Search

PURPOSE: We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention among patients with pancreatic cancer. METHODS: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer from a parent trial of neoadjuvant fluorouracil, leucovorin, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan (FOLFIRINOX). The intervention entailed (1) remote monitoring of patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; (2) a hospital-at-home care model; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥ 60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥ 60% completed the daily assessments within the first 2-weeks of enrollment. We determined rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. RESULTS: From January 2019 to September 2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent because of moving out of state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years). In the first 2 weeks of enrollment, 65.0% of participants completed all daily assessments. Overall, patients reported 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), and emergency department visits/hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%) compared with those not receiving the intervention from the same parent trial. CONCLUSION: Findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing health care use and improving patient outcomes.

Background Patients with cancer often endure substantial symptoms and treatment toxicities leading to high healthcare utilization, including hospitalizations and emergency department visits, throughout the continuum of their illness. Innovative oncology care models are needed to improve patient outcomes and reduce their healthcare utilization. Using a novel hospital at home care platform, we developed a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the needs of patients with cancer. Methods We are conducting three trials to delineate the role of Supportive Oncology Care at Home for patients with cancer. The Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention includes: (1) a hospital at home care model for symptom assessment and management; (2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and (3) structured communication with the oncology team. Our first study is a randomized controlled trial to test the efficacy of Supportive Oncology Care at Home versus standard oncology care for improving healthcare utilization, cancer treatment interruptions, and patient-reported outcomes in patients with cancer receiving definitive treatment of their cancer. Participants include adult patients with gastrointestinal and head and neck cancer, as well as lymphoma, receiving definitive treatment (e.g., treatment with curative intent). The second study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Eligible participants include adult patients with incurable cancer who are admitted with an unplanned hospitalization. The third study is a single-arm trial assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to enhance the end-of-life care for patients with advanced hematologic malignancies. Eligible participants include adult patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancy receiving palliative therapy or supportive care alone. Discussion These studies are approved by the Dana-Farber/Harvard Cancer Center Institutional Review Board and are being conducted in accordance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for non-pharmacological trials. This work has the potential to transform the paradigm of care for patients with cancer by providing them with the necessary support at home to improve their health outcomes and care delivery. Trial registrations NCT04544046, NCT04637035, NCT04690205.

295 Background: Patients with advanced cancer often experience frequent and prolonged hospitalizations, and the transition from hospital to home represents a critical period for these individuals, as they prefer to maximize time at home and avoid readmissions. We sought to demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention to address the post-discharge needs of recently hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. Methods: We conducted a single-arm pilot trial at Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH). We enrolled English-speaking adults with advanced solid tumors experiencing their second or later unplanned hospitalization, who were being discharged home without hospice services and residing within a 50 mile radius of MGH. The three-week intervention consisted of: 1) hospital in the home care model for proactive symptom assessment and management, including clinician visits to assess patients, draw labs, administer intravenous medications and hydration, and ensure optimal symptom management; 2) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, vital signs, and body weight; and 3) structured communication with the oncology team. The primary endpoint of the study was feasibility, defined as ≥60% of approached and eligible patients enrolling and ≥60% of participants completing daily symptom assessments. After intervention completion, patients rated the helpfulness and convenience of the intervention and symptom monitoring technology. Results: From 12/2021-6/2022, we enrolled 40 out of 66 approached patients (60.6% enrollment rate). Enrolled patients (median age = 58.5 years, 50% female, 75% white, 68% married, 50% gastrointestinal cancers) completed 93.8% of daily symptom assessments. 12 patients (30%) did not complete the intervention due to withdrawal (5), hospice transfer (4), or death (3). Among enrolled patients, 20.0% were enrolled in hospice and 15.4% died at 30 days after hospital discharge. In exit interviews, 100% and 75% rated the intervention and symptom monitoring as helpful, respectively. 83% of patients found the in-home monitoring technology convenient. Conclusions: We found that a three-week Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention is a feasible approach to providing post-discharge care for high acuity, seriously ill hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. These patients also found the intervention highly acceptable. Future studies will test the efficacy of the intervention for reducing hospital readmissions, improving symptom management and quality of life, and increasing days spent at home near the end of life. Clinical trial information: NCT04637035.

