Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs: Safety assessment in a European Comprehensive Cancer Centre using the risk matrix approach.

AIMS: The purpose of this work was to assess failures in the advanced prescription of parenteral anticancer agents in an adult day oncology care unit with more than 100 patients per day. METHODS: An a priori descriptive analysis was carried out by using the risk matrix approach. After defining the scope in a multidisciplinary meeting, we determined at each step the failure modes (FMs), their effects (E) and their associated causes (C). A severity score (S) was assigned to all effects and a probability of occurrence (O) to all causes. These S and O indicators, were used to obtain a criticality index (CI) matrix. We assessed the risk control (RC) of each failure in order to define a residual criticality index (rCI) matrix. RESULTS: During risk analysis, 14 FMs were detected, and 61 scenarios were identified considering all possible effects and causes. Nine situations (15%) were highlighted with the maximum CI, 18 (30%) with a medium CI, and 34 (55%) with a negligible CI. Nevertheless, among all these critical situations, only three (5%) had an rCI to process (i.e., missed dose adjustment, multiple prescriptions and abnormal biology data); the others required monitoring only. Clinicians' and pharmacists' knowledge of these critical situations enables them to manage the associated risks. CONCLUSIONS: Advanced prescription of injectable anticancer drugs appears to be a safe practice for patients when combined with risk management. The major risks identified concerned missed dose adjustment, prescription duplication and lack of consideration for abnormal biology data.

Humanizing the intensive care unit experience in a comprehensive cancer center: A patient- and family-centered improvement study.

OBJECTIVES: Improving family-centered outcomes is a priority in oncologic critical care. As part of the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Collaborative, we implemented patient- and family-centered initiatives in a comprehensive cancer center. METHODS: A multidisciplinary team was created to implement the initiatives. We instituted an open visitation policy (OVP) that revamped the use of the two-way communication boards and enhanced the waiting room experience by hosting ICU family-centered events. To assess the initiatives' effects, we carried out pre-intervention (PRE) and post-intervention (POST) family/caregiver and ICU practitioner surveys. RESULTS: A total of 159 (PRE = 79, POST = 80) family members and 147 (PRE = 95, POST = 52) ICU practitioners participated. Regarding the decision-making process, family members felt more included (40.5% vs. 68.8%, p < 0.001) and more supported (29.1% vs. 48.8%, p = 0.011) after the implementation of the initiatives. The caregivers also felt more control over the decision-making process in the POST survey (34.2% vs. 56.3%, p = 0.005). Although 33% of the ICU staff considered OVP was beneficial for the ICU, 41% disagreed and 26% were neutral. Only half of them responded that OVP was beneficial for patients and 63% agreed that OVP was beneficial for families. Half of the practitioners agreed that OVP resulted in additional work for staff. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Our project effectively promoted patient- and family-centered care. The families expressed satisfaction with the communication of information and the decision-making process. However, the ICU staff felt that the initiatives increased their work load. Further research is needed to understand whether making this project universal or introducing additional novel practices would significantly benefit patients admitted to the ICU and their family.

Clinical Outcomes Following Regionalization of Gastric Cancer Care in a US Integrated Health Care System.

PURPOSE: In 2016, Kaiser Permanente Northern California regionalized gastric cancer care, introducing a regional comprehensive multidisciplinary care team, standardizing staging and chemotherapy, and implementing laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy for patients eligible for curative-intent surgery. This study evaluated the effect of regionalization on outcomes. METHODS: The retrospective cohort study included gastric cancer cases diagnosed from January 2010 to May 2018. Information was obtained from the electronic medical record, cancer registry, state vital statistics, and chart review. Overall survival was compared in patients with all stages of disease, stage I-III disease, and curative-intent gastrectomy patients using annual inception cohorts. For the latter, the surgical approach and surgical outcomes were also compared. RESULTS: Among 1,429 eligible patients with gastric cancer with all stages of disease, one third were treated after regionalization, 650 had stage I-III disease, and 394 underwent curative-intent surgery. Among surgical patients, neoadjuvant chemotherapy utilization increased from 35% to 66% (P < .0001), laparoscopic gastrectomy increased from 18% to 92% (P < .0001), and D2 lymphadenectomy increased from 2% to 80% (P < .0001). Dissection of ≥ 15 lymph nodes increased from 61% to 95% (P < .0001). Surgical complication rates did not appear to increase after regionalization. Length of hospitalization decreased from 7 to 3 days (P < .001). Overall survival at 2 years was as follows: all stages, 32.8% pre and 37.3% post (P = .20); stage I-III cases with or without surgery, 55.6% and 61.1%, respectively (P = .25); and among surgery patients, 72.7% and 85.5%, respectively (P < .03). CONCLUSION: Regionalization of gastric cancer care within an integrated system allowed comprehensive multidisciplinary care, conversion to laparoscopic gastrectomy and D2 lymphadenectomy, increased overall survival among surgery patients, and no increase in surgical complications.

