Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators.

PURPOSE: Symptoms can negatively impact quality of life for patients with a history of cancer. Digital, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated approaches to routine symptom monitoring accompanied by evidence-based interventions for symptom management have been explored as a scalable way to improve symptom management, particularly between clinic visits. However, little research has evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementing these approaches in real-world settings, particularly during the pre-implementation phase. Pre-implementation assessment is critical for informing the selection and sequencing of implementation strategies and intervention adaptation. Thus, this study sought to understand pre-implementation perceptions of a remote cancer symptom monitoring and management intervention that uses electronic patient-reported outcome measures for symptom assessment. METHODS: We interviewed 20 clinical and administrative stakeholders from 4 geographic regions within an academic medical center and its affiliated health system during the months prior to initiation of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR] 2.0. Two study team members reviewed coded transcripts to understand how determinants were relevant in the pre-implementation phase of the trial and prepared analytic memos to identify themes. RESULTS: Findings are summarized in four themes: (1) ability of the intervention to meet patient needs [recipient characteristics], (2) designing with care team needs in mind [innovation design and adaptability], (3) fit of the intervention with existing practice workflows [compatibility], and (4) engaging care teams early [engaging deliverers]. CONCLUSION: Attention to these aspects when planning intervention protocols can promote intervention compatibility with patients, providers, and practices thereby increasing implementation success.

Facilitators and barriers to the implementation of new critical care practices during COVID-19: a multicenter qualitative study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic produced unprecedented demands and rapidly changing evidence and practices within critical care settings. The purpose of this study was to identify factors and strategies that hindered and facilitated effective implementation of new critical care practices and policies in response to the pandemic. METHODS: We used a cross-sectional, qualitative study design to conduct semi-structured in-depth interviews with critical care leaders across the United States. The interviews were audio-taped and professionally transcribed verbatim. Guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), three qualitative researchers used rapid analysis methods to develop relevant codes and identify salient themes. RESULTS: Among the 17 hospitals that agreed to participate in this study, 31 clinical leaders were interviewed. The CFIR-driven rapid analysis of the interview transcripts generated 12 major themes, which included six implementation facilitators (i.e., factors that promoted the implementation of new critical care practices) and six implementation barriers (i.e., factors that hindered the implementation of new critical care practices). These themes spanned the five CFIR domains (Intervention Characteristics, Outer Setting, Inner Setting, Characteristics of Individuals, and Process) and 11 distinct CFIR constructs. Salient facilitators to implementation efforts included staff resilience, commitment, and innovation, which were supported through collaborative feedback and decision-making mechanisms between leadership and frontline staff. Major identified barriers included lack of access to reliable and transferable information, available resources, uncollaborative leadership and communication styles. CONCLUSIONS: Through applying the CFIR to organize and synthesize our qualitative data, this study revealed important insights into implementation determinants that influenced the uptake of new critical care practices during COVID-19. As the pandemic continues to burden critical care units, clinical leaders should consider emulating the effective change management strategies identified. The cultivation of streamlined, engaging, and collaborative leadership and communication mechanisms not only supported implementation of new care practices across sites, but it also helped reduce salient implementation barriers, particularly resource and staffing shortages. Future critical care implementation studies should seek to capitalize on identified facilitators and reduce barriers.

A New Standard in Graft-versus-Host Disease Prophylaxis? An Introduction to Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network 1703.

Effective immunosuppressive regimens to prevent the development of graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) are essential to the success of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). After revolutionizing haploidentical transplantation, post-transplantation cyclophosphamide (PTCy) is now being evaluated for HCT performed from related and unrelated donors. In this setting, 2 recent randomized studies have demonstrated lower rates of GVHD and superior GVHD-free, relapse-free survival with PTCy compared with conventional GVHD prophylaxis. The Blood and Marrow Transplant Clinical Trials Network (BMT CTN) is currently conducting a large, randomized phase III, multicenter trial (BMT CTN 1703) comparing PTCy/tacrolimus/mycophenolate mofetil to tacrolimus/methotrexate as GVHD prophylaxis regimens in reduced-intensity allogeneic HCT. Here we review the ongoing study, highlight its importance to the field, and explore the possible implications of its results on clinical practice.

