Virtual Cancer Care Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Patient and Staff Perspectives and Recommendations.

PURPOSE: COVID-19 catalyzed rapid implementation of virtual cancer care (VC); however, work is needed to inform long-term adoption. We evaluated patient and staff experiences with VC at a large urban, tertiary cancer center to inform recommendations for postpandemic sustainment. METHODS: All physicians who had provided VC during the pandemic and all patients who had a valid e-mail address on file and at least one visit to the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre in Toronto, Canada, in the preceding year were invited to complete a survey. Interviews and focus groups with patients and staff across the cancer center were analyzed using qualitative descriptive analysis and triangulated with survey findings. RESULTS: Response rates for patients and physicians were 15% (2,343 of 15,169) and 41% (100 of 246), respectively. A greater proportion of patients than physicians were satisfied with VC (80.1 v 53.4%; P < .01). In addition, fewer patients than physicians felt that virtual visits were worse than those conducted in person (28.0 v 43.4%; P < .01) and that telephone and video visits negatively affected the human interaction that they valued (59.8% v 82.0%; P < .01). Major barriers to VC for patients were respect for care preferences and personal boundaries, accessibility, and equitable access. For staff, major barriers included a lack of role clarity, dedicated resources (space and technology), integration of nursing and allied health, support (administrative, clinical, and technical), and guidance on appropriateness of use. CONCLUSION: Patient and staff perceptions and barriers to virtual care are different. Moving forward, we need to pay attention to both staff and patient experiences with virtual care since this will have major implications for long-term adoption into clinical practice.

Implementation of medication reconciliation in outpatient cancer care.

BACKGROUND: Medication reconciliation (MedRec) is a process where providers work with patients to document and communicate comprehensive medication information by creating a complete medication list (best possible medication history (BPMH)) then reconciling it against what patient is actually taking to identify potential issues such as drug-drug interactions. We undertook an environmental scan of current MedRec practices in outpatient cancer care to inform a quality improvement project at our centre with the aim of 30% of patients having a BPMH or MedRec within 30 days of initiating treatment with systemic therapy. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders from 21 cancer centres across Canada, probing on current policies, and barriers and facilitators to MedRec. Guided by the findings of the scan, we then undertook a quality improvement project at our cancer centre, comprising six iterative improvement cycles. RESULTS: Most institutions interviewed had a process in place for collecting a BPMH (81%) and targeted patients initiating systemic therapy (59%); however, considerable practice variation was noted and completion of full MedRec was uncommon. Lack of resources, high patient volumes, lack of a common medical record spanning institutions and settings which limits access to medication records from external institutions and community pharmacies were identified as significant barriers. Despite navigating challenges related to the COVID-19 pandemic, we achieved 26.6% of eligible patients with a documented BPMH. However, uptake of full MedRec remained low whereby 4.7% of patients had a documented MedRec. CONCLUSIONS: Realising improvements to completion of MedRec in outpatient cancer care is possible but takes considerable time and iteration as the process is complex. Resource allocation and information sharing remain major barriers which need to be addressed in order to observe meaningful improvements in MedRec.

Building Resilience within Institutions Together with Employees (BRITE): Preliminary experience with implementation in an academic cancer centre.

Resilience is defined as the capacity to bounce back and respond to pressure, unpredictability, or adversity in an adaptive and effective manner that leads to learning and positive outcomes. BRITE, Building Resilience within Institutions Together with Employees, the focus of this article, is a program designed to equip healthcare workers with skills to foster their resilience as they work; herein, we describe the context, development, and preliminary implementation results.

Symptom screening for constipation in oncology: getting to the bottom of the matter.

PURPOSE: This study seeks to determine whether specific screening for constipation will increase the frequency of clinician response within the context of an established symptom screening program. METHODS: A "constipation" item was added to routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) screening in gynecologic oncology clinics during a 7-week trial period, without additional constipation-specific training. Chart audits were then conducted to determine documentation of assessment and intervention for constipation in three groups of patients, those who completed (1) ESAS (n = 477), (2) ESAS-C with constipation (n = 435), and (3) no ESAS (n = 511). RESULTS: Among patients who were screened for constipation, 17% reported moderate to severe symptoms. Greater constipation severity increased the likelihood of documented assessment (Z = 2.37, p = .018) and intervention (Z = 1.99, p = .048). Overall rates of documented assessment were 36%, with the highest assessment rate in the no ESAS group (χ2 = 9.505, p = .006), a group with the highest proportion of late-stage disease. No difference in the rate of assessment was found between the ESAS and ESAS-C groups. Overall rates for documentation of intervention were low, and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Specific screening for constipation within an established screening program did not increase the documentation rate for constipation assessment or intervention. The inclusion of specific symptoms in multi-symptom screening initiatives should be carefully evaluated in terms of added value versus patient burden. Care pathways should include guidance on triaging results from multi-symptom screening, and clinicians should pay particular attention to patients who are missed from screening altogether, as they may be the most symptomatic group.

