20 items that met consensus. Researchers modified and removed several items from the tool including modifying the tool's instructions for use, rewording items for clarity, readability, or appropriateness for the oncology population, eliminating biased language, and making changes to the tools rating scale. The most highly rated items on the final SOCS-OTS included bathing and dressing, feeding/eating, social participation, sexual activity and intimacy, and community mobility. <h3>Conclusions</h3> The SOCS-OTS is a content valid screening tool that can be used by cancer care teams to indicate the need for OT services. Further studies are warranted for the development of its psychometric properties. <h3>Author(s) Disclosures</h3> No conflicts of interest

Real-world practice patterns in multidisciplinary squamous cell carcinoma care at community oncology centers.

261 Background: As the incidence of cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (cSCC) continues to rise and newer systemic therapies become available, coordination of care between dermatologists and oncologists will be vital to provide quality, patient-centered care. Methods: Between 8/17/2020 and 11/30/2020, we surveyed dermatology team members (n = 50) and oncology team members (n = 54) at 5 community oncology practices to assess current practices, challenges/barriers, and areas for improvement in multidisciplinary care of cSCC. Providers then participated in audit/feedback educational sessions and developed action plans to address identified gaps. Results: A majority of providers (72%) reported “very low” or “low” levels of care coordination between oncology and dermatology teams (5-point Likert scale). The three main barriers identified by dermatology/oncology teams included lack of relationship to other specialties (36%/47%), lack of multidisciplinary tumor board (30%/36%), and difficulty with patient navigation to follow-up and monitoring (44%/29%). In addition, lack of administrative support (30%/47%), lack of time (54%/42%), and high case load (32%/16%) hindered multidisciplinary tumor board meetings. Overall, dermatology teams reported lower confidence in making treatment decisions for patients with advanced cSCC compared to oncology teams. Specific strategies were identified to bridge these gaps and improve cSCC care including improving electronic communication, coordinating treatment plans with multidisciplinary teams, integrating educational seminars between oncologists and dermatologists, and finding better multimodality therapeutic options. Conclusions: These findings reveal important challenges in multidisciplinary care of cSCC in community oncology clinics. The identified gaps may inform future implementation science initiatives, and represent key opportunities for improvement in cSCC patient care.[Table: see text]

Role of Maxillofacial Prosthodontist as a Member of Interdisciplinary Oncology Team in Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Brief Review

Role of Maxillofacial Prosthodontist as a Member of Interdisciplinary Oncology Team in Oral and Maxillofacial Rehabilitation: A Brief Review

Building the Screen of Cancer Survivorship–Occupational Therapy Services (SOCS-OTS): A Delphi Study

Abstract Date Presented 03/31/2022 Researchers will review a classical Delphi study that formally validated the Screening of Cancer Survivorship-Occupational Therapy Services (SOCS-OTS). The tool was developed for oncology team members to identify those who need OT services because of occupational performance limitations. The SOCS-OTS is the first screening tool for oncology teams to address the broad spectrum of occupational performance issues at various points in the survivorship continuum. Primary Author and Speaker: Katie M. Polo Additional Authors and Speakers: Daria L. Seccurro, Taylor Henson, Jordan Walker, Kenzie Salzbrenner, Michael Wroblewski, Shanele Tyler

Automated assessment of illness and treatment understanding (ITU) via the Memorial Sloan Kettering Patient Portal.

e24146 Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) technology offers opportunities to address research questions and unmet clinical needs of cancer patients’ ITU. We tested the feasibility of PRO assessment of ITU. Methods: With the same 5-item questionnaire (2 open- [about expectations of cancer outcome and treatment intent] and 3 validated [Weeks JC NEJM 2012] closed-ended items) administered by medical oncology nurses in clinic in a previous pilot (Shin P ASCO 2020), we used the electronic patient portal in our cancer center to elicit responses from all gastrointestinal medical oncology patients scheduled for clinic follow-up. Patients registered on the portal received this questionnaire automatically the day before the second follow-up visit and then quarterly, with a brief explanation that it applied to all patients for quality improvement. Responses were available for review in the electronic health record by all oncology team members, who were offered a 20-minute Zoom introduction to this initiative. Workflow and content of communications about prognosis, treatment intent, and goals of care stayed within clinicians’ discretion. Results: From 5/2021 through 12/2021, 5000 questionnaires were sent to 3852 patients (1-3 times per patient, quarterly), of which all but one was returned, including 3863 with open- and closed-ended responses and 1135 with closed answers only. Patients: 55% male, 83% white, median age 64 (range, 15-96). Most common cancers: colorectal (54%) and pancreatic (21%). In patients with stage data (78%), 35% had stage IV disease. In closed-ended responses, patients receiving treatment (n = 2637 questionnaires) reported that based on the most recent discussions with the oncology team, they thought the treatment was at least a little likely to cure the cancer (66%), prolong life (98%), and/or help with cancer-related problems (92%). Open-ended answers ranged in length from 0-1013 words (median, 6; IQR, 10). Conclusions: Almost all patients in this large, heterogeneous cancer center cohort participated in an automatic assessment system via electronic patient portal addressing questions about their understanding of prognosis and treatment goals. PROs, traditionally focused on symptoms, represent a promising mechanism for scaling structured assessment of patients’ understanding of the prognosis and intent of their treatment. Our future research will address: effects in other cancer types/care settings; temporal changes in sequential responses: associations with clinical factors (e.g., stage, symptoms, treatment, oncologist documentation of prognosis/treatment intent, healthcare delivery and outcomes including patient reports of the quality of clinician communication); open vs. closed-ended questions for assessing ITU; administration in-person vs. via portal; and perspectives of patients and clinicians on our assessment process.

Moral Distress: A Qualitative Study of Experiences Among Oncology Team Members.

Oncology healthcare professionals (HCPs), particularly nurses, experience moral distress. However, little is known about the impact of moral distress on oncology teams. The purpose of this study was to describe moral distress as it is experienced by oncology teams in practice. 32 oncology team members participated in eight focus groups. Content analysis was used to identify key themes. Two investigators collaboratively analyzed the data, and findings were independently reviewed by two additional investigators. The following six themes emerged.