A Multicenter Comparison of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Discussions in Oncology Care: The Role of Time, Patient-Centeredness, and Practice Context.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is discussed in cancer care across varied settings in the U.S. METHODS: In two practices affiliated with one academic medical center in southern California (SoCal), and one in the upper Midwest (UM), we audio-recorded patient-clinician interactions in medical oncology outpatient practices. We counted the frequency and duration of CAM-related conversations. We coded recordings using the Roter Interaction Analysis System. We used chi-square tests for bivariate analysis of categorical variables and generalized linear models for continuous variables to examine associations between dialogue characteristics, practice setting, and population characteristics with the occurrence of CAM discussion in each setting followed by multivariate models adjusting for clinician clustering. RESULTS: Sixty-one clinicians and 529 patients participated. Sixty-two of 529 (12%) interactions included CAM discussions, with significantly more observed in the SoCal university practice than in the other settings. Visits that included CAM were on average 6 minutes longer, with CAM content lasting an average of 78 seconds. In bivariate tests of association, conversations containing CAM included more psychosocial statements from both clinicians and patients, higher patient-centeredness, more positive patient and clinician affect, and greater patient engagement. In a multivariable model including significant bivariate terms, conversations containing CAM were independently associated with higher patient-centeredness, slightly longer visits, and being at the SoCal university site. CONCLUSION: The frequency of CAM-related discussion in oncology varied substantially across sites. Visits that included CAM discussion were longer and more patient centered. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The Institute of Medicine and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have called for more open discussions of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). But little is known about the role population characteristics and care contexts may play in the frequency and nature of those discussions. The present data characterizing actual conversations in practice complements a much larger literature based on patient and clinician self-report about CAM disclosure and use. It was found that CAM discussions in academic oncology visits varied significantly by practice context, that the majority were initiated by the patient, and that they may occur more when visit time exists for lifestyle, self-care, and psychosocial concerns.

Developing a toolkit to implement the Statin Choice Conversation Aid at scale: application of a work reduction model.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines recommend shared decision making (SDM) for determining whether to use statins to prevent cardiovascular events in at-risk patients. We sought to develop a toolkit to facilitate the cross-organizational spread and scale of a SDM intervention called the Statin Choice Conversation Aid (SCCA) by (i) assessing the work stakeholders must do to implement the tool; and (ii) orienting the resulting toolkit's components to communicate and mitigate this work. METHODS: We conducted multi-level and mixed methods (survey, interview, observation, focus group) characterizations of the contexts of 3 health systems (n = 86, 84, and 26 primary care clinicians) as they pertained to the impending implementation of the SCCA. We merged the data within implementation outcome domains of feasibility, appropriateness, and acceptability. Using Normalization Process Theory, we then characterized and categorized the work stakeholders did to implement the tool. We used clinician surveys and IP address-based tracking to calculate SCCA usage over time and judged how stakeholder effort was allocated to influence outcomes at 6 and 18 months. After assessing the types and impact of the work, we developed a multi-component toolkit. RESULTS: At baseline, the three contexts differed regarding feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of implementation. The work of adopting the tool was allocated across many strategies in complex and interdependent ways to optimize these domains. The two systems that allocated the work strategically had higher uptake (5.2 and 2.9 vs. 1.1 uses per clinician per month at 6 months; 3.8 and 2.1 vs. 0.4 at 18 months, respectively) than the system that did not. The resulting toolkit included context self-assessments intended to guide stakeholders in considering the early work of SCCA implementation; and webinars, EMR integration guides, video demonstrations, and an implementation team manual aimed at supporting this work. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a multi-component toolkit for facilitating the scale-up and spread of a tool to promote SDM across clinical settings. The theory-based approach we employed aimed to distinguish systems primed for adoption and support the work they must do to achieve implementation. Our approach may have value in orienting the development of multi-component toolkits and other strategies aimed at facilitating the efficient scale up of interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02375815 .

Getting on the same page: Communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of "decisions" in oncology.

