Multidisciplinary Educational Program to Standardize Education and Management of Immune-related Adverse Events: Review and Outcomes of a Single-institution Initiative.

BACKGROUND: The use of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) as anticancer therapy across a variety of malignancies has led to durable efficacy in a subset of patients. However, associated side effects denoted immune-related adverse events (irAEs) have emerged and can result in substantial morbidity and mortality. Particularly early in the experience of using these agents, a lack of standardized education regarding irAEs among patients and clinical providers may have contributed to poor outcomes. Optimal management of these emerging toxicities depends on a coordinated institutional approach. We hypothesized that centralized educational programs and electronic health record (EHR)-based interventions, targeted both toward ICI-treated patients as well as patient-interfacing providers, would improve patient outcomes. METHODS: We created a multidisciplinary team of clinicians and associated staff to direct a coordinated approach to the education and management of patients receiving ICIs across our institution. A 3-tiered approach was designed: patient-centered, internally centered, and externally centered. Multimedia educational products were produced for patients to improve knowledge and awareness of ICIs and associated irAEs. An EHR-based banner was deployed to improve identification of patients receiving ICIs across disciplines. Tailored educational seminars were provided to clinicians who interact with ICI-treated patients at all levels. Educational seminars were also offered to local physicians and institutions. We assessed patient uptake of educational products and surrogate patient outcomes to measure the potential impact of our interventions. RESULTS: Fox Chase Cancer Center (FCCC)-specific ICI identification cards were created and distributed to patients. By the end of the investigational period, 98.6% of ICI-treated patients reported receiving a card. An ICI-focused on-line portal was created accessible only to ICI-treated patients, with 9.4% of these patients accessing the portal in the first 6 months without marketing promotion. Deidentified surrogate clinical endpoints of corticosteroid use, direct referral unit (DRU) visits, and hospital admissions all improved during the study period. CONCLUSIONS: Institutionally directed educational initiatives are feasible at a free-standing academic cancer center and may lead to improved outcomes in patients developing irAEs from ICIs. More granular patient-specific data and studies at other types of institutions are necessary to determine the applicability of similar approaches on a broader scale.

Patient-Caregiver Portal System in Palliative Oncology: Assessment of Usability and Perceived Benefit.

BACKGROUND: The engagement of family caregivers in oncology is not universal or systematic. OBJECTIVE: We implemented a process intervention (ie, patient-caregiver portal system) with an existing patient portal system to (1) allow a patient to specify their caregiver and communication preferences with that caregiver, (2) connect the caregiver to a unique caregiver-specific portal page to indicate their needs, and (3) provide an electronic notification of the dyad's responses to the care team to inform clinicians and connect the caregiver to resources as needed. METHODS: We assessed usability and satisfaction with this patient-caregiver portal system among patients with cancer receiving palliative care, their caregivers, and clinicians. RESULTS: Of 31 consented patient-caregiver dyads, 20 patients and 19 caregivers logged in. Further, 60% (n=12) of patients indicated a preference to communicate equally or together with their caregiver. Caregivers reported high emotional (n=9, 47.3%), financial (n=6, 31.6%), and physical (n=6, 31.6%) caregiving-related strain. The care team received all patient-caregiver responses electronically. Most patients (86.6%, 13/15 who completed the user experience interview) and caregivers (94%, 16/17 who completed the user experience interview) were satisfied with the system, while, of the 6 participating clinicians, 66.7% agreed "quite a bit" (n=1, 16.7%) or "very much" (n=3, 50%) that the system allowed them to provide better care. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings demonstrate system usability, including a systematic way to identify caregiver needs and share with the care team in a way that is acceptable to patients and caregivers and perceived by clinicians to benefit clinical care. Integration of a patient-caregiver portal system may be an effective approach for systematically engaging caregivers. These findings highlight the need for additional research among caregivers of patients with less advanced cancer or with different illnesses.

Developing an Integrated Caregiver Patient-Portal System.

We have developed an integrated caregiver patient-portal system (i.e., patient-caregiver portal) that (1) allows a patient to identify their primary caregiver and their communication preferences with that caregiver in the healthcare setting; (2) connects the caregiver to a unique portal page to indicate their needs; and (3) informs the healthcare team of patient and caregiver responses to aid in integrating the caregiver. The purpose of this manuscript is to report on the formative phases (Phases I and II) of system development. Phase I involved a pre-assessment to anticipate complexity or barriers in the system design and future implementation. We used the non-adaption, abandonment, scale-up, spread, and sustainability (NASSS) framework and rubric to conduct this pre-assessment. Phase II involved exploring reactions (i.e., concerns or benefits) to the system among a small sample of stakeholders (i.e., 5 palliative oncology patients and their caregivers, N = 10). The purpose of these two phases was to identify system changes prior to conducting usability testing among patient/caregiver dyads in palliative oncology (phase III). Completion of the NASSS rubric highlighted potential implementation barriers, such as the non-uniformity of caregiving, disparities in portal use, and a lack of cost-benefit (value) findings in the literature. The dyads' feedback reinforced several NASSS ratings, including the benefits of connecting caregivers and allowing for caregiver voice as well as the concerns of limited use of patient-portals by the patients (but not the caregivers) and the need for user assistance during stressful health events. One change that resulted from this analysis was ensuring that we provided research participants (users) with detailed guidance and support on how to log in and use a patient-caregiver portal. In future iterations, we will also consider allowing more than one caregiver to be included and incorporating additional strategies to enable caregivers to interact in the system as part of the care team (e.g., via email).

Palliative Care Clinicians' Perspectives of an Integrated Caregiver Patient-Portal System in Oncology.

Background: Despite recommendations and policies to integrate family caregivers into U.S. healthcare settings, caregivers are not systematically involved. Thus, we developed an Integrated Caregiver Patient-Portal system that (1) allows a patient to identify their primary caregiver and their communication preferences; (2) connects the caregiver to a unique portal page to indicate their needs; and 3) informs the care team of dyad responses to aid in integrating the caregiver. Objective: This formative research explored palliative care clinicians' perceptions of the system to inform refinements before usability testing. Methods: We conducted two focus groups with palliative care clinicians (N=11) at an NCI-designated cancer center. Transcripts were analyzed using an integrated approach to specify system benefits and concerns. Results: The most referenced benefits included: Learning information that they might not have known without the system; giving caregivers a voice or a way to express needs; and supporting an ideal model of care. Top concerns included lacking capacity to respond; needing to clarify clinician roles and expertise in responding to caregivers' needs; and ensuring ongoing system adaptability. Conclusions: The clinicians' feedback resulted in revisions including: (1) modifying the caregiver questions; (2) integrating social workers in the response; and (3) adding a text-based report to the care team. Implications for Practice: This formative research provided valuable feedback for portal development, and also contributes more broadly to recommendations related to integrating caregivers in healthcare. Foundational: This research provides practical and logistical relevance to the discussion on how to integrate caregivers into clinical care.