Diagnosis of G-Protein Gene Mutations in Mc Cune-Albright Syndrome. 15

H. Domené,M. Gryngarten,G. Sansó,S. Copelli,M. Escobar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1203/00006450-199802000-00038

IF: 3.953

1998-02-01

Pediatric Research

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Intervention to Optimize Guideline-Recommended Interdependent Care Delivery in Breast and Lung Cancers with the 4R Oncology Model.

Raymond Liu,Julia R. Trosman,Elizabeth Shurell Linehan,Nancy P. Gordon,Marti Hennings,Henie James,Thea Abbe,Jed Abraham Katzel,Chun Fai Ng,Megumi Tomita,Jeffrey B. Velotta,Lori C. Sakoda,Kimberly Beringer,Arliene Ravelo,Zheng Zhu,Bruce Rapkin,Christine B. Weldon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2023.19.11_suppl.34

2023-01-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:34 Background: Team-based care improves quality, reduces fragmentation and lowers clinician burnout related to ad hoc care coordination. A key teamwork principle is managing timing and sequence of interdependent care (Vogel JOP 2016). The 4R Oncology model featured by the NCI ASCO Teams initiative fosters effective teamwork by facilitating systematic timing / sequence of interdependent care.1 4R is Right Info / Care / Patient / Time. Using a 4R intervention, a large health system created a high-functioning care team and conducted optimizations of guideline-based interdependent care in breast and lung cancers Oct 2020 - Dec 2021.2 We present results of these optimizations. Methods: We compared data from electronic health record on timing and sequence of care between historical control cohorts of patients who received care pre-4R (breast n=274, lung n=173) to the post-optimization 4R cohorts (breast n=211, lung n=140). Patient and tumor characteristics between control and 4R cohorts in both cancers were similar. Results: Timing and sequence of care for 6 of the 7 breast cancer metrics and all 7 lung cancer metrics was significantly improved between the control and 4R cohorts (Table). Despite significant increase, the rate of timely care for some metrics remained low, such as referrals based on distress screening in breast cancer and palliative care consult in lung cancer. Conclusions: The 4R Oncology model is effective in applying teamwork principles and improving timing and sequence of guideline-based care. Opportunities for further care optimizations exist to expand the 4R benefit to a higher number of patients. A learning system established in our institution will inform iterative optimizations. 1. Trosman JOP 2016. 2. Liu JCOOP 2022. [Table: see text]
The Impact of the 4R Oncology Model of Team-Based Care Delivery on Timing and Sequence of Guideline Recommended Interdependent Care in Breast and Lung Cancers

Raymond Liu,Julia R. Trosman,Elizabeth Shurell Linehan,Nancy P. Gordon,Marti Hennings,Henie James,Thea Abbe,Jed Abraham Katzel,Chun Fai Ng,Megumi Tomita,Jeffrey B. Velotta,Lori C. Sakoda,Kimberly Beringer,Arliene Ravelo,Zheng Zhu,Bruce Rapkin,Christine B. Weldon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.1523

IF: 45.3

2023-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:1523 Background: Team-based care improves quality, reduces fragmentation and lowers clinician burnout related to ad hoc care coordination. A key principle of teamwork is managing timing and sequence of interdependent care (Vogel JOP 2016). The 4R Oncology model featured by the NCI ASCO Teams project fosters effective teamwork by facilitating systematic timing / sequence of interdependent care (Trosman JOP 2016). 4R is Right Info / Care / Patient / Time. Using 4R, a large health system created a high-functioning care team and conducted optimizations of interdependent care in breast and lung cancers Oct 2020 - Dec 2021 (Liu JCOOP 2022). Optimizations focused on guideline-based care with suboptimal timing / sequencing in respective cancers. We present results of these optimizations. Methods: We compared data from electronic health record on timing and sequence of care between historical control cohorts of patients who received care pre-4R (breast n=270, lung n=173) to the post-optimization 4R cohorts (breast n=208, lung n=139). Patient and tumor characteristics between control and 4R cohorts in both breast and lung cancers were similar. Results: Timing and sequence of care for 5 of the 6 breast cancer metrics and all 6 lung cancer metrics was significantly improved between the control and 4R cohorts. Despite significant increase, the rate of timely care for some metrics remained low, such as referrals based on distress screening in breast cancer and palliative care in lung cancer. Conclusions: The 4R Oncology model is effective in applying teamwork principles and improving timing and sequence of guideline-based care. Opportunities for further improvement exist to expand the benefit of 4R to a higher number of patients. A learning system being established in our institution will inform iterative care optimizations.[Table: see text]
The impact of 4R oncology model on patient self management and satisfaction in lung versus breast cancer.

Julia R. Trosman,Christine B. Weldon,Elizabeth Shurell Linehan,Nancy P. Gordon,Marti Hennings,Thea Abbe,Henie James,Jed Abraham Katzel,Chun Fai Ng,Megumi Tomita,Jeffrey B. Velotta,Lori C. Sakoda,Kimberly Beringer,Arliene Ravelo,Zheng Zhu,Bruce Rapkin,Raymond Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.e18703

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e18703 Background: Proposed under NCI ASCO Teams project, the 4R Oncology model (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) facilitates patient self management (PSM) and team based care delivery with a novel 4R Care Sequence plan (JOP 2016). 4R has been shown to improve PSM in breast cancer (JCOOP 2021), but its impact in other cancers is unknown. Also, the 4R effect on patient satisfaction – a care quality aspect important at patient and institutional levels - has not been evaluated. We examined and compared 4R impact on PSM and patient satisfaction in lung (LC) and breast (BC) cancers at 3 centers of a large health system Oct 2020 - Dec 2021. Methods: Surveys of patient cohorts: 4R cohort who received 4R plans and historical control who received care pre-4R. Cohorts included BC stages 0-3 and all LC stages. See Table for metrics. Results: Survey response rates: 53% (control), 42% (4R). All PSM and satisfaction metrics significantly improved in 4R vs. control groups for the combined cohort of both cancers (Table). LC and BC patients significantly benefited from 4R vs control in 2 PSM metrics (b, c). LC patients benefited more than BC patients in 1 PSM and 3 satisfaction metrics (a, g, i, j). For other metrics (d, e, f, h) benefits in LC occurred in the same direction and same magnitude as in BC, but were not significant, likely due to smaller group size. Among 4R patients, similar ratios of LC and BC patients deemed 4R useful (76%, 78%, p = .7) (data not shown). Conclusions: 4R improved self management and satisfaction among patients with lung or breast cancer. Notably, it helped lung cancer patients who are typically older and sicker than breast cancer patients to better understand their cancer and manage their care. It also helped lung cancer patients feel more respected and taken seriously, suggesting that 4R countered the stigma and guilt often experienced by these patients. Variable impact in some metrics between lung and breast cancers suggest different self management needs relevant to these metrics. Further model refinement should address these differences. [Table: see text]

oncology
Intervention to improve patient self-management and satisfaction in breast and lung cancers using the 4R Oncology model: Results by cancer, race and deprivation index.