Preparing historically underrepresented trainees for biomedical cancer research careers at Huntsman Cancer Institute/University of Utah Health.

Given the well-documented inequities in health care outcomes by race, ethnicity, and gender, many health career pipeline programs have focused on supporting the development of a diverse and inclusive workforce. The State of Utah, is vast, but sparsely populated outside the Salt Lake City metropolitan area. More than 96% of our nearly 85,000 square miles is designated rural (<100 people/square mile) or frontier (<7 people/square mile). The Salt Lake City area is home to the Hunsman Cancer Institute, the only NCI-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center in the region, also noted the limited diversity in the biomedical cancer research workforce. Our primary objective was to increase the number of underrepresented trainees who pursue higher education with the goal of a career in cancer research. PathMaker is a regional, competitive pipeline program that nurtures high school or undergraduate trainees from historically underrepresented backgrounds towards a career in cancer research. Our faculty and staff team collaboratively developed a cohort model curriculum that increased student awareness of research career options; provided academic and professional development, cultural and social support, evolutionary success strategies, active mentorship, and leadership skill development; and fostered an environment of continuous evaluation and improvement. Since pilot program initiation in May 2016, the PathMaker Research Program (PathMaker) has engaged a total of 44 underrepresented trainees in cancer research labs at Huntsman Cancer Institute, the majority still in college. Eleven trainees graduated college: five employed in STEM, one pursuing a PhD in STEM; two in medical school, and three are lost to follow-up. Alumni report high levels of satisfaction with PathMaker and will be followed and supported for academic success. PathMaker is a replicable model to increase diversity and inclusion in the biomedical cancer research workforce.

[COVID-19 and patients with cancer: Experiment of a French comprehensive cancer center]. / Première vague COVID-19 : expérience d'un centre de lutte contre le cancer.

The emergence of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) has caused profound upset in health systems around the world. As cancer patients seem to be at greater risk, the organization of oncological care had to be adapted. We first report the progress of the "first wave" of COVID-19 at the Institut Curie, a French comprehensive cancer center, by describing the measures implemented to limit the risk of transmission of COVID-19 while ensuring as much as possible the continuation of anticancer treatments. Then, we present the results of a prospective institutional database in which the characteristics and outcome of our patients with cancer and suffering from COVID-19 were collected. From March 13 to April 25, 2020, 141 patients followed at Institut Curie for cancer developed COVID-19, of which 26 (18%) died from it. The minimum incidence of COVID-19 in Institut Curie is estimated at 1.4% over this period. No risk factors for developing a severe form of COVID-19 related to cancer have been identified. Cancer patients do not appear to be at greater risk of developing COVID-19, nor of having a more severe form than the general population. With the current increase of COVID-19 cases, it seems essential to share the experience already acquired to minimize the impact of this crisis on the long-term outcome of patients followed for cancer.