Easier Said Than Done: Keys to Successful Implementation of the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) Program.

PURPOSE: Systematic screening for distress in oncology clinics has gained increasing acceptance as a means to improve cancer care, but its implementation poses enormous challenges. We describe the development and implementation of the Distress Assessment and Response Tool (DART) program in a large urban comprehensive cancer center. METHOD: DART is an electronic screening tool used to detect physical and emotional distress and practical concerns and is linked to triaged interprofessional collaborative care pathways. The implementation of DART depended on clinician education, technological innovation, transparent communication, and an evaluation framework based on principles of change management and quality improvement. RESULTS: There have been 364,378 DART surveys completed since 2010, with a sustained screening rate of > 70% for the past 3 years. High staff satisfaction, increased perception of teamwork, greater clinical attention to the psychosocial needs of patients, patient-clinician communication, and patient satisfaction with care were demonstrated without a resultant increase in referrals to specialized psychosocial services. DART is now a standard of care for all patients attending the cancer center and a quality performance indicator for the organization. CONCLUSION: Key factors in the success of DART implementation were the adoption of a programmatic approach, strong institutional commitment, and a primary focus on clinic-based response. We have demonstrated that large-scale routine screening for distress in a cancer center is achievable and has the potential to enhance the cancer care experience for both patients and staff.

Functional and work outcomes improve in patients with rheumatoid arthritis who receive targeted, comprehensive occupational therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Work disability is a serious consequence of rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We conducted a 6-month, prospective randomized controlled trial comparing assessments of function, work, coping, and disease activity in employed patients with RA receiving occupational therapy intervention versus usual care. METHODS: Employed patients with RA with increased perceived work disability risk were identified by the RA Work Instability Scale (WIS; score >or=10). Patients were stratified into medium- (score >or=10 and <17) and high-risk (>or=17) groups, then randomized into occupational therapy or usual care groups. Assessments were conducted at baseline and 6 months. The primary outcome was the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure (COPM), a standardized patient self-report of function. Other outcomes included the disability index (DI) of the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ); Disease Activity Score in 28 joints (DAS28); RA WIS; EuroQol Index; visual analog scales (VAS) for pain, work satisfaction, and work performance; and days missed/month. Independent sample t-tests and Mann-Whitney U tests were used. RESULTS: We recruited 32 employed patients with RA. At baseline the groups were well matched. At 6 months the improvement in the occupational therapy group was significantly greater than that in the usual care group for all functional outcomes (COPM performance P < 0.001, COPM satisfaction P < 0.001, HAQ DI P = 0.02) and most work outcomes (RA WIS [P = 0.04], VAS work satisfaction [P < 0.001], VAS work performance [P = 0.01]). Additionally, Arthritis Helplessness Index (P = 0.02), Arthritis Impact Measurement Scales II pain subscale (P = 0.03), VAS pain (P = 0.007), EuroQol Index (P = 0.02), EuroQol global (P = 0.02), and DAS28 (P = 0.03) scores significantly improved. CONCLUSION: Targeted, comprehensive occupational therapy intervention improves functional and work-related outcomes in employed RA patients at risk of work disability.

An examination of work instability, functional impairment, and disease activity in employed patients with rheumatoid arthritis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relationship between the Disease Activity Score 28-joint count (DAS28), Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ), and Rheumatoid Arthritis-Work Instability Scale (RAWIS); and to define thresholds for clinical assessments associated with moderate to high RA-WIS. METHODS: Employed patients with RA were evaluated using DAS28, HAQ, and RA-WIS during routine clinics. Relationships between these assessments were evaluated by simple correlation. Multiple linear regression modeling was performed using RA-WIS as an outcome variable and HAQ, DAS28, age, sex, occupation, and disease duration as input variables. Receiver-operating characteristic curves were then formulated to determine optimal DAS28, and HAQ cutoff points for RA-WIS >or= 10, along with the odds ratio (OR). RESULTS: Ninety patients with RA completed the RA-WIS, which was moderately correlated with DAS28 (r =0.53) and HAQ (r = 0.66). Fifty-four percent of RA-WIS was explained by DAS28 (p = 0.002), HAQ (p = 0.001), and sex (p = 0.04). A DAS28 of 3.81 and HAQ of 0.55 were clinically important thresholds. High DAS28 and HAQ were associated with high RA-WIS (OR(DAS) 14.17, OR(HAQ) 25.13, OR(DAS+HAQ) 29.9). CONCLUSION: Functional impairment and disease activity significantly and independently contributed to patient-perceived work instability risk.