Christine B. Weldon,Julia R. Trosman,Elizabeth Shurell Linehan,Nancy P. Gordon,Marti Hennings,Henie James,Thea Abbe,Jed Abraham Katzel,Chun Fai Ng,Megumi Tomita,Jeffrey B. Velotta,Lori C. Sakoda,Kimberly Beringer,Arliene Ravelo,Zheng Zhu,Bruce Rapkin,Raymond Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2023.19.11_suppl.326

2023-11-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:326 Background: Patient self-management (pSM) is important for optimal cancer care, health equity and mitigation of clinician shortage (Howell 2021, Alfano 2022). 4R Oncology is an intervention fostering pSM and team-based care with a novel Care Sequence plan. 4R (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time) has been shown to improve pSM in breast cancer (Trosman 2021) but has not been studied for impact in other cancers or whether impact is affected by race or neighborhood deprivation index (NDI). 4R effect on patient satisfaction with care – important in care quality and reimbursement – is also unknown. We examined 4R impact on pSM and satisfaction in lung and breast cancers and whether it was influenced by race and NDI. Study took place at 3 centers of a large health system Oct 2020 - Dec 2021. Methods: Surveys of patient: 4R cohort who received 4R plans (N=192) and historical control who received care pre-4R (N=103). Cohorts included breast cancer stages 0-3 and all lung cancer stages. Results: Survey response: 53% (control), 42% (4R). 4R significantly improved 4 of 5 pSM metrics from control to 4R cohort in each cancer (table). Satisfaction with care improved in 3 of 5 metrics in lung and 2 metrics in breast cancer. pSM significantly improved in all metrics from control to 4R cohort for non-White patients, and in 2 of 5 metrics for White non-Hispanics. Satisfaction significantly increased in 3 metrics in both race groups. NDI did not affect 4R impact: both higher and lower NDI groups benefited similarly in all metrics from control to 4R cohorts (data not shown). Conclusions: 4R is effective in improving patient self-management and satisfaction with care across different cancers. Non-White patients derived more self-management benefit than White non-Hispanic, indicating that 4R may help address racial disparities. Deprivation index results suggest that 4R benefits both lower and higher socioeconomic status patients. Further model refinement should address remaining gaps along relevant metrics.[Table: see text]

oncology
Care delivery and patient self-management for people with primary liver cancer receiving 4R care sequence plans.

George Therapondos,Christine B. Weldon,Lingling Du,Jonathan Mizrahi,Carol Palmer,Amanda Medina,Tyler Allan Sandow,Juan Gimenez,Ari Cohen,Michelle O'Brien,Amie Tan,Julia R. Trosman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.465

IF: 45.3

2024-01-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:465 Background: The 4R Oncology Model (4R=Right information/care/patient/time) supports patient self-management 1 and quality improvement. 2 Here we report the impact of using 4R Care Sequence plans for patients with primary liver cancer cared for by a multi-disciplinary liver cancer team. Methods: We tested the impact of 4R care sequence plans on patient self-management and care delivery referrals at a liver cancer program via patient surveys. 4R Plans were provided to patients with primary liver cancer from Jan – Aug ’23 (4R cohort). Patient-reported data were analyzed to compare the control cohort of patients who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’22 (N=42) to the 4R cohort (N=17). Statistical analysis used Fisher’s exact test. Results: Patient survey response rates: Control cohort 54% (42/78), 4R cohort 55% (17/31). Comparing the control cohort to the 4R cohort respectively, patients were male (52%, 65%), White (64%, 64%), Black (26%, 18%), average age (63.2, 64.7), and reported income less than $30,000 (45%, 53%). The 4R cohort significantly improved care delivery in three metrics, and directionally improved in the other care delivery metrics as compared to the control cohort (table). All four patient self-management metrics significantly improved in the 4R cohort vs. the control cohort (Table). Conclusions: The use of 4R Care Sequence plans for patients with primary liver cancer facilitated improvements in care delivery and patient self-management metrics. While there were directional improvements in all metrics, there is opportunity and room for additional improvements. The team will continue to work on efforts to improve these metrics and optimize the use of 4R Care Sequence plans for patients with primary liver cancer. 1. Trosman, JCOOP 2021. 2. Liu, JCOOP 2022. [Table: see text]

oncology
The Impact of the 4R Oncology Model on OncotypeDx Turnaround Time.

Jenny Wei,Christine B. Weldon,Julia R. Trosman,Zheng Zhu,Elizabeth Shurell Linehan,Amy Ying Ju Lin,Thea Abbe,Lori C. Sakoda,Nancy P. Gordon,Arliene Ravelo,Aida Shiraz,Raymond Liu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.531

IF: 45.3

2023-01-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:531 Background: The OncotypeDx genomic assay has been widely used to predict recurrence in those with early-stage ER positive breast cancer to determine whether adjuvant chemotherapy is beneficial. Receiving OncotypeDx results in a timely manner prior to medical oncology appointment is critical to inform adjuvant therapy decisions. In this quality improvement project, we implemented a care delivery optimization for patients with breast cancer receiving OncotypeDx assays in an integrated healthcare system. The optimization was conducted as part of implementing the 4R Oncology model (Right Info / Right Care / Right Patient / Right Time), a novel care model that aims to optimize patient-centric care planning, team-based delivery and patient self-management. Herein, we assess the impact of implementing this model on improving OncotypeDx turnaround time. Methods: We examined two patient groups with newly diagnosed early-stage ER positive breast cancer who attended a multidisciplinary clinic and underwent surgery at a single medical center. The historical control (HC) group received care pre-4R implementation, from January 2019 through June 2020, while the 4R Intervention group received care from July 2020 to December 2021. The OncotypeDx-related care optimization was a team effort of 5 medical specialties that involved establishing an OncotypeDx reflex testing practice, updating workflows, working with a testing company to streamline the process and implementing a method to align result timing with scheduling medical oncology appointments. Bivariate analyses were used to compare the HC and 4R groups on demographic characteristics and OncotypeDx turnaround time. Results: Within the 4R group (N = 208), 72 (34.6%) patients received OncotypeDx and 89 (32.5%) patients from the HC cohort (N = 274) received OncotypeDx. The groups were balanced by median age at time of multidisciplinary clinic visit (HC: 59 years vs 4R: 60 years), female gender (HC: 99.6% vs 4R: 99.5%), race, combined race and ethnicity, language spoken, Charlson Comorbidity Index and tumor characteristics. The average turnaround time from surgery date to delivery of OncotypeDx results was significantly reduced in the 4R cohort (19.4 days) compared to that of the HC cohort (23.1 days), a difference of 3.8 days, p = 0.004. The availability of OncotypeDx results by the first medical oncology visit after surgery increased from 40% in the HC cohort to 69% in the 4R cohort, p = 0.0003, helping optimize the transition to adjuvant therapy for the appropriate population. Conclusions: The implementation of the 4R Oncology model within an integrated healthcare system significantly reduced turnaround time for patients with breast cancer awaiting OncotypeDx results, improving patient-centric care and enabling informed discussions at medical oncology visits. The 4R Oncology model is an effective method to optimize delivery of time-sensitive care.
Cancer co-rounds: A novel inpatient multidisciplinary oncology rounding model.