BACKGROUND: Patients and clinicians do not often agree on whether a decision has been made about cancer care. This could be explained by factors related to communication quality and/or the type of decision being made. METHODS: We used a self-developed coding scheme to code a random sample of 128 encounters in which patients and clinicians either agreed (n=64) or disagreed (n=64) that a cancer care decision was made and tested for associations between concordance and key communication behaviours. We also identified and characterized cancer care decisions by topic and level of patient involvement and looked for trends. RESULTS: We identified 378 cancer care decisions across 128 encounters. Explicit decisions were most commonly made about topics wherein decision control could be easily delegated to a clear and present expert (eg either the patient or the clinician). Related to this, level of patient involvement varied significantly by decision topic. Explicit decisions were rarely made in an observable way about social, non-clinical or self-management related topics, although patients and clinicians both reported having made a cancer care decision in encounters where no decisions were observed. We found no association between communication behaviours and concordance in our sample. CONCLUSIONS: What counts as a "decision" in cancer care may be constructed within disparate social roles that leave many agendas unaddressed and decisions unmade. Changing the content of conversations to encourage explicit decisions about self-management and life context-related topics may have greater value in enabling shared understanding than promoting communication behaviours among already high-performing communicators.

Comparison of audio vs. audio + video for the rating of shared decision making in oncology using the observer OPTION5 instrument: an exploratory analysis.

BACKGROUND: How non-verbal data may influence observer-administered ratings of shared decision making is unknown. Our objective for this exploratory analysis was to determine the effect of mode of data collection (audio+video vs. audio only) on the scoring of the OPTION5 instrument, an observer rated measure of shared decision making. METHODS: We analyzed recordings of 15 encounters between cancer patients and clinicians in which a clinical decision was made. Audio+video or audio only recordings of the encounters were randomly assigned to four trained raters, who reviewed them independently. We compared the adjusted mean scores of audio+video and audio only. RESULTS: Forty-one unique decisions were identified within the 15 encounters. The mean OPTION5 score for audio+video was 17.5 (95% CI 13.5, 21.6) and for audio only was 21.8 (95% CI 17.2, 26.4) with a mean difference of 4.28 (95% CI = 0.36, 8.21; p = 0.032). CONCLUSION: A rigorous and well established measure of shared decision making performs differently when the data source is audio only. Data source may influence rating of observer administered measures of shared decision making. This potential bias needs to be confirmed as video recording to examine communication behaviors becomes more common.

Integrating community-based health promotion programs and primary care: a mixed methods analysis of feasibility.

BACKGROUND: Implementation of evidence-based programs (EBPs) for disease self-management and prevention is a policy priority. It is challenging to implement EBPs offered in community settings and to integrate them with healthcare. We sought to understand, categorize, and richly describe key challenges and opportunities related to integrating EBPs into routine primary care practice in the United States. METHODS: As part of a parent, participatory action research project, we conducted a mixed methods evaluation guided by the PRECEDE implementation planning model in an 11-county region of Southeast Minnesota. Our community-partnered research team interviewed and surveyed 15 and 190 primary care clinicians and 15 and 88 non-clinician stakeholders, respectively. We coded interviews according to pre-defined PRECEDE factors and by participant type and searched for emerging themes. We then categorized survey items-before looking at participant responses-according to their ability to generate further evidence supporting the PRECEDE factors and emerging themes. We statistically summarized data within and across responder groups. When consistent, we merged these with qualitative insight. RESULTS: The themes we found, "Two Systems, Two Worlds," "Not My Job," and "Seeing is Believing," highlighted the disparate nature of prescribed activities that different stakeholders do to contribute to health. For instance, primary care clinicians felt pressured to focus on activities of diagnosis and treatment and did not imagine ways in which EBPs could contribute to either. Quantitative analyses supported aspects of all three themes, highlighting clinicians' limited trust in community-placed activities, and the need for tailored education and system and policy-level changes to support their integration with primary care. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care and community-based programs exist in disconnected worlds. Without urgent and intentional efforts to bridge well-care and sick-care, interventions that support people's efforts to be and stay well in their communities will remain outside of-if not at odds with-healthcare.