Visitation policies at NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: Family/caregiver visitation provides critical support for patients confronting cancer and is associated with positive outcomes. However, the COVID-19 pandemic brought historic disruptions including widespread visitation restrictions. Here, we characterize in-depth the visitor policies of NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers (CCCs) and analyze geographic/temporal patterns across CCCs. METHODS: The public-facing CCC websites, including archived webpages, were reviewed to abstract initial visitation policies and revisions, including end-of-life (EoL) exceptions and timing of visitation restrictions relative to regional lockdowns. Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests were employed to analyze associations between geographic region, timing, and severity of restrictions. RESULTS: Most CCCs (n=43, 86%) enacted visitation restrictions between March 15 and April 15, 2020. About half barred all visitors for COVID-negative inpatients (n=24, 48%) or outpatients (n=26, 52%). Most (n=36, 72%) prohibited visitors for patients with confirmed/suspected COVID-19. Most (n=40, 80%) published EoL exceptions but the specifics were highly variable. The median time from initial restrictions to government-mandated lockdowns was 1 day, with a wide range (25 days before to 26 days after). There was no association between timing of initial restrictions and geographic location (p=0.14) or severity of inpatient policies (p=1.0), even among centers in the same city. Outpatient policies published reactively (after lockdown) were more restrictive than those published proactively (p=0.04). CONCLUSION: CCCs enacted strict but strikingly variable COVID-19 visitation restrictions, with important implications for patients/families seeking cancer care. A unified, evidence-based approach to visitation policies is needed to balance proven infection control measures with the needs of patients and families.

Analysing the attributes of Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres across Europe to identify key hallmarks.

There is a persistent variation in cancer outcomes among and within European countries suggesting (among other causes) inequalities in access to or delivery of high-quality cancer care. European policy (EU Cancer Mission and Europe's Beating Cancer Plan) is currently moving towards a mission-oriented approach addressing these inequalities. In this study, we used the quantitative and qualitative data of the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes' Accreditation and Designation Programme, relating to 40 large European cancer centres, to describe their current compliance with quality standards, to identify the hallmarks common to all centres and to show the distinctive features of Comprehensive Cancer Centres. All Comprehensive Cancer Centres and Cancer Centres accredited by the Organisation of European Cancer Institutes show good compliance with quality standards related to care, multidisciplinarity and patient centredness. However, Comprehensive Cancer Centres on average showed significantly better scores on indicators related to the volume, quality and integration of translational research, such as high-impact publications, clinical trial activity (especially in phase I and phase IIa trials) and filing more patents as early indicators of innovation. However, irrespective of their size, centres show significant variability regarding effective governance when functioning as entities within larger hospitals.

Supportive care centers: definition of excellence.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The current review is relevant because despite significant progress in oncology, a large proportion of patients with cancer still experience morbidity and symptoms, resulting from the cancer and/or its treatment. RECENT FINDINGS: The main theme concerns the definition of excellence of Supportive Care centers based on the indications of the Multinational Association Supportive Care Cancer (MASCC) because there are no data in literature on this topic. SUMMARY: Supportive care centers provide assistance to cancer patients suffering for anticancer treatments-related adverse effects. This leads to patient management with immediate evaluation and treatment of symptoms and therefore with improvement of quality of life and survival. In addition, there is less use of emergency room and hospitalizations with consequent savings of resources. According to MASCC evaluation criteria, some types of centers could be excellent in supportive care in cancer. Size, number of treated patients, or academic presence are not mandatory for the certification of excellence. However, centrality of patient and assessment of patient's needs, dedicated organizational models to evaluate and treat the adverse effects of anticancer treatments, dedicated activity and multidisciplinary staff, teaching programs, and adherence to guidelines are milestones for good clinical practices and consequently the centers that practice them represent the excellence in supportive care in cancer.

Early Outcomes of a National Cancer Center's Strategy Against COVID-19 Executed Through a Disease Outbreak Response Taskforce.

PURPOSE: We present the strategy of a comprehensive cancer center organized to make operations pandemic proof and achieve continuity of cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Disease Outbreak Response (DORS) measures implemented at our center and its satellite clinics included strict infection prevention, manpower preservation, prudent resource allocation, and adaptation of standard-of-care treatments. Critical day-to-day clinical operations, number of persons screened before entry, staff temperature monitoring, and personal protection equipment stockpile were reviewed as a dashboard at daily DORS taskforce huddles. Polymerase chain reaction swab tests performed for patients and staff who met defined criteria for testing of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection were tracked. Descriptive statistics of outpatient attendances and treatment caseloads from February 3 to May 23, 2020, were compared with the corresponding period in 2019. RESULTS: We performed COVID-19 swabs for 80 patients and 93 staff, detecting three cancer patients with community-acquired COVID-19 infections with no nosocomial transmission. Patients who required chemotherapy, radiotherapy, or surgery and patients who are on maintenance treatment continued to receive timely treatment without disruption. The number of intravenous chemotherapy treatments was maintained at 97.8% compared with 2019, whereas that of weekly radiotherapy treatments remained stable since December 2019. All cancer-related surgeries proceeded without delay, with a 0.3% increase in workload. Surveillance follow-ups were conducted via teleconsultation, accounting for a 30.7% decrease in total face-to-face clinic consultations. CONCLUSION: Through the coordinated efforts of a DORS taskforce, it is possible to avoid nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 transmissions among patients and staff without compromising on care delivery at a national cancer center.