Lisa Ni,Jennifer Viner,Christina Phuong,Siyuan John Liu,Emily Yee,Mary Petrofsky,Daniel H. Kwon,Mariza Daras,Lauren Boreta,Sam Brondfield

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2023.41.16_suppl.e13526

IF: 45.3

2023-06-01

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13526 Background: Although tumor boards are well-established for coordinating care of patients (pts) with cancer in the outpatient setting, few studies have evaluated interventions for improving consultative care coordination for hospitalized pts, where coordination can be particularly complex. This study evaluated the hypothesis that implementation of an inpatient co-rounding model of care including medical-, neuro-, and radiation-oncology consult teams would improve the alignment of recommendations from these oncologic services, as perceived by primary teams. Methods: A co-rounding model was implemented in September 2021 for hospitalized pts with cancer at a tertiary medical center. The oncologic consulting services met virtually twice weekly to discuss pt care. Providers from the most common primary services for pts with cancer, internal medicine (IM) and neurosurgery (NSGY), were surveyed via institutional email listservs. The survey included Likert-type questions about the alignment of recommendations across the oncologic services and open-ended questions asking for feedback on collaboration among these services. Pre-intervention surveys were distributed, and post-intervention surveys were distributed 9 months later. Thematic analysis was performed on the pre-intervention free-text responses; post-intervention free-text responses were not analyzed due to limited number. Wilcoxon rank-sum tests were used to compare responses pre- and post-intervention. Results: At each session, a median of 6 providers attended (range, 4-8 providers), and a median of 6 pts were discussed (range, 4-8 pts). Of the 331 providers surveyed, there were 119 (36%) respondents pre-intervention and 34 (10%) respondents post-intervention. The 132 unique respondents comprised 68 (52%) IM attending physicians, 48 (36%) IM resident physicians, 6 (5%) NSGY advanced practice providers, 6 (5%) NSGY attendings, and 4 (3%) NSGY residents. There were 35 total free-text responses (29 pre-intervention and 6 post-intervention). Prior to implementation, common suggested areas for improvement included: coordination between inpatient and outpatient oncologic providers (N=7), communication among inpatient oncologic services (N=6), timeliness of response to consults (N=5), and documentation of recommendations (N=4). Post-intervention, respondents were significantly more likely to perceive alignment in oncologic consultant recommendations (67% strongly agree) compared to pre-intervention (23% strongly agree, p<0.01). Conclusions: A novel inpatient co-rounding model was successfully implemented between medical-, neuro-, and radiation-oncology. Primary teams perceived greater alignment in recommendations among these consulting services after implementation. Future directions include continued improvement upon the co-rounding model, and evaluation of the impact of this model on patient outcomes.

oncology
Evaluation of interprofessional relational coordination and patients’ perception of care in outpatient oncology teams

Jose M. Azar,Cynthia S. Johnson,Amie M. Frame,Susan M. Perkins,Ann H. Cottingham,Debra K. Litzelman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820.2016.1248815

2016-12-12

Journal of Interprofessional Care

Abstract:This pilot study was designed to measure teamwork and the relationship of teamwork to patient perceptions of care among 63 members of 12 oncology teams at a Cancer Centre in the Midwest. Lack of teamwork in cancer care can result in serious clinical errors, fragmentation of care, and poor quality of care. Many oncology team members, highly skilled in clinical care, are not trained to work effectively as members of a care team. The research team administered the Relational Coordination survey to core oncology team members-medical oncologists, nurse coordinators, and clinical secretaries-to measure seven dimensions of team skills (four relating to communication [frequency, timeliness, accuracy, and problem solving] and three relating to relationship [shared goals, shared knowledge, and mutual respect]) averaged to create a Relational Coordination Index. The results indicated that among the team member roles, nurse coordinator relational coordination indices were the strongest and most positively correlated with patient perception of care. Statistically significant correlations were intra-nurse coordinator relational coordination indices and two patient perception of care factors (information and education and patient's preferences). All other nurse coordinator intra-role as well as inter-role correlations were also positively correlated, although not statistically significant.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Integration of a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure within an academic cancer center

Heather J. Jackson,Olivia West,Shelton Harrell,Emily Skotte,Karen Hande

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/jxx.0000000000001010

2024-03-21

Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners

Abstract:ABSTRACT Background: Nurse practitioners and physician associates are an essential part of the multidisciplinary cancer care team with expanding and evolving roles within cancer specialties. Local problem: As these clinicians flourish, a parallel need for leadership rises to optimize scope of practice, mentor, and retain this crucial workforce. The purpose of this quality improvement project was to development a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure within an academic cancer center. Methods: Development of this nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure was guided by transformational leadership theory. In collaboration with nursing, business, and physician leadership, a quad structure was supported. Interventions: Implementation of a leadership structure included the establishment of eight team leaders and two managers. These leaders identified multiple opportunities for improvement including improved communications, offload of nonbillable work, development of incentive programs, provision of equipment, specialty practice alignment, hematology/oncology fellowship, and professional development. Results: Overall, a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure allowed for representation across the cancer center. Such inclusion supported multiple quality improvement projects developed in partnership with nursing, business, and physician leaders. Cumulatively, these interventions yielded efficient workflows and expansion of services. Consistent with reported evidence, these efforts contributed to nurse practitioner and physician associate retention as well as improved job satisfaction. Conclusions: Advanced practice leadership is essential to recruiting, developing, supporting, and retaining nurse practitioner and physician assistant colleagues in cancer care.

nursing,health care sciences & services
Impact of a care delivery intervention for patients with socioeconomic disadvantages, in their preferred language of English or Spanish.

