Optimizing the oncology ecosystem: Addressing barriers between community and academic oncologists.

Ahmed Khalil,Ghazal Kango,Stephanie L. Graff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.e13580

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:e13580 Background: Oncology practice is becoming more complex and collaboration between academic and community practices is necessary to optimize care for patients. This qualitative analysis explores perceived gaps between academic and community practices and proposed solutions to a more cohesive oncology ecosystem for optimal quality and care delivery. Methods: A 10-question mixed-methods quantitative and qualitative survey was developed (SurveyMonkey) to identify practice setting, methods of collaboration, perceived barriers, and strategies for improvement. Both open-ended and multiple-choice questions were used. Survey was distributed via social media outreach on Facebook, X, and email. Individual responses were coded by AK, then compared using two sample z-test for proportions. Results: 68 responses were collected, comprising 45.5% community and 44.1% academic physicians. Non-clinician respondents (2.9%) were excluded. Respondents had been in practice: >20 years (16.42%), 10-20 years (40.3%), 5-9 years (19.4%) and < 5 years (23.9%). Collaboration commonly occurred via conferences (73.68%), shared Electronic Medical Records (EMRs, 59.65%) or research (38.6%). The main barriers perceived are summarized (Table). Community oncologists describe lack of appreciation from academics, time constraints, difficulty communicating. Main barriers to collaboration perceived by academic oncologists include delayed referral, time constraints, difficulty communicating, lack of shared EMRs, fear of patient displacement from the primary referring practice, and administrative red tape. Proposed solutions from both groups include engaging community oncologists in academic tumor boards (n=8/68,11.8%) and regional education events (n=2/68, 2.9%). Improved communication. Additionally, both groups were interested in expanding clinical trials in the community. Both groups noted the need for financial incentives and institutional support for successful cooperation (n=3/68, 4.4%). Conclusions: Our data unveiled the nuances of collaboration. Barriers mainly consist of lack of acknowledgement, poor communication, and barriers in EMR utilization. Both groups struggle with time constraints. This data can inform multi-shareholder groups working for systems-based process improvement, expanding collaboration between community and academic oncology. [Table: see text]

oncology