Any progress in informed consenting for cancer treatment? Results from a cross sectional analysis at a comprehensive cancer center.

PURPOSE: Informed consent is required prior to any medical procedure. In the context of cancer treatment, special efforts are needed to inform cancer patients properly about treatment, potential sequelae and alternative therapies. Little is known about the effectiveness of current informed consent strategies and patients' individual satisfaction. Given the heterogeneity in terms of age, education, sex and other factors, detailed understanding of patients' comprehension and perception is the basis for further optimization of the informed consent process, which was the aim of the current investigation. METHODS: Patients with a new cancer diagnosis and recent informed consent were asked to complete a questionnaire about satisfaction, comprehension, time management, physician-patient relationship and other items of the informed consent process. Patients were followed for 6 months and invited to complete a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: In total, 89 patients completed the first questionnaire and 52 the follow-up questionnaire. Subjective understanding was assumed high, however, this did not correlate with objective understanding. Age and education were identified as influencing factors for comprehension. 85% of the patients were satisfied with the information provided. A major gap was the information on alternative therapies. Moreover, not all patients perceived the consent dialog as such, and particularly the individual treatment intention partially remained unclear for some patients. CONCLUSIONS: To ensure that informed consent is based on solid understanding, informed consenting must be patient-centered and consider the individual expectations, needs and abilities of cancer patients. Further studies are required to develop tailored informed consent strategies.

Implementation and Outcomes of Virtual Care Across a Tertiary Cancer Center During COVID-19.

Importance: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has burdened health care resources and disrupted care of patients with cancer. Virtual care (VC) represents a potential solution. However, few quantitative data support its rapid implementation and positive associations with service capacity and quality. Objective: To examine the outcomes of a cancer center-wide virtual care program in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study applied a hospitalwide agile service design to map gaps and develop a customized digital solution to enable at-scale VC across a publicly funded comprehensive cancer center. Data were collected from a high-volume cancer center in Ontario, Canada, from March 23 to May 22, 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures were care delivery volumes, quality of care, patient and practitioner experiences, and cost savings to patients. Results: The VC solution was developed and launched 12 days after the declaration of the COVID-19 pandemic. A total of 22 085 VC visits (mean, 514 visits per day) were conducted, comprising 68.4% (range, 18.8%-100%) of daily visits compared with 0.8% before launch (P < .001). Ambulatory clinic volumes recovered a month after deployment (3714-4091 patients per week), whereas chemotherapy and radiotherapy caseloads (1943-2461 patients per week) remained stable throughout. No changes in institutional or provincial quality-of-care indexes were observed. A total of 3791 surveys (3507 patients and 284 practitioners) were completed; 2207 patients (82%) and 92 practitioners (72%) indicated overall satisfaction with VC. The direct cost of this initiative was CAD$ 202 537, and displacement-related cost savings to patients totaled CAD$ 3 155 946. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that implementation of VC at scale at a high-volume cancer center may be feasible. An agile service design approach was able to preserve outpatient caseloads and maintain care quality, while rendering high patient and practitioner satisfaction. These findings may help guide the transformation of telemedicine in the post COVID-19 era.

Planning for post-pandemic cancer care delivery: Recovery or opportunity for redesign?