Sarah Khan,Christine B. Weldon,Julia R. Trosman,Tierra Valentine,Jorge Hernandez,SWETHA PADURI,Vijay Ketan Reddy,Anuradha Sakhuja,Daniel Czarnowski,Twinkle Patel,Margarita Oliveras,Sandra Ramirez,Emilia Williams,Gautam Valecha,Mohammed Azher Kassem,Jaya Sharma,Seshan Subramanian,Arliene Ravelo,Paramjeet Grewal Khosla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13550

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13550 Background: Sinai Health System’s oncology program serves Chicago’s inner city patients with substantial needs for social and primary care, many of whom prefer communication in Spanish. Sinai has implemented a care delivery intervention to address these needs, using the 4R Oncology Model for patient-facing care planning and patient self-management. 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) has shown significant improvements in the timeliness of care cancer delivery and referrals to cancer care (1). Herein, we implemented the 4R intervention to improve the timeliness of care delivery and referrals to care, focusing on the social and primary care needs of Sinai patients. Methods: Evaluation was conducted by surveying historical control and intervention (4R) cohorts of patients in their preferred language of Spanish or English. The 4R cohort received care at a Sinai medical oncology clinic Apr 2023 - Jan 2024. Control cohort received care Jan 2023 – March 2023. Analyses were conducted using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Survey response: 76% (38/50) in control and 75% (33/44) in 4R cohorts. Participant characteristics were comparable between control and 4R cohorts, respectively: 55%, 58% Hispanic, 42%, 39% Black; 76%, 82% high school education or less; 87%, 97% < $30k annual income; 50%, 55% preferred Spanish; 47%, 45% preferred English. For the total cohorts, all 5 metrics improved between control and 4R, and 4 of the 5 metrics improved significantly (Table). Among Spanish-preferred patients, 3 of the 5 metrics improved significantly, while improvements among English-preferred patients were not statistically significant. Both language groups saw numerical, but not statistically significant improvement in receiving referrals to primary care and meeting all their practical and family needs. Conclusions: The 4R Oncology intervention resulted in significant improvement in time to treatment and referrals to social and primary care in our population of socioeconomically disadvantaged patients with high needs for these services. Patients preferring Spanish benefited at a higher rate than English-preferring patients, indicating that 4R may be an effective method to address the needs of this important patient group. Future efforts will further optimize 4R to address remaining gaps for this group, as well as to improve the delivery of this care for the English-preferred patients. 1. Trosman JCOOP 2021. [Table: see text]

oncology
Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams

Sherry-Ann Brown,Rodney Sparapani,Kristen Osinski,Jun Zhang,Jeffrey Blessing,Feixiong Cheng,Abdulaziz Hamid,Mehri Bagheri MohamadiPour,Jessica Castrillon Lal,Anai N Kothari,Pedro Caraballo,Peter Noseworthy,Roger H Johnson,Kathryn Hansen,Louise Y Sun,Bradley Crotty,Yee Chung Cheng,Gift Echefu,Krishna Doshi,Jessica Olson,Cardio-Oncology Artificial Intelligence Informatics & Precision (CAIP) Research Team Investigators

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ahjo.2023.100306

2023-06-03

Abstract:Interdisciplinary research teams can be extremely beneficial when addressing difficult clinical problems. The incorporation of conceptual and methodological strategies from a variety of research disciplines and health professions yields transformative results. In this setting, the long-term goal of team science is to improve patient care, with emphasis on population health outcomes. However, team principles necessary for effective research teams are rarely taught in health professional schools. To form successful interdisciplinary research teams in cardio-oncology and beyond, guiding principles and organizational recommendations are necessary. Cardiovascular disease results in annual direct costs of $220 billion (about $680 per person in the US) and is the leading cause of death for cancer survivors, including adult survivors of childhood cancers. Optimizing cardio-oncology research in interdisciplinary research teams has the potential to aid in the investigation of strategies for saving hundreds of thousands of lives each year in the United States and mitigating the annual cost of cardiovascular disease. Despite published reports on experiences developing research teams across organizations, specialties and settings, there is no single journal article that compiles principles for cardiology or cardio-oncology research teams. In this review, recurring threads linked to working as a team, as well as optimal methods, advantages, and problems that arise when managing teams are described in the context of career development and research. The worth and hurdles of a team approach, based on practical lessons learned from establishing our multidisciplinary research team and information gleaned from relevant specialties in the development of a successful team are presented.
Abstract 1301: Comparing VA and safety-net hospital patient-reported care metrics and provider recommendations to address social determinants of health and demographics

Neha Hippalgaonkar,Michael Weinfeld,Christine Weldon,Julia Trosman,Cindy Chan,Sarah Khan,Swetha Paduri,Vijay Reddy,Auradha Sakhuja,Paramjeet Khosla,Mary Pasquinelli,Lawrence Feldman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1301

IF: 11.2

2024-03-28

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: The Jesse Brown Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (JBVA) and Sinai Chicago, a safety-net hospital nearby, serve veterans and patients with significant social needs on Chicago's South and West sides. Both institutions are adopting the 4R Oncology Model (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) for patient-facing care planning and self-management, proven to enhance supportive and health maintenance care delivery (Trosman JCOOP 2021). This abstract depicts a baseline survey of JBVA veterans' and Sinai Chicago patients' experiences in planning and delivering guideline-directed supportive and health maintenance care for new cancer diagnoses, informing 4R implementations. Methods: Patients at JBVA and Sinai Chicago were surveyed from February to September 2023 with participants receiving a $25 gift card. An analysis was conducted using Fisher's two-tailed exact test. Results: The two institutions yielded a 67% survey response rate. Key patient demographics and oncologic and supportive care metrics are outlined in the table below. At JBVA, fewer than 50% of veterans knew their cancer stage at diagnosis, and 63% were aware of their care goals. Furthermore, only 17% of veterans received recommendations for support services offered by JBVA. "Emotional distress or worry" support recommendations were received by < 50% of patients at both institutions. Conclusions: The baseline survey uncovered gaps in care planning, supportive services, and health maintenance care in both institutions, catering to patients with challenging social determinants of health. The implementation of the 4R Oncology Model is designed to address these gaps, providing a personalized care sequence that establishes a clear roadmap through the patient's care trajectory, ultimately enhancing patient-centered care. Further results will be shared when available. Metric Combined% of pts(n=60) JBVA% of pts (n=30) SINAI% of pts(n=30) PVALUE Patient knew stage of their cancer 67 43 86 0.0005 Patient knew goal of their care 77 63 86 0.0442 Cancer care provider recommended to: Get Nutrition consult about how to eat during cancer treatment 35 27 42 0.2997 Talk to your primary care provider about staying as healthy as possible during care treatment 62 57 67 0.4523 Get support for transportation, food, housing, insurance, or other practical needs 44 17 67 0.0001 Get help to stop smoking or vaping* 29 28 31 1.0 Get help for emotional distress or worry* 37 24 46 0.1078 Demographics Age 59 66 53 0.0001 Male 69 93 39 0.0004 Black 59 83 39 0.0001 Hispanic 32 0 58 0.1103 High School education or less 68 57 78 0.1854 Household income less than $30,000 ** 70 59 81 0.1305 Live Alone 37 47 29 0.0001 *of those who reported needing help, **of those who shared income level Citation Format: Neha Hippalgaonkar, Michael Weinfeld, Christine Weldon, Julia Trosman, Cindy Chan, Sarah Khan, Swetha Paduri, Vijay Reddy, Auradha Sakhuja, Paramjeet Khosla, Mary Pasquinelli, Lawrence Feldman. Comparing VA and safety-net hospital patient-reported care metrics and provider recommendations to address social determinants of health and demographics [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular s); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl) nr 1301.