Patient capacity and constraints in the experience of chronic disease: a qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Life and healthcare demand work from patients, more so from patients living with multimorbidity. Patients must respond by mobilizing available abilities and resources, their so-called capacity. We sought to summarize accounts of challenges that reduce patient capacity to access or use healthcare or to enact self-care while carrying out their lives. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review and synthesis of the qualitative literature published since 2000 identifying from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Psychinfo, and CINAHL and retrieving selected abstracts for full text assessment for inclusion. After assessing their methodological rigor, we coded their results using a thematic synthesis approach. RESULTS: The 110 reports selected, when synthesized, showed that patient capacity is an accomplishment of interaction with (1) the process of rewriting their biographies and making meaningful lives in the face of chronic condition(s); (2) the mobilization of resources; (3) healthcare and self-care tasks, particularly, the cognitive, emotional, and experiential results of accomplishing these tasks despite competing priorities; (4) their social networks; and (5) their environment, particularly when they encountered kindness or empathy about their condition and a feasible treatment plan. CONCLUSION: Patient capacity is a complex and dynamic construct that exceeds "resources" alone. Additional work needs to translate this emerging theory into useful practice for which we propose a clinical mnemonic (BREWS) and the ICAN Discussion Aid.

Testing for germline mutations in sporadic pheochromocytoma/paraganglioma: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The presence of germline mutations in sporadic pheochromocytomas and paragangliomas (SPPs) may change the clinical management of both index patients and their family members. However, the frequency of germline mutations in SPPs is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To describe the frequency of germline mutations in SPPs and to determine the value of testing index patients and their family members for these mutations. METHODS: We searched databases through June 2012 for observational studies of patients with SPPs who underwent germline genetic testing. The criteria used to define sporadic tumours were (i) the absence of a family history of PCC/PG, (ii) the absence of syndromic features, (iii) the absence of bilateral disease and (iv) the absence of metastatic disease. RESULTS: We included 31 studies including 5031 patients (mean age 44). These patients received tests for any of these ten mutations: SDHAF2, RET, SDHD, SDHB, SDHC, VHL, TMEM127, MAX, Isocitrate Dehydrogenase Mutation (IDH) and NF1. The overall frequency of germline mutation in SPP was 551 of 5031 or 11%; when studies with patients fulfilling four criteria for sporadic tumours were used, the frequency was 171 of 1332 or 13%. The most common germline mutation was SDHB 167 of 3611 (4·6%). Little outcome data were available to assess the benefits of genetic testing in index cases and family members. CONCLUSIONS: The frequency of germline mutations in SPPs is approximately 11-13% and the most common mutations affect less than 1 in 20 patients. The value of testing for germline mutations in patients with SPPs and their family members is unknown, as the balance of potential benefits and harms remains unclear.

Was a decision made? An assessment of patient-clinician discordance in medical oncology encounters.

BACKGROUND: Shared decision making is promoted to improve cancer care quality. Patients and clinicians may have different ideas about what constitutes a cancer care decision, which may limit the validity of self-reported measures of shared decision making. We sought to estimate the extent to which patients and clinicians agree on whether a cancer care decision was made during an outpatient encounter. METHODS: We surveyed patients and clinicians immediately after an oncology encounter at a large, tertiary medical centre and calculated agreement in response to the single-item question, 'Was a specific decision about cancer care made during the appointment today?' Answer options were 'yes' and 'no'. Participants were 315 oncology patients, with any solid tumour malignancy and at any stage of management, and their clinicians (22 staff oncologists, nine senior fellows and five nurse practitioners). RESULTS: Patients and clinicians reported having made a cancer care decision in 184 (58%) and 174 (55%) of encounters, respectively. They agreed on whether a cancer care decision was made in 213 (68%) of encounters (chance-adjusted agreement was 0.34); in 56 of the 102 discordant encounters, the patient reported making a decision while the clinician did not. We found no significant correlates with discordance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and clinicians do not always agree on whether a cancer care decision was made. As such, measures that ask patients and/or clinicians to evaluate a decision-making process or outcome may be methodologically insufficient when they do not explicitly orient respondents towards the thing they are being asked to assess.

Systematic reviews to ascertain the safety of diabetes medications.