The delivery of cancer care has never changed as rapidly and dramatically as we have seen with the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. During the early phase of the pandemic, recommendations for the management of oncology patients issued by various professional societies and government agencies did not recognize the significant regional differences in the impact of the pandemic. California initially experienced lower than expected numbers of cases, and the health care system did not experience the same degree of the burden that had been the case in other parts of the country. In light of promising trends in COVID-19 infections and mortality in California, by late April 2020, discussions were initiated for a phased recovery of full-scale cancer services. However, by July 2020, a surge of cases was reported across the nation, including in California. In this review, the authors share the response and recovery planning experience of the University of California (UC) Cancer Consortium in an effort to provide guidance to oncology practices. The UC Cancer Consortium was established in 2017 to bring together 5 UC Comprehensive Cancer Centers: UC Davis Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Los Angeles Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC Irvine Chao Family Comprehensive Cancer Center, UC San Diego Moores Cancer Center, and the UC San Francisco Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center. The interventions implemented in each of these cancer centers are highlighted, with a focus on opportunities for a redesign in care delivery models. The authors propose that their experiences gained during this pandemic will enhance pre-pandemic cancer care delivery.

Role of norms in variation in cancer centers' end-of-life quality: qualitative case study protocol.

BACKGROUND: A critical barrier to improving the quality of end-of-life (EOL) cancer care is our lack of understanding of the mechanisms underlying variation in EOL treatment intensity. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying 1) organizational and provider practice norms at major US cancer centers, and 2) how these norms influence provider decision making heuristics and patient expectations for EOL care, particularly for minority patients with advanced cancer. METHODS: This is a multi-center, qualitative case study at six National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) and National Cancer Institute (NCI) Comprehensive Cancer Centers. We will theoretically sample centers based upon National Quality Forum (NQF) endorsed EOL quality metrics and demographics to ensure heterogeneity in EOL intensity and region. A multidisciplinary team of clinician and non-clinician researchers will conduct direct observations, semi-structured interviews, and artifact collection. Participants will include: 1) cancer center and clinical service line administrators; 2) providers from medical, surgical, and radiation oncology; palliative or supportive care; intensive care; hospital medicine; and emergency medicine who see patients with cancer and have high clinical practice volume or high local influence (provider interviews and observations); and 3) adult patients with metastatic solid tumors and whom the provider would not be surprised if they died in the next 12 months and their caregivers (patient and caregiver interviews). Leadership interviews will probe about EOL institutional norms and organization. We will observe inpatient and outpatient care for two weeks. Provider interviews will use vignettes to probe explicit and implicit motivations for treatment choices. Semi-structured interviews with patients near EOL, or their family members and caregivers will explore past, current, and future decisions related to their cancer care. We will import transcribed field notes and interviews into Dedoose software for qualitative data management and analysis, and we will develop and apply a deductive and inductive codebook to the data. DISCUSSION: This study aims to improve our understanding of organizational and provider practice norms pertinent to EOL care in U.S. cancer centers. This research will ultimately be used to inform a provider-oriented intervention to improve EOL care for racial and ethnic minority patients with advanced cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov ; NCT03780816 ; December 19, 2018.

Evaluation of a Comprehensive Skin Toxicity Program for Patients Treated With Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor Inhibitors at a Cancer Treatment Center.

Importance: Up to 90% of patients treated with an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor (EGFRi) experience cutaneous toxic effects that are negatively associated with quality of life and lead to treatment interruptions. The Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab trial found reduced incidence of skin toxicity and quality of life impairment with preemptive use of doxycycline hyclate, topical corticosteroids, moisturizers, and sunscreen, demonstrating the benefit of prophylactic treatment for skin toxicity. Objective: To evaluate the association of a comprehensive skin toxicity program with adherence to prophylaxis guidelines for the prevention of EGFRi-associated cutaneous toxic effects. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective cohort study was conducted of all adult patients receiving at least 1 dose of cetuximab at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in the calendar year 2012 (2 years after publication of the Skin Toxicity Evaluation Protocol With Panitumumab) or the calendar year 2017 (2 years after full implementation of the Skin Toxicities from Anticancer Therapies program). Main Outcomes and Measures: Primary outcomes were rate of preemptive rash treatment and selection of preemptive agents. Secondary outcomes were incidence of rash, rates of rescue treatments, rates of cetuximab dose changes or interruptions, and overall survival at 2 years. Results: There were 118 patients (85 men; median age, 62.4 years [range, 23.5-91.7 years]) treated with cetuximab in 2012 and 90 patients (70 men; median age, 62.5 years [range, 30.7-90.5 years]) treated with cetuximab in 2017; 11 patients (9%) in 2012 and 31 patients (34%) in 2017 were treated at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute affiliate sites. At cetuximab treatment initiation, 29 patients (25%) in 2012 and 42 patients (47%) in 2017 were prophylactically treated for skin toxicity (P < .001). From 2012 to 2017, preemptive tetracycline use (13 of 29 [45%] to 30 of 42 [71%]; P = .02) and topical corticosteroid use (2 of 29 [7%] to 24 of 42 [57%]; P < .001) increased and topical antibiotic use (23 of 29 [79%] to 18 of 42 [43%]; P = .002) decreased. There was no significant difference in incidence of rash by prophylaxis status. Patients prescribed prophylactic treatment were 94% less likely to require a first rescue treatment for rash (adjusted odds ratio, 0.06; 95% CI, 0.02-0.16; P < .001), 74% less likely to require a second rescue treatment for rash (adjusted odds ratio, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.08-0.83; P = .02), and 79% less likely to experience a cetuximab dose change or interruption (adjusted odds ratio, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.06-0.81; P = .02) than patients not prescribed prophylactic treatment, adjusting for treatment site and year. Conclusions and Relevance: Dermatologists can add value to oncology care by raising awareness of appropriate treatment options and increasing adherence to evidence-based prophylaxis protocols for EGFRi-associated rash, which is associated with decreased interventions and toxicity-associated chemotherapy interruptions.