oncology
Encouraging teamwork and innovative practices by creating proximity: A qualitative study of continuous improvements in the Quebec Cancer Network.

Dominique Tremblay,Nassera Touati,Susan Usher,Johanne Cournoyer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2021.39.15_suppl.e13509

IF: 45.3

2021-05-20

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13509 Background: Quality cancer care relies on each profession keeping up with advances and best practices and spreading these across a complex multi-team system 1 . It requires enabling multiple providers and people living with cancer to bridge the distance between them and complement each other's contributions. The proximity framework 2 provides a valuable way to understand conditions that increase the likelihood of knowledge sharing, innovation and collaboration. Methods: A qualitative study design of the Quebec Cancer Network was undertaken, with data collected from interviews with policymakers, managers, providers and users (N=22), observation of national and local level meetings (N=28) and document review. Interpretive Description using content analysis sought to identify actions that created proximity dimensions and the perceived influence these had on the development and spread of new approaches. Results: Deliberate actions taken within the network created different dimensions of proximity that impacted teamwork. Prescriptions from network leadership – including consistent promotion of the National cancer plan, patient participation in governance structures, shared quality indicators, and establishment of multidisciplinary committees at local level, created cognitive proximity: a shared mental model emphasizing patient-centred care and organizational proximity: shared standards across the network. Support for professional communities of practice created relational and institutional proximity, increasing trust and knowledge sharing. Local committees enhanced relational and cognitive proximity as providers came to appreciate and optimize each other's contribution to care. Conclusions: The combination of proximity dimensions created through communities of practice and prescriptions from the national level help develop and spread improvements that are tailored to - and take advantage of - networked team-based cancer care delivery. This reflects a balanced proximity where communities of practice pursue new knowledge and innovative practices that can be introduced in local committees to see how it fits with other contributions to solving a problem, thereby promoting recognition of interdependency within and between teams. Synergy between actions is essential to enhancing proximity. The proximity framework offers a complementary perspective to better understand opportunities for improving models of care. References: 1 Weaver, S. J., et al. (2018). Unpacking care coordination through a multiteam system lens. Medical care, 56(3), 247-259. et al. Unpacking Care Coordination Through a Multiteam System Lens. Medical Care. 2018;56(3):247-59. 2 Knoben, J., & Oerlemans, L. A. (2006). Proximity and inter‐organizational collaboration: A literature review. I nternational Journal of management reviews, 8(2), 71-89.

oncology
Abstract PO4-04-03: Empowering Oncologists to Develop Individualized Management Strategies for HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer: Findings from a Quality Improvement Initiative

Reshma Mahtani,Erika Hamilton,Ilona Dewald,Chelsie Anderson,Jeffrey Carter,Cherilyn Heggen,Kelly McKinnon

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-po4-04-03

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Rapidly evolving evidence in the treatment of metastatic HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) can present challenges in aligning practice with the latest clinical data and guideline recommendations. In this ongoing quality improvement initiative, we identify and address real-world challenges healthcare professionals (HCPs) face in individualizing treatment plans, adverse event management, and patient-centered care for HER2+ MBC. Methods: From 9/2022 to 12/2022, 22 HCPs who treat patients with breast cancer (BC) along with 52 patients with HER2+ MBC from 2 large US community oncology clinics completed tethered surveys assessing practice patterns, challenges, and attitudes related to individualized and patient-centered care for HER2+MBC. Patient charts (n=100) were audited to assess current practice patterns and to track changes over time. Inclusion criteria included a confirmed HER2+ MBC diagnosis, prescription for two or more lines of HER2+ breast cancer treatment, and ≥ 1 visit in the one-year chart abstraction period. HCPs participated in audit-feedback sessions to assess site-specific challenges and gaps and developed action plans for improvement. Follow-up chart audits and HCP surveys will evaluate changes in practice patterns 6 months after the educational intervention. Results: The most frequently reported HCP challenges included coordination of care (41%) and individualizing treatment plans (32%). The most frequently reported patient challenges included feeling confident in treatment plan (30%) and being unable to meet work or home responsibilities (22%). In tethered surveys, there were discordant findings between patient and HCP perceptions related to goals for treatment, patient education, and patient-centered care. For example, 82% of HCPs reported often or always asking patients about treatment preferences, but only 8% of patients reported their doctor asked. While HCPs overwhelmingly thought surviving as long as possible was their patients' top goal (82%), patients reported their top goals for treatment were improving quality of life (57%) and controlling symptoms (41%). Additionally, while HCPs thought patients had the most difficulty managing nausea/vomiting (68%) and diarrhea (59%), patients reported they have the most difficulty managing fatigue (46%) and hair loss (44%). Baseline chart audits highlighted several areas for improvement in guideline-aligned care, including treatment selection, sequencing, and supportive care. Based on identified gaps, providers developed and implemented action plans, such as increasing use of patient navigators, referring patients for palliative care at time of diagnosis, improving multidisciplinary team-based approaches, and implementing tools and resources to stay up-to-date on clinical evidence and guidelines. Full findings from baseline surveys and chart audits will be presented, along with follow-up surveys and chart audits to measure impact. Conclusions: Through this QI initiative, we identified gaps in individualized, guideline-aligned, patient-centered care for patients with HER2+ MBC, and HCPs developed and are implementing action plans for improvement. The methods and findings from this initiative demonstrate key opportunities to improve outcomes for patients with HER2+ MBC in community oncology clinics. Citation Format: Reshma Mahtani, Erika Hamilton, Ilona Dewald, Chelsie Anderson, Jeffrey Carter, Cherilyn Heggen, Kelly McKinnon. Empowering Oncologists to Develop Individualized Management Strategies for HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer: Findings from a Quality Improvement Initiative [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PO4-04-03.

