Key Performance Indicators and Metrics for the Implementation of an Oral Chemotherapy Adherence Program.

BACKGROUND: Oral anticancer agents (OAAs) transformed cancer care for patients, extending survival and delaying progression in certain cases. There are multiple pharmacy-driven models to improve patient knowledge and adherence to OAAs. However, a lack of measurable key performance indicators (KPIs) has limited the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of these models. The objective of this study was to identify a set of KPIs, their metrics, and the target values that indicated improved patient care through an OAA adherence program. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify an initial list of defined KPIs, metrics of the KPIs, and targets for success. We assembled an advisory panel of clinicians (n=9), administrators (n=7), and patients (n=2) from across an academic and affiliated community cancer center to gauge agreement on identified KPIs for use within a structured adherence intervention. We used a Qualtrics survey consisting of questions measured using a 5-point Likert scale response that ranged from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and a subsequent consensus-building discussion with the advisory panel to identify agreeability with the definitions, metrics, and targets of identified KPIs. RESULTS: Eleven KPIs were identified: (1) time to intended OAA initiation; (2) adherence rate during active treatment; (3) adverse events; (4) medication-related financial toxicity; (5) patient satisfaction; (6) treatment-related emergency department visits; (7) treatment-related hospital admissions; (8) proportion of patients with adherence, toxicity, and financial barriers assessed; (9) proportion of patients referred to social work; (10) time spent by patient in each phase of care as defined by the intervention's standard operating procedure; and (11) revenue generated by billing for service. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified 11 KPIs that can be used in evaluating the success of an OAA adherence program. Use of these KPIs will be piloted after formal implementation of the program in both academic and community cancer centers.

Rates of Downstream Procedures and Complications Associated With Lung Cancer Screening in Routine Clinical Practice : A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening (LCS) using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) reduces lung cancer mortality but can lead to downstream procedures, complications, and other potential harms. Estimates of these events outside NLST (National Lung Screening Trial) have been variable and lacked evaluation by screening result, which allows more direct comparison with trials. OBJECTIVE: To identify rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: 5 U.S. health care systems. PATIENTS: Individuals who completed a baseline LDCT scan for LCS between 2014 and 2018. MEASUREMENTS: Outcomes included downstream imaging, invasive diagnostic procedures, and procedural complications. For each, absolute rates were calculated overall and stratified by screening result and by lung cancer detection, and positive and negative predictive values were calculated. RESULTS: Among the 9266 screened patients, 1472 (15.9%) had a baseline LDCT scan showing abnormalities, of whom 140 (9.5%) were diagnosed with lung cancer within 12 months (positive predictive value, 9.5% [95% CI, 8.0% to 11.0%]; negative predictive value, 99.8% [CI, 99.7% to 99.9%]; sensitivity, 92.7% [CI, 88.6% to 96.9%]; specificity, 84.4% [CI, 83.7% to 85.2%]). Absolute rates of downstream imaging and invasive procedures in screened patients were 31.9% and 2.8%, respectively. In patients undergoing invasive procedures after abnormal findings, complication rates were substantially higher than those in NLST (30.6% vs. 17.7% for any complication; 20.6% vs. 9.4% for major complications). LIMITATION: Assessment of outcomes was retrospective and was based on procedural coding. CONCLUSION: The results indicate substantially higher rates of downstream procedures and complications associated with LCS in practice than observed in NLST. Diagnostic management likely needs to be assessed and improved to ensure that screening benefits outweigh potential harms. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.

The Perceived Usability of Virtual Visits Among Black Adults' Receiving Oncology Care: A Qualitative Analysis.