Clinicians and patients with type 2 diabetes enjoy an expanding list of medications to improve glycemic control. With this expansion has come a flurry of concerns about the safety of these antihyperglycemic agents, concerns that affect judgments about the risk/benefit balance of therapy. Some of these safety signals have been identified through the synthesis of existing research evidence. Thus, it has become important for clinicians and clinical policymakers to understand the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in determining the safety of diabetes medications. In this paper, we highlight key safety concerns with diabetes medications and discuss the role evidence synthesis plays in each, with special attention to its strengths and limitations.

Adapting Behavioral Treatments for Primary Care Using a Theory-Based Framework: The Case of Adolescent Eating Disorders.

Evidence-based treatments have been developed for a range of pediatric mental health conditions. These interventions have proven efficacy but require trained pediatric behavioral health specialists for their administration. Unfortunately, the widespread shortage of behavioral health specialists leaves few referral options for primary care providers. As a result, primary care providers are frequently required to support young patients during their lengthy and often fruitless search for specialty treatment. One solution to this treatment-access gap is to draw from the example of integrated behavioral health and adapt brief evidence-based treatments for intra-disciplinary delivery by primary care providers in consultation with mental health providers. This solution has potential to expand access to evidence-based interventions and improve patient outcomes. We outline how an 8-step theory-based process for adapting evidence-based interventions, developed from a scoping review of the wide range of implementation science frameworks, can guide treatment development and implementation for pediatric behavioral health care delivery in the primary care setting, using an example of our innovative treatment adaptation for child and adolescent eating disorders. After reviewing the literature, obtaining input from leaders in eating disorder treatment research, and engaging community stakeholders, we adapted Family-Based Treatment for delivery in primary care. Pilot data suggest that the intervention is feasible to implement in primary care and preliminary findings suggest a large effect on adolescent weight gain. Our experience using this implementation framework provides a model for primary care providers looking to develop intra-disciplinary solutions for other areas where specialty services are insufficient to meet patient needs.

Listening in on difficult conversations: an observational, multi-center investigation of real-time conversations in medical oncology.

BACKGROUND: The quality of communication in medical care has been shown to influence health outcomes. Cancer patients, a highly diverse population, communicate with their clinical care team in diverse ways over the course of their care trajectory. Whether that communication happens and how effective it is may relate to a variety of factors including the type of cancer and the patient's position on the cancer care continuum. Yet, many of the routine needs of cancer patients after initial cancer treatment are often not addressed adequately. Our goal is to identify areas of strength and areas for improvement in cancer communication by investigating real-time cancer consultations in a cross section of patient-clinician interactions at diverse study sites. METHODS/DESIGN: In this paper we describe the rationale and approach for an ongoing observational study involving three institutions that will utilize quantitative and qualitative methods and employ a short-term longitudinal, prospective follow-up component to investigate decision-making, key topics, and clinician-patient-companion communication dynamics in clinical oncology. DISCUSSION: Through a comprehensive, real-time approach, we hope to provide the fundamental groundwork from which to promote improved patient-centered communication in cancer care.

Patient- and Provider-Level Factors Associated With Telehealth Utilization Across a Multisite, Multiregional Cancer Practice From 2019 to 2021.

PURPOSE: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, many cancer practices rapidly adopted telehealth services. However, there is a paucity of data regarding ongoing telehealth visit utilization beyond this initial response. The purpose of this study was to assess changes in variables associated with telehealth visit utilization over time. METHODS: This is a cross-sectional, year-over-year, retrospective analysis of telehealth visits conducted across a multisite, multiregional cancer practice in the United States. Multivariable models examined the association of patient- and provider-level variables with telehealth utilization across outpatient visits conducted over three 8-week periods from July to August in 2019 (n = 32,537), 2020 (n = 33,399), and 2021 (n = 35,820). RESULTS: The rate of telehealth utilization increased from <0.01% (2019) to 11% (2020) to 14% (2021). The most significant patient-level factors associated with increased telehealth utilization included nonrural residence and age ≤65 years. Among patients residing in rural settings, video visit utilization rates were significantly lower and phone visit utilization rates were significantly higher compared with patients from nonrural residences. Regarding provider-level factors, widening differences in telehealth utilization were observed at tertiary versus community-based practice settings. Increased telehealth utilization was not associated with duplicative care as per-patient and per-physician visit volumes in 2021 remained consistent with prepandemic levels. CONCLUSION: We observed continuous expansion in telehealth visit utilization from 2020 to 2021. Our experiences suggest that telehealth can be integrated into cancer practices without evidence of duplicative care. Future work should examine sustainable reimbursement structures and policies to ensure accessibility of telehealth as a means to facilitate equitable, patient-centered cancer care.