oncology
Abstract C014: Strengthening transdisciplinary teams through developmental evaluation: Learnings from a multi-year, multi-project initiative

Laura Pinsoneault,Tobi Cawthra,Alexis Krause,Kristen Gardner-Volle,Jenelle Elza,Kim Kinner,Melinda Stolley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp23-c014

2023-12-02

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Cancer disparities are complex problems which require a deep understanding and strong collaboration from a broad set of perspectives across the academic and non-academic spectrum (community members, community-based organizations, policymakers) to identify sustainable solutions. The Community and Cancer Science Network (CCSN) initiative of the Medical College of Wisconsin Cancer Center is a transdisciplinary network focused on addressing statewide cancer disparities. CCSN grounds its approach in the principles of deep equity, systems-change, and the integration of biology to policy. CCSN currently includes multiple projects and more than 140 community and academic partners. Diverse transdisciplinary collaborations do not occur organically, often need facilitation and benefit from on-going assessment and support. To continually evaluate ways in which we can build and sustain strong teams and solutions, we utilize a developmental evaluation process leveraging the expertise of an external evaluation firm. Developmental evaluation supports social innovations by working with program leaders to focuses on learning and adaption. As CCSN has grown, developmental evaluation has allowed us to continually adapt how we build and guide our transdisciplinary teams. External developmental evaluators work with each project team as a cooperative partner and help guide the team leaders through understanding data needs, data collection, data analysis, and data interpretation. Our developmental evaluation began with journey mapping to understand the process and elements for successful leadership of a transdisciplinary team. This approach provided data allowing us to understand a pattern of certain pain points in collaborations and ways in which to prepare for and mitigate expected challenges. As the network has grown, we have utilized developmental evaluation to refine an annual partner survey and employ intermediate surveys (i.e., Right Now surveys) to assess team progress and openness to collaboration. Network mapping and stakeholder analysis have contributed to team formation helping team leaders consider new voices and perspectives. Further tools including Before/After Action reviews, Situational Analyses, and a readiness assessment were used to shape our understanding of successful transdisciplinary teams. We will show evidence of how these tools have positively impacted our ability to engage community and academic partners in authentic transdisciplinary collaborations over a four-year, and multi-project effort. Transdisciplinary Collaboration involving community and academic partners offer great promise for innovative approaches to cancer disparities. These unique collaborations may need additional support and guidance. Developmental evaluation provides tools to allow leaders to adapt to the needs and changes within complex teams. Citation Format: Laura Pinsoneault, Tobi Cawthra, Alexis Krause, Kristen Gardner-Volle, Jenelle Elza, Kim Kinner, Melinda Stolley. Strengthening transdisciplinary teams through developmental evaluation: Learnings from a multi-year, multi-project initiative [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 16th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2023 Sep 29-Oct 2;Orlando, FL. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2023;32(12 Suppl) nr C014.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health
A collaborator-engaged approach to tailoring strategies for implementing systematic health-related social needs assessment: Results from a cross-center study.

Sarah Birken,Jennifer J. Gabbard,Andrea Nederveld,Katharine A. Rendle,Rinad S. Beidas,Callie Walsh-Bailey,Daniel Blumenthal,Robert A. Schnoll,Aliza Randazzo,Cheyenne Wagi,Jenna White,Kristie Foley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.2024.20.10_suppl.166

2024-10-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:166 Background: Health-related social needs (HRSNs) exacerbate inequities in cancer incidence, morbidity and mortality. To improve health equity, policymakers recommend systematic HRSN screening in oncology clinics. In preliminary studies, we found low rates (<10%) of HRSN screening in oncology. Building upon these findings and transdisciplinary expertise across four Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3), in the current study, we engaged oncology care teams in tailoring site-specific strategies to implement HRSN screening. Methods: Centers varied in collaborator engagement methods, including Context-Driven Co-Design (CD2), which aims to harmonize the intervention (i.e., HRSN screening), context (e.g., oncology clinic), and implementation strategies. First, site leads conducted semi-structured interviews with 8-10 care team members and clinic observations to identify current HRSN assessment processes and opportunities and barriers to systematic HRSN screening. Second, site leads engaged collaborators in one-on-one interviews or, when using CD2, in 3-4 iterative co-design workshops in which they used context assessment data and user-centered design activities (e.g., storyboarding) to prioritize contextual factors, identify necessary adaptations to HRSN screening, and co-design implementation strategies to address salient barriers. Centers met monthly to share knowledge and troubleshoot. Results: Most Centers’ oncology clinics had established informal HRSN screening approaches. Across Centers, collaborators (e.g., providers, nurses, medical assistants, patients) identified similar opportunities (e.g., desire for a standardized approach to HRSN screening; well-functioning clinical teams and physical space). Common challenges included limited familiarity with HRSN screening and documentation tools; lack of standardized screening protocol; and limited awareness of HRSN screening’s purpose. Implementation strategies included pencil-and-paper screening tools; clinic signage regarding HRSN screening’s purpose; training and creation of standardized screening protocol; and a centralized resource for responding to HRSN with adjustment, assistance, alignment, and/or advocacy. Conclusions: Four ISC3 Centers developed multicomponent implementation plans tailored to their oncology clinic. Centers’ varied approaches and timelines presented challenges and opportunities for cross-Center learning. Oncology clinics exhibited substantial overlap in opportunities and challenges in HRSN screening. Much of CD2’s benefits were related to its collaborator-driven approach to implementation strategy development. Next steps include deploying implementation plans and assessing their impact on equitable reach and adoption of HRSN screening and response to identified needs.

oncology
Engaging Community–Academic Partnerships: A Case Study of the Influence of Social Drivers of Health on Equitable Transitions of Cancer Care in the United States

Lailea Noel,Catherine Cubbin,Shetal Vohra-Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12020264

2024-01-20

Health Care

Abstract:Enduring community–academic partnerships are essential for expediting the successful dissemination and implementation of promising interventions and programs, particularly for complex public health issues such as cancer prevention and control. The purpose of this case study was to understand the combined voices of a diverse group of stakeholders to outline the essential factors needed to translate research into sustainable cancer care within communities. System dynamics group model building was used to develop system maps of the factors impacting equitable access to cancer care services among three stakeholder groups (Group A: survivors and family members, n = 20; Group B: providers and administrators in community agencies/organizations, n = 40; Group C: administrators from a cancer institute, academic universities, foundations, and healthcare facilities that coordinate care, n = 25) in central Texas, USA. The lead researcher identified factors involved in transitions of care and their linkages with each other. The analysis of this work displays these connections visually. These models represent the ripple effect of factors influencing the transition of care for stakeholders who are invested in cancer care outcomes. All three groups identified medical mistrust, a culturally sensitive and diverse provider workforce, and care coordination as three essential factors (i.e., themes). Group A also identified caregiver navigation. The groups varied in their emphasis on upstream vs. downstream social drivers of health, with Group B emphasizing the former and Group C emphasizing the latter. To achieve cancer care equity, all stakeholder groups agreed on the importance of addressing the impact of social drivers as critical gaps. Eliminating or reducing these impacts allows each stakeholder group to work more efficiently and effectively to improve cancer care for patients.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
From what works to what matters: Whole person cancer care and the integrative oncology leadership collaborative (IOLC).

