Enhancing implementation of the I-PASS Handoff Tool Using a Provider Handoff Task Force at a Comprehensive Cancer Center.

BACKGROUND: Communication failures are among the most common causes of harmful medical errors. At one Comprehensive Cancer Center, patient handoffs varied among services. The authors describe the implementation and results of an Organization-wide project to improve handoffs and implement an evidence-based handoff tool across all inpatient services. METHODS: The research team created a task force composed of members from 22 hospital services-advanced practice providers (APPs), trainees, some faculty members, electronic health record (EHR) staff, education and training specialists, and nocturnal providers. Over two years, the task force expanded to include consulting services and Anesthesiology. Factors contributing to ineffective handoffs were identified and organized into categories. The EHR I-PASS tool was used to standardize handoff documentation. Training was provided to staff on its use, and compliance was monitored using a customized dashboard. I-PASS champions in each service were responsible for the rollout of I-PASS in their respective services. The data were reported quarterly to the Quality Assessment and Performance Improvement (QAPI) governing committee. Provider handoff perception was assessed through the biennial Institution-wide safety culture survey. RESULTS: All fellows, residents, APPs, and physician assistants were trained in the use of I-PASS, either online or in person. Adherence to the I-PASS written tool improved from 41.6% in 2019 to 70.5% in 2022 (p < 0.05), with improvements seen in most services. The frequency of updating I-PASS elements and the action list in the handoff tool also increased over time. The handoff favorability score on the safety culture survey improved from 38% in 2018 to 59% in 2022. CONCLUSION: The implementation approach developed by the Provider Handoff Task Force led to increased use of the I-PASS EHR tool and improved safety culture survey handoff favorability.

Treatment patterns and outcomes of high-grade immune checkpoint inhibitor-related pneumonitis in an oncology hospitalist service.

PURPOSE: Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have become standard of care for some types of lung cancer. Along with expanding usage comes the emergence of immune-related adverse events (irAEs), including ICI-related pneumonitis (ICI-P). Treatment guidelines for managing irAEs have been developed; however, how clinicians manage irAEs in the real-world setting is less well known. We aimed to describe the outcomes and care patterns of grade ≥ 3 ICI-P in an onco-hospitalist service. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We included patients with lung cancer treated with ICI who were admitted to an oncology hospitalist service with a suspicion of ICI-P. We described the hospitalization characteristics, treatment patterns, discharge practices, and clinical outcomes of patients with confirmed ICI-P. The primary outcome was time to start treatment for ICI-P. RESULTS: Among 49 patients admitted with a suspicion of ICI-P, 31 patients were confirmed to have ICI-P and subsequently received ICI-P directed treatment. Pulmonology was consulted in 97% of patients. Median time to start treatment for ICI-P was 1 day (IQR 0-3.5 days). All 31 patients received corticosteroids. Inpatient mortality was 32%. Majority of patients discharged with steroids were prescribed prophylaxis for gastritis and opportunistic infections. Thirty-eight percent of patients were seen by pulmonology and 86% were seen by the oncology team post-discharge. CONCLUSION: Our study confirms prior findings of high mortality among patients with high-grade ICI-P. Early diagnosis and treatment are key to improving clinical outcomes. Understanding the care patterns and adherence to treatment guidelines of clinicians caring for this patient population may help identify ways to further standardize management practices and improve patient outcomes.

Practice Changes in Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Immune-Related Adverse Event Management at a Tertiary Care Center.

Understanding of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) has evolved rapidly, and management guidelines are continually updated. We explored temporal changes in checkpoint inhibitor-induced irAE management at a tertiary cancer care center to identify areas for improvement. We conducted a single-center retrospective study of patients who developed a gastrointestinal, pulmonary, renal, or cardiac irAE between July and 1 October in 2019 or 2021. We collected patient demographic and clinical information up to 1 year after toxicity. Endoscopic evaluation and specialty follow-up after discharge for patients with gastrointestinal irAEs declined between the 2019 and 2021 periods. Symptom duration and steroid taper attempts also declined. For pulmonary irAEs, rates of specialty consultation, hospital admission and readmission, and mortality improved in 2021 compared with 2019. Follow-up rates after hospital discharge were consistently low (<50%) in both periods. For cardiac irAEs, consultation with a cardiologist was frequent and prompt in both periods. Outpatient treatment and earlier specialty consultation improved outcomes with gastrointestinal irAEs. Our study exploring irAE practice changes over time identified areas to improve management; specifically, timely specialty consultation was associated with better outcomes for gastrointestinal irAEs. These findings can help improve the quality of management algorithms at our institution and may inform policies in other institutions.

Distinct patterns of auto-reactive antibodies associated with organ-specific immune-related adverse events.

The roles of preexisting auto-reactive antibodies in immune-related adverse events (irAEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitor therapy are not well defined. Here, we analyzed plasma samples longitudinally collected at predefined time points and at the time of irAEs from 58 patients with immunotherapy naïve metastatic non-small cell lung cancer treated on clinical protocol with ipilimumab and nivolumab. We used a proteomic microarray system capable of assaying antibody reactivity for IgG and IgM fractions against 120 antigens for systemically evaluating the correlations between auto-reactive antibodies and certain organ-specific irAEs. We found that distinct patterns of auto-reactive antibodies at baseline were associated with the subsequent development of organ-specific irAEs. Notably, ACHRG IgM was associated with pneumonitis, anti-cytokeratin 19 IgM with dermatitis, and anti-thyroglobulin IgG with hepatitis. These antibodies merit further investigation as potential biomarkers for identifying high-risk populations for irAEs and/or monitoring irAEs during immunotherapy treatment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03391869.

Improving handoff with the implementation of I-PASS at a tertiary oncology hospital.

BACKGROUND: Lack of consistent and standardised handoffs is a leading cause of patient harm. With increased census in our hospital medicine (HM) service, failure to handoff using a standardised method has the potential to cause significant patient harm. We used a quality improvement methodology to standardise an existing and validated handoff tool within our HM team to improve handoff communication among providers and improve patient safety. METHODS: A quality improvement team was charged with studying handoff communication among HM teams and between day and night shift providers at a tertiary oncology hospital. Multiple plan-do-study-act cycles were conducted, and process flow maps, root cause analysis and an affinity diagram were developed based on feedback from the HM team. The quality improvement team developed a plan to implement I-PASS (Illness severity, Patient summary, Action list, Situation awareness and contingency plan, and Synthesis by receiver) as the standardised handoff tool to be used among the providers in HM at the end of shift and for handoff to the nocturnal covering service. Rates of I-PASS use were collected before and after several educational interventions to encourage use of I-PASS and were displayed in a control chart. After the I-PASS interventions, HM providers were surveyed twice to evaluate the secondary outcomes: the tool's impact on workflow, perceptions of patient safety, ease of use and satisfaction with I-PASS. Survey results were compared using Fisher exact tests. RESULTS: The HM team's rate of use of I-PASS handoffs increased from 23% to 72%, an improvement of 68%. By the end of the quality improvement project, I-PASS use had increased to 90%. No significant differences were detected in the reported duration of handoffs after I-PASS implementation (on average <5 min per patient, p=0.205). Provider perceptions of handoff quality, efficiency, communication errors and the I-PASS tool's effectiveness were satisfactory. CONCLUSION: We used a quality improvement methodology to encourage the HM team's adoption of a validated handoff tool. Adherence to the standardised handoff tool significantly improved workflows and facilitated communication between the day and night shift teams.