BACKGROUND: With the COVID-19 pandemic came rapid uptake in virtual oncology care. During this, sociodemographic inequities in access to virtual visits (VVs) have become apparent. To better understand these issues, we conducted a qualitative study to describe the perceived usability and acceptability of VVs among Black adults diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Adults who self-identified as Black and had a diagnosis of prostate, multiple myeloma, or head and neck cancer were recruited from 2 academic medical centers, and their community affiliates to participate in a semi-structured interview, regardless of prior VV experience. A patient and family advisory board was formed to inform all components of the study. Interviews were conducted between September 2, 2021 and February 23, 2022. Transcripts were organized topically, and themes and subthemes were determined through iterative and interpretive immersion/crystallization cycles. RESULTS: Of the 49 adults interviewed, 29 (59%) had participated in at least one VV. Three overarching themes were derived: (1) VVs felt comfortable and convenient in the right contexts; (2) the technology required for VVs with video presented new challenges, which were often resolved by an audio-only telephone call; and (3) participants reported preferring in-person visits, citing concerns regarding gaps in nonverbal communication, trusting providers, and distractions during VV. CONCLUSION: While VVs were reported to be acceptable in specific circumstances, Black adults reported preferring in-person care, in part due to a perceived lack of interpersonal connectedness. Nonetheless, retaining reimbursement for audio-only options for VVs is essential to ensure equitable access for those with less technology savvy and/or limited device/internet capabilities.

Barriers and facilitators associated with implementing interventions to support oral anticancer agent adherence in academic and community cancer center settings.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study is to determine barriers and facilitators to the implementation of medication adherence interventions to support cancer patients taking novel, targeted oral anticancer agents (OAAs). METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews using a semi-structured guide from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We used purposive sampling to identify clinicians (physicians, pharmacists, nurse practitioners, nurses) and administrators (leadership from medicine, pharmacy, and nursing) who delivered care and/or oversee care delivery for patients with chronic leukemia prescribed an OAA. RESULTS: A total of 19 individuals participated in an interview (12 clinicians and 7 administrators), with 10 primarily employed by an academic cancer center; 5 employed by the community cancer center; and 4 employed by the integrated health-system specialty pharmacy. Barriers identified included low awareness of adherence interventions, difficulty in adherence measurement, complexity of designing and implementing a structured adherence intervention, and competing priorities. Facilitators identified included support of hospital administrators, value for pharmacists, and willingness to embrace change. Participants also made recommendations moving forward including standardizing workflow, designating champions, iterating implementation strategies, and improving communication between clinicians and with patients. CONCLUSION: Individual and system level factors were identified as determinants of implementation effectiveness of medication adherence interventions. A multidisciplinary advisory panel will be assembled to design comprehensive and actionable strategies to refine and implement a structured intervention to improve medication adherence in cancer patients.

Health Information and Misinformation: A Framework to Guide Research and Practice.

When facing a health decision, people tend to seek and access web-based information and other resources. Unfortunately, this exposes them to a substantial volume of misinformation. Misinformation, when combined with growing public distrust of science and trust in alternative medicine, may motivate people to make suboptimal choices that lead to harmful health outcomes and threaten public safety. Identifying harmful misinformation is complicated. Current definitions of misinformation either have limited capacity to define harmful health misinformation inclusively or present a complex framework with information characteristics that users cannot easily evaluate. Building on previous taxonomies and definitions, we propose an information evaluation framework that focuses on defining different shapes and forms of harmful health misinformation. The framework aims to help health information users, including researchers, clinicians, policy makers, and lay individuals, to detect misinformation that threatens truly informed health decisions.

Exploring the Acceptability of Text Messages to Inform and Support Shared Decision-making for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Online Panel Survey.

BACKGROUND: While online portals may be helpful to engage patients in shared decision-making at the time of cancer screening, because of known disparities in patient portal use, sole reliance on portals to support cancer screening decision-making could exacerbate well-known disparities in this health care area. Innovative approaches are needed to engage patients in health care decision-making and to support equitable shared decision-making. OBJECTIVE: We assessed the acceptability of text messages to engage sociodemographically diverse individuals in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening decisions and support shared decision-making in practice. METHODS: We developed a brief text message program offering educational information consisting of components of shared decision-making regarding CRC screening (eg, for whom screening is recommended, screening test options, and pros/cons of options). The program and postprogram survey were offered to members of an online panel. The outcome of interest was program acceptability measured by observed program engagement, participant-reported acceptability, and willingness to use similar programs (behavioral intent). We evaluated acceptability among historically marginalized categories of people defined by income, literacy, and race. RESULTS: Of the 289 participants, 115 reported having a low income, 146 were Black/African American, and 102 had less than extreme confidence in their health literacy. With one exception, we found equal or greater acceptability, regardless of measure, within each of the marginalized categories of people compared to their counterparts. The exception was that participants reporting an income below US $50,000 were less likely to engage with sufficient content of the program to learn that there was a choice among different CRC screening tests (difference -10.4%, 95% CI -20.1 to -0.8). Of note, Black/African American participants reported being more likely to sign up to receive text messages from their doctor's office compared to white participants (difference 18.7%, 95% CI 7.0-30.3). CONCLUSIONS: Study findings demonstrate general acceptance of text messages to inform and support CRC screening shared decision-making.