Alyssa Claire McManamon,Jenny Leyh,Jennifer Bires,Lisa Capparella,Linda E Carlson,Greg D. Garber,Nathan Handley,Safiya Karim,Young Joo Lee,Ana Maria Lopez,Patrick J. Mansky,Fern Nibauer-Cohen,Randall A. Oyer,Channing Judith Paller,Jody Pritt,Jasmine Souers,Vered Stearns,Barbara Paxson Urban,Raymond Couric Wadlow,Wayne Jonas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13567

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13567 Background: In 2021-2022, a two-year integrative oncology leadership collaborative ( IOLC ) was established with a goal to routinize whole person care. Thirteen cancer organizations met virtually 1-2x/month, including community, federal and academic centers. The IOLC defined whole person cancer care, adapted & tested open-source patient intake/PROs, education, and workflow resources from primary care, anchored in “what matters” for patients in oncology, and implemented practice change in their settings. Methods: Based on concepts and tools used in whole person primary care , and, with iterative discussion, the IOLC defined minimal required elements for whole person cancer care. Patient advocates, oncology social workers, physicians & nurses came together to draw from efforts that alleviate suffering in palliative, integrative, supportive, and other forms of (mostly) unreimbursed care. Six cancer survivor-advocate members vetted patient-facing resources. Subject matter experts reviewed topics important for clinical initiatives (e.g. group visit models , patient education resources ), shared best practices and solidified commitments to provide whole person care. To assess outcomes, a post-participation survey was fielded. Results: Minimal required elements (MREs) of whole person care were defined as: 1) inclusion of patient & caregiver voice in programming/care plans, 2) explicitly anchoring to “what matters” to the patient in shared decision making and goals of care (using PROs), and 3) supporting safe choices in complementary & integrative modalities. Challenges faced across organizations were: 1) leadership involvement, 2) patient understanding/engagement, 3) resource availability (time/financial), and 4) team alignment. Adaptation of primary care tools to oncology was successful; 15 “pocket guides” gained 2049 page views in 20 mos (top 3: cannabis 18%, nutrition 13%, patient advocacy 10%) and the American Cancer Society adopted the IOLC resources for distribution in 2024. Multi-institutional success occurred via publications and projects such as retooled nurse navigation, survivorship & wellness programs . Survey response rate was 54% (7 of 13 clinical sites). 89% increased whole person health services following IOLC participation (44% moderately or significantly). 100% reported use of the resources in patient care (55% often, 45% periodically). Conclusions: A definition of whole person cancer care, derived from broad consensus, identified MREs that allowed startup success across practice settings. An inclusive community of professionals & patients furthered whole person care with national impact, partnerships and culture change based on what matters to patients.

oncology
Abstract PO1-10-10: Leveraging technology to optimize symptom management and patient empowerment in routine breast cancer care: implementation of a remote patient monitoring (RPM) pathway across 24 hospitals in Europe

Maria Alice Franzoi,Arlindo R Ferreira,Juliette Fanton d'Andon,Thomas Grellety,Eliane Ithurbide-Dachary,Laura Polastro,Laurence Caravella,Joseph Rodriguez,Nathanaelle Leprevier,Elsa Blanchard,Stéphane Remy,Belen d' Ythurbide,Romain Rivoirard,Raoudha Boughzala,Joana M Ribeiro,Ines Vaz Luis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-po1-10-10

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: In clinical trials, RPM has been proven to improve the quality of life and toxicity management for patients receiving systemic treatment and is recommended by international guidelines for routine clinical practice (Di Maio et al., Ann Oncol 2022). Resilience is an oncology-specific RPM system (CE marked, class IIa medical device - mobile application [app] or web interface) which prompts patients to complete a weekly survey including core symptoms from NCI's PRO-CTCAE questionnaire. Severe or worsening symptoms trigger an alert notification sent to the patient's care team. In addition to the RPM system, the mobile app offers a large pool of breast cancer-specific educational, self-management, and patient empowerment resources that are personalized according to symptoms reported, disease stage, and treatments received. Here we present the implementation of the Resilience RPM pathway in routine breast cancer care across 24 highly diverse cancer centers. Methods: The implementation process followed a phasic process of Exploration, Preparation, Implementation, and Sustainability that involved close collaboration with technology providers, hospital managers, and care teams at participating cancer centers to coordinate, train, provide technical assistance, and respond to site-specific needs. In addition, monthly webinars offered participating centers an opportunity to share best practices and ways to overcome implementation barriers. A dedicated platform with educational RPM resources for healthcare providers was also available. A process evaluation according to the RE-AIM framework was performed assessing the reach, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of the RPM pathway in routine care. The effectiveness of the pathway was assessed as the ability of the care team to timely respond to alerts. Aggregated system level metric of RPM was collected covering patients with breast cancer under active systemic treatment followed by Resilience from 01-11-2021 to 29-06-2023. Usage data of mobile app resources was tracked from 01-01-2023 to 29-06-2023. Qualitative assessments with focus groups complemented this evaluation. Results: 985 patients, 1% male, 99% female, with a median age of 57y (range: 21-95y; P25-75 38.5-64.5y), were registered across 24 cancer centers. In the last 6 months, the predominant RPM interface chosen by patients was the mobile app (64.1 vs 35.9% for the web platform). Adherence to weekly ePRO reporting was 89.4% in the mobile app and 86.6% in the web platform. The median time from prompt receipt to survey completion was 5.6 hours. The median time for the nurse navigator (NN) to process an alert was 3h50min. Most alerts (91%) were handled directly by NN with 9% requiring the support of a physician. The mean number of individual content consumed per patient was 13 (6744 resources/523 pts, 100% of app users accessed resources). Preferred formats of content delivery were written articles (66.5%), followed by videos (23.1%) and podcasts (10.4%). Most assessed contents referred to: symptom management advice (16%), followed by information about breast cancer disease characteristics (12.5%), supportive care strategies (11.5%), self-guided exercises of mindfulness-based stress reduction (9.4%), and breast cancer treatment journey (8.3%). Qualitative assessments of the app interface, educational content, and self-management programs revealed high levels of satisfaction. The RPM pathway is sustained in the 24 cancer centers and implementation is expanding to additional centers. Conclusion: The Resilience RPM pathway was successfully implemented in routine care across a diverse group of cancer centers with elevated levels of patient engagement and responsiveness from NN. In addition, patients accessed evidence-based educational and empowerment resources, adapted to their medical profile according to their preferences and learning style. Citation Format: Maria Alice Franzoi, Arlindo R Ferreira, Juliette Fanton d'Andon, Thomas Grellety, Eliane Ithurbide-Dachary, Laura Polastro, Laurence Caravella, Joseph Rodriguez, Nathanaelle Leprevier, Elsa Blanchard, Stéphane Remy, Belen d' Ythurbide, Romain Rivoirard, Raoudha Boughzala, Joana M Ribeiro, Ines Vaz Luis. Leveraging technology to optimize symptom management and patient empowerment in routine breast cancer care: implementation of a remote patient monitoring (RPM) pathway across 24 hospitals in Europe [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PO1-10-10.

