Rapid Response Team Activations in Oncologic Ambulatory Sites: Characteristics, Interventions, and Outcomes.

PURPOSE: Patients with cancer are vulnerable to clinical deterioration. Rapid response teams (RRTs) identify and manage patients with acute changes in clinical status. Although RRTs have been well studied in the hospital setting, there are limited data on patients who require support in the ambulatory or outpatient oncologic settings. Describe baseline characteristics, reasons for activations, interventions, and outcomes of ambulatory oncologic patients receiving RRT activation in a tertiary cancer center. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective review of adult (age ≥ 18 years) patients requiring RRT activation at multiple ambulatory sites between July 2020 and June 2021. Demographic and clinical data captured include age, sex, race, ethnicity, do not resuscitate status, vital signs, receipt of active cancer treatment within 30 days, and cancer type. Using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportion hazard ratio regression models, outcomes of 90-day mortality and hospitalization were assessed. RESULTS: There were 322 RRT activations among 427,734 visits to 10 ambulatory sites (0.75 RRTs/1,000 visits). The most frequent reasons were syncope (25.2%), fall (24.5%), and adverse reaction to cancer therapy or intravenous contrast (16.5%). One hundred thirty-seven (42.5%) required transfer to an emergency department, of which 81 (59.1%) required hospital admission. At 90 days, 51 (15.8%) had died, with 44 (86.3%) receiving comfort measures. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and multivariable Cox proportional hazard ratio regression showed that heart rate > 100 at RRT presentation and hospitalization after a RRT event were significantly associated with 90-day mortality. CONCLUSION: Although uncommon, patients with cancer undergoing care at ambulatory sites can suffer acute clinical deterioration needing RRT review. The rates of hospitalization and mortality among such patients are high, suggesting the need for improved end-of-life care.

Implementing a Clinical Decision Tool to Improve Oncologic Venous Thromboembolism Management.

Background: Cancer patients with venous thromboembolic (VTE) disease are complex, and many factors must be considered when initiating anticoagulation management. Clinical decision support systems can aid in decision-making by utilizing guidelines at the point of care. Objectives: The purpose of our project was to develop, implement, and evaluate an electronic clinical decision tool (CDT) utilizing evidence-based guidelines to aid in decision-making for adult oncologic patients who present with new VTE to symptom care clinics. Methods: We compared a pre-intervention group of patients who were prescribed anticoagulation (n = 98) with two post-intervention groups: CDT applied (n = 96) and not applied (n = 46). Outcomes included whether the CDT anticoagulation recommendations were followed and if the tool was perceived to be helpful or improve confidence in initiating management for new VTE by the SCC advanced practitioners and physicians. Results: There was no significant difference between the pre- and post-intervention groups in how many of the CDT anticoagulation recommendations were followed (68.8% pre-intervention, 60.8% post-intervention tool applied, and 63.5% post-intervention tool not applied; χ2 [2, N = 161] = .921, p = .631). However, the tool was found to be helpful and improved confidence of the providers in initiating management for new VTE (pre median = 3, interquartile range [IQR] = 2, 3.5; post median = 3, IQR 3, 4; p = .033). Conclusion: This CDT provided evidence-based anticoagulation recommendations for cancer-associated VTE and enhanced familiarity with the standard of care. Further development of the CDT will be required to account for situations that resulted in deviation from the recommendations.

Oncology Patients' Perspectives on Remote Patient Monitoring for COVID-19.

PURPOSE: Oncology patients are vulnerable to adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19, and clinical deterioration must be identified early. Several institutions launched remote patient monitoring programs (RPMPs) to care for patients with COVID-19. We describe patients' perspectives on a COVID-19 RPMP at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were eligible. Enrolled patients received a daily electronic COVID-19 symptom assessment, and a subset of high-risk patients also received a pulse oximeter. Monitoring was provided by a centralized team and was discontinued 14 days after a patient's positive test result and following 3 days without worsening symptoms. Patients who completed at least one assessment and exited the program were sent a patient engagement survey to evaluate the patient's experience with digital monitoring for COVID-19. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 491 patients, and 257 responded (52% completion rate). The net promoter score was 85%. Most patients agreed that the RPMP was worthwhile, enabled better management of their COVID-19 symptoms, made them feel more connected to their healthcare team, and helped prevent emergency room visits. Identified themes regarding patient-perceived value of a RPMP included (1) security: a clinical safety net; (2) connection: a link to their clinical team during a period of isolation; and (3) empowerment: an education on the virus and symptom management. CONCLUSION: RPMPs are perceived to be of value to oncology patients with COVID-19. Policymakers should consider how these programs can be reimbursed to keep vulnerable patients at home and out of the acute care setting.