PATIENT VOICES, a project for the integration of the systematic assessment of patient reported outcomes and experiences within a comprehensive cancer center: a protocol for a mixed method feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Listening to "patient voices" in terms of symptoms, emotional status and experiences with care, is crucial for patient empowerment in clinical practice. Despite convincing evidence that routine patient reported outcomes and experience measurements (PRMs) with rapid feed-back to oncologists can improve symptom control, patient well-being and cost effectiveness, PRMs are not commonly used in cancer care, due to barriers at various level. Part of these barriers may be overcome through electronic PRMs collection (ePRMs) integrated with the electronic medical record (EMR). The PATIENT VOICES initiative is aimed at achieving a stepwise integration of ePRMs assessment into routine cancer care. The feasibility project presented here is aimed at assessing the knowledge, use and attitudes toward PRMs in a comprehensive cancer centre; developing and assessing feasibility of a flexible system for ePRM assessment; identifying barriers to and developing strategies for implementation and integration of ePRMs clinical practice. METHODS: The project has been organized into four phases: a) pre-development; b) software development and piloting; c) feasibility assessment; d) post-development. A convergent mixed method design, based on concurrent quantitative and qualitative data collection will be applied. A web-survey on health care providers (HCPs), qualitative studies on patients and HCPs (semi-structured interviews and focus groups) as well as longitudinal and cross-sectional quantitative studies will be carried out. The quantitative studies will enroll 600 patients: 200 attending out-patient clinics (physical symptom assessement), 200 attending inpatient wards (psychological distress assessment) and 200 patients followed by multidisciplinary teams (patient experience with care assessment). The Edmonton symptom assessment scale, the Distress Thermometer, and a tool adapted from existing patient reported experience with cancer care questionnaires, will be used in quantitative studies. A multi-disciplinary stakeholder team including researchers, clinicians, health informatics professionals, health system administrators and patients will be involved in the development of potentially effective implementation strategies in the post development phase. DISCUSSION: The documentation of potential advantages and implementation barriers achieved within this feasibility project, will serve as a starting point for future and more focused interventions aimed at achieving effective ePRMs routine assessment in cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT03968718 ) May 30th, 2019.

Interventional oncology at the time of COVID-19 pandemic: Problems and solutions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has deeply impacted the activity of interventional oncology in hospitals and cancer centers. In this review based on official recommendations of different international societies, but also on local solutions found in different expert large-volume centers, we discuss the changes that need to be done for the organization, safety, and patient management in interventional oncology. A literature review of potential solutions in a context of scarce anesthesiologic resources, limited staff and limited access to hospital beds are proposed and discussed based on the literature data.

Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for Palliative Care in German Comprehensive Cancer Centers - an evaluation of the implementation status.