oncology
Abstract C011: The Critical Role of Developmental Evaluation in Supporting and Enhancing an Equitable Transdisciplinary Approach to Address Cancer Disparities

Tobi Cawthra,Laura Pinsoneault,Jerica Broeckling,Kristen Gardner-Volle,Tim Meister,Kailey Taebel,Jada Proctor,Felicia Fairfield,Kelly Hackett,David Frazer,Staci Young,Melinda Stolley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-c011

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:Background: Complex problems such as cancer disparities require deeper integration of social and scientific problem-solving and a broader systems approach. Given the nature of disparities, it also demands that we not just seek equitable outcomes but collaborate in ways that reflect equity in the process. To address breast and lung cancer disparities, we developed a unique transdisciplinary approach that creates teams inclusive of community, clinicians, and researchers and builds capacity to understand at a deep level the factors that underpin disparities and design and implement newer sustainable solutions. Methods: This study focuses on a phase I planning period for a transdisciplinary process with five teams locally embedded where lung and breast cancer disparities are significant. A leadership team that included primary investigators from academic medicine and public health supported community-based facilitators and evaluators responsible for guiding local teams. Deep equity, considerations on the biology to policy spectrum, and systems thinking are grounding principles in our approach. At the end of phase I, an evaluator facilitated After-Action Reviews (AAR) to assess effectiveness in maintaining fidelity to the framework and to identify successful practices and areas for improvement. These data informed changes to our approach to implementation to further root our commitment to equity during implementation. Seven AAR sessions were conducted: individual teams members, facilitators and evaluators, and the leaderships team (n-=50). The evaluator triangulated the data from the different AARs and facilitated a discussion of the integrated findings to the expanded leadership team. Results: The AAR highlighted three primary themes for critical self-reflection including (1) strengthening the understanding and use of our approach, (2) reducing ambiguity while preserving slack (e.g. flexibility with resources) and creativity, and (3) integrating project's partners intentionally into our wider transdisciplinary network. In examining these themes, we identified several strategies for improving our transdisciplinary approach during implementation and for wider replication of our framework with future integrated science-social problem solving. These areas included improved systems for 360-degree communication, clear expectations of roles, and additional support for transdisciplinary collaboration and application of grounded principles to better self-organize a transdisciplinary system within a wider less resilient system like academic medicine. Discussion: To successfully innovate socially and scientifically within complexities of cancer disparities, we need to push beyond conventional models of research and program intervention. This means incorporating methods across fields and sectors including evaluation. An After-Action Review is an effective evaluation tool for assessing a complex process with numerous contributors to ensure a stronger outcome including more refined and relevant research questions and sustainability program, policy and practice. Citation Format: Tobi Cawthra, Laura Pinsoneault, Jerica Broeckling, Kristen Gardner-Volle, Tim Meister, Kailey Taebel, Jada Proctor, Felicia Fairfield, Kelly Hackett, David Frazer, Staci Young, Melinda Stolley. The Critical Role of Developmental Evaluation in Supporting and Enhancing an Equitable Transdisciplinary Approach to Address Cancer Disparities [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr C011.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

Diagnosis of G-Protein Gene Mutations in Mc Cune-Albright Syndrome. 15

Intervention to Optimize Guideline-Recommended Interdependent Care Delivery in Breast and Lung Cancers with the 4R Oncology Model.

The Impact of the 4R Oncology Model of Team-Based Care Delivery on Timing and Sequence of Guideline Recommended Interdependent Care in Breast and Lung Cancers

The impact of 4R oncology model on patient self management and satisfaction in lung versus breast cancer.

Intervention to improve patient self-management and satisfaction in breast and lung cancers using the 4R Oncology model: Results by cancer, race and deprivation index.

Care delivery and patient self-management for people with primary liver cancer receiving 4R care sequence plans.

The Impact of the 4R Oncology Model on OncotypeDx Turnaround Time.

Cancer co-rounds: A novel inpatient multidisciplinary oncology rounding model.

Evaluation of interprofessional relational coordination and patients’ perception of care in outpatient oncology teams

Integration of a nurse practitioner and physician associate leadership structure within an academic cancer center

Impact of a care delivery intervention for patients with socioeconomic disadvantages, in their preferred language of English or Spanish.

Team principles for successful interdisciplinary research teams

Abstract 1301: Comparing VA and safety-net hospital patient-reported care metrics and provider recommendations to address social determinants of health and demographics

Encouraging teamwork and innovative practices by creating proximity: A qualitative study of continuous improvements in the Quebec Cancer Network.

Abstract PO4-04-03: Empowering Oncologists to Develop Individualized Management Strategies for HER2+ Metastatic Breast Cancer: Findings from a Quality Improvement Initiative

Abstract C014: Strengthening transdisciplinary teams through developmental evaluation: Learnings from a multi-year, multi-project initiative

A collaborator-engaged approach to tailoring strategies for implementing systematic health-related social needs assessment: Results from a cross-center study.

Engaging Community–Academic Partnerships: A Case Study of the Influence of Social Drivers of Health on Equitable Transitions of Cancer Care in the United States

From what works to what matters: Whole person cancer care and the integrative oncology leadership collaborative (IOLC).

Abstract PO1-10-10: Leveraging technology to optimize symptom management and patient empowerment in routine breast cancer care: implementation of a remote patient monitoring (RPM) pathway across 24 hospitals in Europe

Abstract C011: The Critical Role of Developmental Evaluation in Supporting and Enhancing an Equitable Transdisciplinary Approach to Address Cancer Disparities