Preferences for Electronic Modes of Communication Among Older Primary Care Patients: Cross-sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Health information delivered via daily modes of communication such as email, text, or telephone reportedly supports improved health behavior and outcomes. While different modes of communication beyond clinical visits have proven successful for patient outcomes, preferences for communication modes have not been comprehensively studied among older primary care patients. We addressed this gap by assessing patient preferences for receiving cancer screening and other information from their doctors' offices. OBJECTIVE: We explored stated preferences by communication modes through the lens of social determinants of health (SDOH) to gauge acceptability and equity implications for future interventions. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was mailed to primary care patients aged 45-75 years, in 2020-2021, which assessed respondents' use of telephones, computers, or tablets in daily life and their preferred modes of communication for different types of health information, including educational materials about cancer screening, tips for taking prescription medication, and protection from respiratory diseases from their doctors' offices. Respondents indicated their willingness to receive messages from their doctors' offices via each of the provided modes of communication, including telephone, text, email, patient portals, websites, and social media, on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from "unwilling" to "willing." We present the percentage of respondents who indicated that they were "willing" to receive information via specific electronic mode. Chi-square tests were used to compare participants' willingness by social characteristics. RESULTS: In total, 133 people completed the survey (response rate 27%). The average respondent age was 64 years, 82 (63%) respondents were female, 106 (83%) were White, 20 (16%) were Black, and 1 (1%) was Asian. In total, 75 (58%) respondents had a bachelor's degree or higher; 26 (20%) resided in rural areas, 37 (29%) in suburban areas, 50 (39%) in a town, and 15 (12%) in a city. The majority, 73 (57%), reported being comfortable with their income. Preferences of respondents for electronic communication about cancer screening were distributed as follows: 100 (75%) respondents were willing to receive information from their doctor's office via their patient portal, 98 (74%) via email, 75 (56%) via text, 60 (45%) via the hospital website, 50 (38%) via telephone, and 14 (11%) via social media. About 6 (5%) respondents were unwilling to receive any communication via electronic modes. Preferences were distributed similarly for other types of information. Respondents reporting lesser income and education consistently preferred receiving telephone calls relative to other communication modes. CONCLUSIONS: To optimize health communication and reach a socioeconomically diverse population, telephone calls should be added to electronic communication, especially for people with less income and education. Further research needs to identify the underlying reasons for the observed differences and how best to ensure that socioeconomically diverse groups of older adults can access reliable health information and health care services.

Predicting Acute Care Events Among Patients Initiating Chemotherapy: A Practice-Based Validation and Adaptation of the PROACCT Model.