A multisite exploration of the association between critical care implementation factors and clinical outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Background: Little is known about strategies to implement new critical care practices in response to COVID-19. Moreover, the association between differing implementation climates and COVID-19 clinical outcomes has not been examined. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the relationship between implementation determinants and COVID-19 mortality rates. Methods: We used mixed methods guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with critical care leaders and analyzed to rate the influence of CFIR constructs on the implementation of new care practices. Qualitative and quantitative comparisons of CFIR construct ratings were performed between hospital groups with low- versus high-mortality rates. Results: We found associations between various implementation factors and clinical outcomes of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Three CFIR constructs (implementation climate, leadership engagement, and engaging staff) had both qualitative and statistically significant quantitative correlations with mortality outcomes. An implementation climate governed by a trial-and-error approach was correlated with high COVID-19 mortality, while leadership engagement and engaging staff were correlated with low mortality. Another three constructs (needs of patient; organizational incentives and rewards; and engaging implementation leaders) were qualitatively different across mortality outcome groups, but these differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Improving clinical outcomes during future public health emergencies will require reducing identified barriers associated with high mortality and harnessing salient facilitators associated with low mortality. Our findings suggest that collaborative and engaged leadership styles that promote the integration of new yet evidence-based critical care practices best support COVID-19 patients and contribute to lower mortality.

Implementation of a Virtual Interprofessional ICU Learning Collaborative: Successes, Challenges, and Initial Reactions From the Structured Team-Based Optimal Patient-Centered Care for Virus COVID-19 Collaborators.

Initial Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry analysis suggested that improvements in critical care processes offered the greatest modifiable opportunity to improve critically ill COVID-19 patient outcomes. OBJECTIVES: The Structured Team-based Optimal Patient-Centered Care for Virus COVID-19 ICU Collaborative was created to identify and speed implementation of best evidence based COVID-19 practices. DESIGN SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This 6-month project included volunteer interprofessional teams from VIRUS Registry sites, who received online training on the Checklist for Early Recognition and Treatment of Acute Illness and iNjury approach, a structured and systematic method for delivering evidence based critical care. Collaborators participated in weekly 1-hour videoconference sessions on high impact topics, monthly quality improvement (QI) coaching sessions, and received extensive additional resources for asynchronous learning. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Outcomes included learner engagement, satisfaction, and number of QI projects initiated by participating teams. RESULTS: Eleven of 13 initial sites participated in the Collaborative from March 2, 2021, to September 29, 2021. A total of 67 learners participated in the Collaborative, including 23 nurses, 22 physicians, 10 pharmacists, nine respiratory therapists, and three nonclinicians. Site attendance among the 11 sites in the 25 videoconference sessions ranged between 82% and 100%, with three sites providing at least one team member for 100% of sessions. The majority reported that topics matched their scope of practice (69%) and would highly recommend the program to colleagues (77%). A total of nine QI projects were initiated across three clinical domains and focused on improving adherence to established critical care practice bundles, reducing nosocomial complications, and strengthening patient- and family-centered care in the ICU. Major factors impacting successful Collaborative engagement included an engaged interprofessional team; an established culture of engagement; opportunities to benchmark performance and accelerate institutional innovation, networking, and acclaim; and ready access to data that could be leveraged for QI purposes. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Use of a virtual platform to establish a learning collaborative to accelerate the identification, dissemination, and implementation of critical care best practices for COVID-19 is feasible. Our experience offers important lessons for future collaborative efforts focused on improving ICU processes of care.

Contributors to Diagnostic Error or Delay in the Acute Care Setting: A Survey of Clinical Stakeholders.