6558 Background: Patients with pancreatic cancer receiving chemotherapy often experience substantial symptoms and high healthcare utilization. We sought to determine the feasibility of delivering a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention designed to address the needs of patients receiving treatment for pancreatic cancer. Methods: We prospectively enrolled patients with pancreatic cancer who were participating in a parent trial of neoadjuvant FOLFIRINOX and residing in-state, within 50 miles of our hospital. Patients received the Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention during neoadjuvant treatment (i.e., up to 4 months). The intervention entailed: 1) remote monitoring of daily patient-reported symptoms, daily vital signs, and weekly body weight; 2) a hospital in the home care model for symptom assessment and management; and 3) structured communication with the oncology team. We defined the intervention as feasible if ≥60% of patients enrolled in the study and ≥60% completed the daily assessments within the first two weeks of enrollment. We tracked numbers of phone calls, emails, and home visits generated by the intervention. We conducted exit interviews with patients, caregivers, and oncology clinicians to assess the acceptability of the intervention. In addition, we compared rates of treatment delays, urgent clinic visits, emergency room (ER) visits, and hospitalizations among those who did (n = 20) and did not (n = 24) receive Supportive Oncology Care at Home from the parent trial. Results: From 1/2019-9/2020, we enrolled 80.8% (21/26) of potentially eligible patients. One patient became ineligible following consent due to moving out-of-state, resulting in 20 participants (median age = 67 years [range 55-77]; 60.0% female). Within the first two weeks of enrollment, 65.0% completed all the daily assessments, with participants reporting 96.1% of daily symptoms, 96.1% of daily vital signs, and 92.5% of weekly body weights. Each participant generated an average of 2.22 phone calls (range 0.62-3.77), 2.96 emails (range 1.50-5.88), and 0.15 home visits (range 0-0.69) per week. During exit interviews, > 80% of patients, caregivers, and clinicians found the intervention to be helpful and convenient, and they reported high satisfaction with the communication among patients, clinicians, and the hospital in the home team. Patients receiving the intervention had lower rates of treatment delays (55.0% v 75.0%), urgent clinic visits (10.0% v 25.0%), ER visits or hospitalizations (45.0% v 62.5%), as well as a lower proportion of days spent in urgent clinic, ER, or hospital (2.7% v 7.8%), compared with those not receiving the intervention who were in the same parent trial. Conclusions: These findings demonstrate the feasibility and acceptability of a Supportive Oncology Care at Home intervention. Future work will investigate the efficacy of this intervention for decreasing healthcare use and improving patient outcomes. Clinical trial information: NCT03798769.

Background Ethics and quality care are common drivers for healthcare organisations. Both are based on ethics principles that are the foundation for quality, and are synergistic with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims. This paper describes the relationship between ethics principles and the goals of improving quality, safety and value. It demonstrates how healthcare staff, quality improvement professionals and ethics committee members could apply a quality improvement framework to address and prevent ethics issues. Discussion Recurring ethics issues can have a detrimental impact on both the quality of patient care and the culture of a healthcare organisation. Clinical staff and ethics committee members traditionally respond to ethics issues using a reactive approach. Despite nascent interest in a system-oriented preventive approach to ethics issues, there is limited practical advice for ethics committee members regarding how to specifically implement a system redesign strategy. Using an illustrative case study, the authors demonstrate how to apply a recognised quality improvement framework, which focuses on clinical microsystems, to manage and decrease ethics issues—therefore enhancing the organisation's quality of care. Conclusion An important step in enhancing quality and ethics aims would be for the organisation's staff, including quality improvement professionals and ethics committee members, to collaborate in fostering system redesign. The authors' aim is not to examine in detail a specific quality improvement approach or method; rather, they wish to highlight the synergy they believe exists between quality improvement efforts and organisational ethics issues.