PURPOSE: Acute care events (ACEs), comprising emergency department visits and hospitalizations, are a priority area for reduction in oncology. Prognostic models are a compelling strategy to identify high-risk patients and target preventive services, but have yet to be broadly implemented, partly because of challenges with electronic health record (EHR) integration. To facilitate EHR integration, we adapted and validated the previously published PRediction Of Acute Care use during Cancer Treatment (PROACCT) model to identify patients at highest risk for ACEs after systemic anticancer treatment. METHODS: A retrospective cohort of adults with a cancer diagnosis starting systemic therapy at a single center between July and November 2021 was divided into development (70%) and validation (30%) sets. Clinical and demographic variables were extracted, limited to those in structured format in the EHR, including cancer diagnosis, age, drug category, and ACE in prior year. Three logistic regression models of increasing complexity were developed to predict risk of ACEs. RESULTS: Five thousand one hundred fifty-three patients were evaluated (3,603 development and 1,550 validation). Several factors were predictive of ACEs: age (in decades), receipt of cytotoxic chemotherapy or immunotherapy, thoracic, GI or hematologic malignancy, and ACE in the prior year. We defined high-risk as the top 10% of risk scores; this population had 33.6% ACE rate compared with 8.3% for the remaining 90% in the low-risk group. The simplest Adapted PROACCT model had a C-statistic of 0.79, sensitivity of 0.28, and specificity of 0.93. CONCLUSION: We present three models designed for EHR integration that effectively identify oncology patients at highest risk for ACE after initiation of systemic anticancer treatment. By limiting predictors to structured data fields and including all cancer types, these models offer broad applicability for cancer care organizations and may offer a safety net to identify and target resources to this high risk.

Trends and Characteristics of Potentially Preventable Emergency Department Visits Among Patients With Cancer in the US.

Importance: An initial step to reducing emergency department (ED) visits among patients with cancer is to identify the characteristics of patients visiting the ED and examine which of those visits could be prevented. Objective: To explore nationwide trends and characteristics of ED visits and examine factors associated with potentially preventable ED visits and unplanned hospitalizations among patients with cancer in the US. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study used data on ED visits from the National Hospital Ambulatory Medical Care Survey from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019; US Cancer Statistics reports were used to estimate new cancer cases each year. Frequencies and trends among 35 510 014 ED visits by adult patients (aged ≥18 years) with cancer were calculated. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was potentially preventable ED visits, and secondary outcomes were unplanned hospitalizations and the immediacy of the ED visits. Potentially preventable ED visits were identified using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services definition. The Emergency Severity Index, a triage algorithm that ranks patients based on the urgency of their health care condition, was used to measure the immediacy of ED visits (immediate [most urgent], emergent, urgent, less urgent, and nonurgent), with the categories of immediate and emergent classified as high acuity. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to calculate trends in ED visits among patients with cancer over time. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to examine the associations of patient, hospital, and temporal factors with potentially preventable ED use and ED use resulting in hospitalization. Results: Among 854 911 106 ED visits, 35 510 014 (4.2%) were made by patients with cancer (mean [SD] age, 66.2 [16.2] years); of those, 55.2% of visits were among women, 73.2% were among non-Hispanic White individuals, 89.8% were among patients living in a private residence, and 54.3% were among Medicare enrollees. A total of 18 316 373 ED visits (51.6%) were identified as potentially preventable, and 5 770 571 visits (21.3%) were classified as high acuity. From 2012 to 2019, potentially preventable ED visits increased from 1 851 692 to 3 214 276. Pain (36.9%) was the most common reason for potentially preventable ED visits. The number of patients who visited an ED because of pain increased from 1 192 197 in 2012 to 2 405 849 in 2019 (a 101.8% increase). Overall, 28.9% of ED visits resulted in unplanned hospitalizations, which did not change significantly over time (from 32.2% in 2012 to 26.6% in 2019; P = .78 for trend). Factors such as residence in a nursing home (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% CI, 1.25-2.41) were positively associated with having a potentially preventable ED visit, and factors such as the presence of more than 1 comorbidity (odds ratio, 1.82; 95% CI, 1.43-2.32) were positively associated with having an unplanned hospitalization. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, 51.6% of ED visits among patients with cancer were identified as potentially preventable, and the absolute number of potentially preventable ED visits increased substantially between 2012 and 2019. These findings highlight the need for cancer care programs to implement evidence-based interventions to better manage cancer treatment complications, such as uncontrolled pain, in outpatient and ambulatory settings.

"Mm-hm," "Uh-uh": are non-lexical conversational sounds deal breakers for the ambient clinical documentation technology?