BACKGROUND: The working group for palliative medicine within the Comprehensive Cancer Center (CCC) network funded by the German Cancer Aid in Germany has developed and published 14 Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for palliative care in CCCs. This study analyzed to what extent these SOPs have been implemented in the clinical routine in the CCC network one year after their publication. METHODS: An online-based survey on the implementation status, limitations in daily practice and further themes was conducted between April and July 2018. In total, 125 health professionals in specialized palliative care from all 16 CCC locations were invited to participate. The data were analyzed descriptively using SPSS. RESULTS: The response rate was 52.8%. More than half of the respondents (57.6%) knew about the free availability of SOPs on the CCC network website. The extent to which each SOP was being used actively in practice by the survey respondents ranged from a low of 22.7% (for the "Fatigue" SOP) to a highest of 48.5% (for the "Palliative Sedation" and "Respiratory Distress" SOPs). The respondents became aware of the SOP through recommendations from colleagues, team meetings or from the head of the department. The SOPs "Respiratory distress of an adult palliative patient" and "Palliative sedation" were perceived as the most practically oriented and understandable. Barriers to use SOPs were mainly limited time resources and lack of knowledge of existence and availability. CONCLUSIONS: In practice, better knowledge about the SOPs and at the same time increased use can be achieved through systematic training or discussion of SOPs in regular team meetings. There is a need to take measures to optimize the implementation in clinical practice.

Addressing the quality of communication with older cancer patients with cognitive deficits: Development of a communication skills training module.

OBJECTIVE: Effective communication is an essential part of patient-centered care. The complexity of cancer care in older adults makes communication challenging, particularly when older patients have cognitive deficits and lose their autonomy. This paper describes the development, implementation, and evaluation of a communication skills training module for health care providers (HCPs) who work with older adults with cancer, with or at risk of developing cognitive deficits. METHOD: Using a pre-post single arm study design, 99 HCPs from a comprehensive cancer center in North-East USA, who worked primarily with geriatric patients, participated in the study. Participants included Advance Practice Providers (including Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants; n = 24, 24.2%); nurses (n = 23, 23.2%), social workers (n = 14, 14.1%), physicians (n = 13, 13.1%), and "other" HCPs (including occupational therapists, physical therapists, and psychologists; n = 20, 20.2%). The HCPs participated in a one-day geriatric communication skills training program in groups of 12-15 over a 2-year period. Participants complete pre-post surveys on module evaluation and perception of self-efficacy as well as pre-post video-recorded Standardized Patient Assessment (SPA) to evaluate communication skill uptake. RESULTS: Most participants evaluated the module positively; over 90% indicated that they agreed or strongly agreed with five of the six module evaluation items. HCPs' self-efficacy in communicating with cancer patients with cognitive deficits significantly increased from pre- to post-module training. There was a significant increase in the following communication skill use from pre- to post-training: checking patient preferences, declaring agenda, and inviting agenda. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Results demonstrated a successful implementation of the program as evidenced through favorable program evaluation, significant gains in self-efficacy, as well as significant improvement in several communication skills.

The requirements of a specialist breast centre.

This article is an update of the requirements of a specialist breast centre, produced by EUSOMA and endorsed by ECCO as part of Essential Requirements for Quality Cancer Care (ERQCC) programme, and ESMO. To meet aspirations for comprehensive cancer control, healthcare organisations must consider the requirements in this article, paying particular attention to multidisciplinarity and patient-centred pathways from diagnosis, to treatment, to survivorship.

A supportive care dedicated hospitalization ward in comprehensive cancer center.

INTRODUCTION: Supportive care development has created new needs in patients' care pathway. In order to anticipate, evaluate, and take care of patients' needs, a supportive care dedicated hospitalization ward was created in late 2016 in our comprehensive cancer center, including 15 beds (11 for week care and 4 for day care). We aimed to assess the activity of this supportive care ward in 2018. METHODS: Data were extracted from weekly activity reports of supportive care ward and retrospectively analyzed. Those reports are automatically generated from hospitalization scheduling software. RESULTS: In week care ward, 627 stays were recorded. Occupancy rate was 88%. Mean stay duration was 3.01 days. Main indications for week stay were pain evaluation and management (47.4%) and nutritional management (31.7%). In day care ward, 1191 stays were registered. Turnover rate was 1.18 patients/bed/day. Main indications for day stay were pain management (41.6%) and comprehensive geriatric assessment in oncology (22.8%). CONCLUSION: The 2018 supportive care ward evaluation showed its viability in comprehensive cancer center. The main activity was based on pain and nutritional management.