Diagnostic error or delay (DEOD) is common in the acute care setting and results in poor patient outcomes. Many factors contribute to DEOD, but little is known about how contributors may differ across acute care areas and professional roles. As part of a sequential exploratory mixed methods research study, we surveyed acute care clinical stakeholders about the frequency with which different factors contribute to DEOD. Survey respondents could also propose solutions in open text fields. N = 220 clinical stakeholders completed the survey. Care Team Interactions, Systems and Process, Patient, Provider, and Cognitive factors were perceived to contribute to DEOD with similar frequency. Organization and Infrastructure factors were perceived to contribute to DEOD significantly less often. Responses did not vary across acute care setting. Physicians perceived Cognitive factors to contribute to DEOD more frequently compared to those in other roles. Commonly proposed solutions included: technological solutions, organization level fixes, ensuring staff know and are encouraged to work to the full scope of their role, and cultivating a culture of collaboration and respect. Multiple factors contribute to DEOD with similar frequency across acute care areas, suggesting the need for a multi-pronged approach that can be applied across acute care areas.

Receptivity to a Nurse-Led Symptom Management Intervention Among Highly Symptomatic Patients With Cancer.

BACKGROUND: The symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment can negatively affect patients' quality of life and survival. Symptom-focused collaborative care model (CCM) interventions can improve outcomes, but only if patients engage with them. We assessed the receptivity of severely symptomatic oncology patients to a remote nurse-led CCM intervention. METHODS: In a pragmatic, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial conducted as part of the National Cancer Institute IMPACT Consortium (E2C2, NCT03892967), patients receiving cancer care were asked to rate their sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, fatigue, and limitations in physical function. Patients reporting at least 1 severe symptom (≥7/10) were offered phone consultation with a nurse symptom care manager (RN SCM). Initially, patients had to "opt-in" to receive a call, but the protocol was later modified so they had to "opt-out" if they did not want a call. We assessed the impact of opt-in vs opt-out framing and patient characteristics on receptiveness to RN SCM calls. All statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: Of the 1204 symptom assessments (from 864 patients) on which at least 1 severe symptom was documented, 469 (39.0%) indicated receptivity to an RN SCM phone call. The opt-out period (odds ratio [OR] = 1.61, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12 to 2.32, P = .01), receiving care at a tertiary care center (OR = 3.59, 95% CI = 2.18 to 5.91, P < .001), and having severe pain (OR = 1.80, 95% CI = 1.24 to 2.62, P = .002) were associated with statistically significantly greater willingness to receive a call. CONCLUSIONS: Many severely symptomatic patients were not receptive to an RN SCM phone call. Better understanding of reasons for refusal and strategies for improving patient receptivity are needed.

Connecting community-delivered evidence-based programs and the healthcare system: Piloting a learning "wellcare" system.

INTRODUCTION: Many evidence-based programs (EBPs) have been determined in randomized controlled trials to be effective, but few studies explore the real-world effectiveness of EBPs implemented in the natural community setting. Our study evaluated whether a novel linked infrastructure would enable such insights and continuous improvement as part of a learning healthcare-community bridged "wellcare" ecosystem. METHODS: We created a secure, web-based data entry and storage platform with a network of Minnesota community-based organizations to record EBP participants' demographics and attendance, and program details. We then linked participant's information to their Rochester Epidemiology Project (REP) medical records. With this infrastructure, we conducted a proof of concept, retrospective cohort study by matching EBP participants to REP controls and comparing medical record-documented outcomes over 1 year follow-up. RESULTS: We successfully linked EBP participant records with medical records in 77.6% of cases, and the infrastructure proved feasible and scalable. Still, key challenges remain in obtaining participant consent for data sharing. Upfront resource investments and the availability of REP-like warehouses limit generalizability. Optimal learning will be improved by enhancements that better track program fidelity. Our pilot study established a proof-of-concept, but sample sizes (n = 99 for falls prevention and n = 97 chronic disease/pain management EBP completers) were too small to detect significant differences in hospital admittance as compared to matched controls for either EBP group, (OR = 0.66[0.36, 1.19]) and (OR = 0.81[0.43, 1.54]), respectively. Events were too rare to gather meaningful information about effects on fall rates. CONCLUSIONS: Our pilot demonstrates the feasibility of developing an online infrastructure that connects information from community leaders with medical record documented health outcomes, bridging the knowledge gap between community programs and the health care system. Insights gleaned from our infrastructure can be used to continuously shape community program delivery to reduce the need for formal health care services.