OBJECTIVES: Ambient clinical documentation technology uses automatic speech recognition (ASR) and natural language processing (NLP) to turn patient-clinician conversations into clinical documentation. It is a promising approach to reducing clinician burden and improving documentation quality. However, the performance of current-generation ASR remains inadequately validated. In this study, we investigated the impact of non-lexical conversational sounds (NLCS) on ASR performance. NLCS, such as Mm-hm and Uh-uh, are commonly used to convey important information in clinical conversations, for example, Mm-hm as a "yes" response from the patient to the clinician question "are you allergic to antibiotics?" MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this study, we evaluated 2 contemporary ASR engines, Google Speech-to-Text Clinical Conversation ("Google ASR"), and Amazon Transcribe Medical ("Amazon ASR"), both of which have their language models specifically tailored to clinical conversations. The empirical data used were from 36 primary care encounters. We conducted a series of quantitative and qualitative analyses to examine the word error rate (WER) and the potential impact of misrecognized NLCS on the quality of clinical documentation. RESULTS: Out of a total of 135 647 spoken words contained in the evaluation data, 3284 (2.4%) were NLCS. Among these NLCS, 76 (0.06% of total words, 2.3% of all NLCS) were used to convey clinically relevant information. The overall WER, of all spoken words, was 11.8% for Google ASR and 12.8% for Amazon ASR. However, both ASR engines demonstrated poor performance in recognizing NLCS: the WERs across frequently used NLCS were 40.8% (Google) and 57.2% (Amazon), respectively; and among the NLCS that conveyed clinically relevant information, 94.7% and 98.7%, respectively. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: Current ASR solutions are not capable of properly recognizing NLCS, particularly those that convey clinically relevant information. Although the volume of NLCS in our evaluation data was very small (2.4% of the total corpus; and for NLCS that conveyed clinically relevant information: 0.06%), incorrect recognition of them could result in inaccuracies in clinical documentation and introduce new patient safety risks.

Interpersonal communication-, education- and counselling-based interventions to support adherence to oral anticancer therapy: a systematic review.

Background. Many factors contribute to oral anti-cancer therapy adherence, including counselling and educational support. Objective. We systematically review the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interpersonal communication-, counselling- and education-based interventions on patient adherence to oral anticancer therapy. Methods. Using search terms pertaining to medication adherence, oral anticancer therapy, and communication, education, and counselling, we conducted a systematic search for full-text, original research articles prior to 3/13/20. Two reviewers independently reviewed each paper for inclusion and charted study information. Results. Twenty-four articles were included. All considered the use of oral anticancer therapy between two defined time points. Four studies also considered the length of time a patient persisted on therapy. Half (n = 12) of the studies reported a statistically significant relationship between the intervention and medication adherence, with no consistent pattern among intervention structure/content and effectiveness. Programmes offering in-person counselling and those targeting patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML), tended to report positive findings. Most studies faced substantial risk of bias, and only two reported using a behavioural theory to guide interventional content. Conclusions. Findings highlight the infancy of evidence base and need for rigorous and large-scale studies grounded in established behavioural theories to advance patient-targeted educational and counselling practices supporting adherence to oral anti-cancer therapy.

Understanding the multilevel determinants of clinicians' imaging decision-making: setting the stage for de-implementation of low-value imaging.

