Search

199 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action for cancer patients. NCCN and ASCO supportive care and age-related guidelines include patient reported concerns beyond distress. This study compares PHQ4 scores to other patient reported concerns. Methods: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative aggregated “best of” screening tools to assess patient reported needs and concerns aligned with CoC, NCCN and ASCO guidance. This supportive care screening tool was implemented at 8 sites from July 2015 thru July 2018. Analysis used chi squared test. Results: Most patients, 86% (10,635/12,295), reported one plus concerns and/or above threshold scores on PHQ4, PROMIS Pain, Fatigue or Physical Function. A chi squared comparison of patients with at least mild distress on PHQ4 to patients with no distress resulted in p values < .0001 for every screening category. Conclusions: Patients with a PHQ4 distress score of mild, moderate or severe also reported statistically significant levels of practical, family, physical, nutrition and treatment concerns. These patients also scored threshold levels for PROMIS Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function. Screening only for distress without screening for other patient concerns may direct patients to services that do not address or focus on the underlying cause of the distress. [Table: see text]

33 Background: The Institute of Medicine and Commission on Cancer recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology care for cancer patients. The CSOC is focused on quality improvement (QI) of supportive care across Chicago cancer centers (Weldon ASCO ’17). Supportive oncology includes distress, practical, family, physical, nutrition, pain, fatigue and care concerns. To support QI, cross-institution teams developed unique, relevant tools, methods, care delivery processes, patient handouts and online training. Methods: Ten centers (5 academic, 1 VA, 1 public, 2 safety net, 1 community) implemented supportive oncology screening and care delivery quality improvements. Centers collected data for relevant Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) metrics. Analyses used simple frequencies and Fishers exact test. Results: Five of six QOPI measures were improved at statistically significant levels from 2014 to 2017, p < .00001. Improvements are more modest in 2016 & 2017 as 4 of the centers started this QI in 2017. Conclusions: The CSOC achieved significant improvements in supportive oncology screening and identifying and addressing patients’ needs and concerns. Additional work is needed to improve these measures to achieve the best quality of cancer care possible for every patient based on their needs and concerns. [Table: see text]

150 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology and survivorship care to all cancer patients. CSOC aims to improve the quality of supportive care across Chicago-area providers. Methods: 35 CSOC participating institutions (cancer centers, support centers, hospice) formed care delivery design teams - Distress, Survivorship and Palliative. Teams collaboratively developed solutions to supportive oncology gaps: patient screening tools, care delivery processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess supportive oncology quality and the CSOC impact. Six implementation centers (2 safety-net, 3 academic & 1 public) reviewed charts at baseline (2014 diagnoses) and after the initial implementation period (2015 diagnoses), compared by frequencies and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at 2 time points; improvements were seen in 7/8 metrics. (See Table). Conclusions: CSOC developed supportive oncology screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation across diverse settings. Ongoing work will further evaluate the impact of CSOC efforts on patient care. [Table: see text]

96 Background: The IOM 2013 report recommends comprehensive supportive oncology care from diagnosis through survivorship to end of life. The Coleman Foundation supported a baseline assessment of supportive oncology care using key COC, ASCO-QOPI and NQF measures. Methods: Data extracted from medical records at 6 Chicago cancer centers in 2014 (n = 843 patients), including stage I-III (n = 391) and stage IV solid tumor or refractory hematologic malignancy (n = 452). Results: Fifty-four percent of patients had discussions on understanding of illness, 24% were informed of prognosis timeframe, and 5% had a documented healthcare power of attorney. Only 6% of stage IV patients received distress screening within 2 weeks of diagnosis and 15% of Stage IV patients had referrals to palliative care. Among patients with Stage I-III cancer, 38% had a supportive oncology screening, and 2% received treatment summaries and a SCPs. Conclusions: There are still large gaps in important supportive care processes based on IOM 2013 recommendations, COC, and ASCO QOPI measures. Future steps include implementing supportive care processes that address gaps across the 6 cancer centers. [Table: see text]