BACKGROUND: De-implementation requires understanding and targeting multilevel determinants of low-value care. The objective of this study was to identify multilevel determinants of imaging for prostate cancer (PCa) and asymptomatic microhematuria (AMH), two common urologic conditions that have contributed substantially to the annual spending on unnecessary imaging in the US. METHODS: We used a convergent mixed-methods approach involving survey and interview data. Using a survey, we asked 33 clinicians (55% response-rate) to indicate their imaging approach to 8 clinical vignettes designed to elicit responses that would demonstrate guideline-concordant/discordant imaging practices for patients with PCa or AMH. A subset of survey respondents (N = 7) participated in semi-structured interviews guided by a combination of two frameworks that offered a comprehensive understanding of multilevel determinants. We analyzed the interviews using a directed content analysis approach and identified subthemes to better understand the differences and similarities in the imaging determinants across two clinical conditions. RESULTS: Survey results showed that the majority of clinicians chose guideline-concordant imaging behaviors for PCa; guideline-concordant imaging intentions were more varied for AMH. Interview results informed what influenced imaging decisions and provided additional context to the varying intentions for AMH. Five subthemes touching on multiple levels were identified from the interviews: National Guidelines, Supporting Evidence and Information Exchange, Organization of the Imaging Pathways, Patients' Clinical and Other Risk Factors, and Clinicians' Beliefs and Experiences Regarding Imaging. Imaging decisions for both PCa and AMH were often driven by national guidelines from major professional societies. However, when clinicians felt guidelines were inadequate, they reported that their decision-making was influenced by their knowledge of recent scientific evidence, past clinical experiences, and the anticipated benefits of imaging (or not imaging) to both the patient and the clinician. In particular, clinicians referred to patients' anxiety and uncertainty or patients' clinical factors. For AMH patients, clinicians additionally expressed concerns regarding legal liability risk. CONCLUSION: Our study identified comprehensive multilevel determinants of imaging to inform development of de-implementation interventions to reduce low-value imaging, which we found useful for identifying determinants of de-implementation. De-implementation interventions should be tailored to address the contextual determinants that are specific to each clinical condition.

Evaluation of Harms Reporting in U.S. Cancer Screening Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening should be recommended only when the balance between benefits and harms is favorable. This review evaluated how U.S. cancer screening guidelines reported harms, within and across organ-specific processes to screen for cancer. OBJECTIVE: To describe current reporting practices and identify opportunities for improvement. DESIGN: Review of guidelines. SETTING: United States. PATIENTS: Patients eligible for screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, or prostate cancer according to U.S. guidelines. MEASUREMENTS: Information was abstracted on reporting of patient-level harms associated with screening, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. The authors classified harms reporting as not mentioned, conceptual, qualitative, or quantitative and noted whether literature was cited when harms were described. Frequency of harms reporting was summarized by organ type. RESULTS: Harms reporting was inconsistent across organ types and at each step of the cancer screening process. Guidelines did not report all harms for any specific organ type or for any category of harm across organ types. The most complete harms reporting was for prostate cancer screening guidelines and the least complete for colorectal cancer screening guidelines. Conceptualization of harms and use of quantitative evidence also differed by organ type. LIMITATIONS: This review considers only patient-level harms. The authors did not verify accuracy of harms information presented in the guidelines. CONCLUSION: The review identified opportunities for improving conceptualization, assessment, and reporting of screening process-related harms in guidelines. Future work should consider nuances associated with each organ-specific process to screen for cancer, including which harms are most salient and where evidence gaps exist, and explicitly explore how to optimally weigh available evidence in determining net screening benefit. Improved harms reporting could aid informed decision making, ultimately improving cancer screening delivery. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute.

Opportunities and Challenges When Using the Electronic Health Record for Practice-Integrated Patient-Facing Interventions: The e-Assist Colon Health Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND: Even after a physician recommendation, many people remain unscreened for colorectal cancer (CRC). The proliferation of electronic health records (EHRs) and tethered online portals may afford new opportunities to embed patient-facing interventions within clinic workflows and engage patients following a physician recommendation for care. We evaluated the effectiveness of a patient-facing intervention designed to complement physician office-based recommendations for CRC screening. DESIGN: Using a 2-arm pragmatic, randomized clinical trial, we evaluated the intervention's effect on CRC screening use as documented in the EHR (primary outcome) and the extent to which the intervention reached the target population. Trial participants were insured, aged 50 to 75 y, with a physician recommendation for CRC screening. Typical EHR functionalities, including patient registries, health maintenance flags, best practice alerts, and secure messaging, were used to support research-related activities and deliver the intervention to enrolled patients. RESULTS: A total of 1,825 adults consented to trial participation, of whom 78% completed a baseline survey and were exposed to the intervention. Most trial participants (>80%) indicated an intent to be screened on the baseline survey, and 65% were screened at follow-up, with no significant differences by study arm. One-third of eligible patients were sent a secure message. Among those, more than three-quarters accessed study material. CONCLUSIONS: By leveraging common EHR functionalities, we integrated a patient-facing intervention within clinic workflows. Despite practice integration, the intervention did not improve screening use, likely in part due to portal-based interventions not reaching those for whom the intervention may be most effective. IMPLICATIONS: Embedding patient-facing interventions within the EHR enabled practice integration but may minimize program effectiveness by missing important segments of the patient population. HIGHLIGHTS: Electronic health record tools can be used to facilitate practice-embedded pragmatic trial and patient-facing intervention processes, including patient identification, study arm allocation, and intervention delivery.The online portal-embedded intervention did not improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake following a physician recommendation, likely in part because portal users tend to be already highly engaged with healthcare.Relying on patient portals alone for CRC screening interventions may not alter screening use and could exacerbate well-known care disparities.

Health Care Providers' and Professionals' Experiences With Telehealth Oncology Implementation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Rapid implementation of telehealth for cancer care during COVID-19 required innovative and adaptive solutions among oncology health care providers and professionals (HPPs). OBJECTIVE: The aim of this qualitative study was to explore oncology HPPs' experiences with telehealth implementation during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: This study was conducted at Moffitt Cancer Center (Moffitt), an NCI (National Cancer Institute)-Designated Comprehensive Cancer Center. Prior to COVID-19, Moffitt piloted telehealth visits on a limited basis. After COVID-19, Moffitt rapidly expanded telehealth visits. Telehealth visits included real-time videoconferencing between HPPs and patients and virtual check-ins (ie, brief communication with an HPP by telephone only). We conducted semistructured interviews with 40 oncology HPPs who implemented telehealth during COVID-19. The interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed for themes using Dedoose software (version 4.12). RESULTS: Approximately half of the 40 participants were physicians (n=22, 55%), and one-quarter of the participants were advanced practice providers (n=10, 25%). Other participants included social workers (n=3, 8%), psychologists (n=2, 5%), dieticians (n=2, 5%), and a pharmacist (n=1, 3%). Five key themes were identified: (1) establishing and maintaining patient-HPP relationships, (2) coordinating care with other HPPs and informal caregivers, (3) adapting in-person assessments for telehealth, (4) developing workflows and allocating resources, and (5) future recommendations. Participants described innovative strategies for implementing telehealth, such as coordinating interdisciplinary visits with multiple HPPs and inviting informal caregivers (eg, spouse) to participate in telehealth visits. Health care workers discussed key challenges, such as workflow integration, lack of physical exam and biometric data, and overcoming the digital divide (eg, telehealth accessibility among patients with communication-related disabilities). Participants recommended policy advocacy to support telehealth (eg, medical licensure policies) and monitoring how telehealth affects patient outcomes and health care delivery. CONCLUSIONS: To support telehealth growth, implementation strategies are needed to ensure that HPPs and patients have the tools necessary to effectively engage in telehealth. At the same time, cancer care organizations will need to engage in advocacy to ensure that policies are supportive of oncology telehealth and develop systems to monitor the impact of telehealth on patient outcomes, health care quality, costs, and equity.

How Health-Care Organizations Implement Shared Decision-making When It Is Required for Reimbursement: The Case of Lung Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services stipulate shared decision-making (SDM) counseling as a prerequisite to lung cancer screening (LCS) reimbursement, despite well-known challenges implementing SDM in practice. RESEARCH QUESTION: How have health-care organizations implemented SDM for LCS? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: For this qualitative study, we used data from in-depth, semistructured interviews with key informants directly involved in implementing SDM for LCS, managing SDM for LCS, or both. We identified respondents using a snowball sampling technique and used template analysis to identify and analyze responses thematically. RESULTS: We interviewed 30 informants representing 23 health-care organizations located in 12 states and 4 Census regions. Respondents described two types of SDM for LCS programs: centralized models (n = 7), in which front-end practitioners (eg, primary care providers) referred patients to an LCS clinic where trained staff (eg, advanced practice nurses) delivered SDM at the time of screening, or decentralized models (n = 10), in which front-end practitioners delivered SDM before referring patients for screening. Some organizations used both models simultaneously (n = 6). Respondents discussed tradeoffs between SDM quality and access. They perceived centralized models as enhancing SDM quality, but limiting patient access to care, and vice versa. Respondents reported ongoing challenges with limited resources and budgetary constraints, ambiguity regarding what constitutes SDM, and an absence of benchmarks for evaluating SDM for LCS quality. INTERPRETATION: Those responsible for developing and managing SDM for LCS programs voiced concerns regarding both patient access and SDM quality, regardless of organizational context, or the SDM for LCS model implemented. The challenge facing these organizations, and those wanting to help patients and clinicians balance the tradeoffs inherent with LCS, is how to move beyond a check-box documentation requirement to a process that enables LCS to be offered to all high-risk patients, but used only by those who are informed and for whom screening represents a value-concordant service.

Comparative Safety and Health Care Expenditures Among Patients With Chronic Myeloid Leukemia Initiating First-Line Imatinib, Dasatinib, or Nilotinib.

PURPOSE: Tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) have dramatically improved survival for patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). No overall survival differences were observed between patients initiating first- and second-generation TKIs in trials; however, real-world safety and cost outcomes are unclear. We evaluated comparative safety and health care expenditures between first-line imatinib, dasatinib, and nilotinib among patients with CML. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients had one or more fills for imatinib, dasatinib, or nilotinib in the MarketScan Commercial and Medicare Supplemental databases between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2016 (earliest fill is the index date), 6 months pre-index continuous enrollment, CML diagnosis, and no TKI use in the pre-index period. Hospitalizations or emergency department visits (safety events) were compared across treatment groups using propensity-score-weighted 1-year relative risks (RRs) and subdistribution hazard ratios (HRs). Inflation-adjusted annual health care expenditures were compared using quantile regression. RESULTS: Eligible patients included 1,417 receiving imatinib, 1,067 receiving dasatinib, and 647 receiving nilotinib. The 1-year risk of safety events was high: imatinib, 37%; dasatinib, 44%; and nilotinib, 40%, with higher risks among patients receiving dasatinib (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.30) and nilotinib (RR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.23) compared with those receiving imatinib. Over a median of 1.7 years, the cumulative incidence of safety events was higher among patients receiving dasatinib (HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.38) and nilotinib (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.24) than among those receiving imatinib. One-year health care expenditures were high (median, $125,987) and were significantly higher among patients initiating second-generation TKIs compared with those receiving imatinib (difference in medians: dasatinib v imatinib, $22,393; 95% CI, $17,068 to $27,718; nilotinib v imatinib, $19,463; 95% CI, $14,689 to $24,236). CONCLUSION: Patients receiving imatinib had the lowest risk of hospitalization or emergency department visits and 1-year health care expenditures. Given a lack of significant differences in overall survival, imatinib may represent the ideal first-line therapy for patients, on average.

Lower Adherence: A Description of Colorectal Cancer Screening Barrier Talk.

Understanding how patients and physicians discuss screening barriers may illuminate reasons for non-adherence to recommended colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The goal of the present study was to describe patients' reporting of and physicians' responses to CRC screening barriers and examine their associations with patients' CRC screening behaviors. Audio-recorded primary care consultations (N = 413) with patients due for CRC screening were used to identify CRC screening-related barrier talk and physician responses. Presence of barrier talk was associated with less patient adherence to CRC screening (OR = 0.568, p = 0.007). Neither CRC screening talk (n = 413) nor physician responses (n = 151) were associated with patients' CRC screening. Among the consultations in which barrier talk occurred (n = 151), patients most often reported test-related (28.9%) and psychological (26.1%) barriers. Barriers were most often reported in the context of CRC screening discussions (45.7%) or in direct response to a physician's question about CRC screening (48.6%). Results indicated that patients rarely raised CRC screening barriers unprompted and that presence of barrier talk was predictive of CRC screening behavior. These findings may help improve future clinical practice by highlighting that patients may benefit from physicians initiating and facilitating discussions of CRC screening barriers and directly helping patients overcome known barriers to CRC screening.