AVAHO

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are relatively rare, accounting for 1-2% of all gastrointestinal (GI) tumors. The liver is the most common site of secondary NEN metastases; however, hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PHNEN) arising as a primary tumor is very rare. In the literature, fewer than 150 cases have been reported. We sought a populationbased registry to identify and describe the incidence, management, and survival of PHNEN.

METHODS: Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2017 using SEER*Stat software. A chi-squared test was used to compare the clinicopathological characteristics. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used for survival comparisons. A Cox proportional model was implemented for multivariate analyses of the patient population and hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding confidence intervals (CI) were generated.

RESULTS: Among 71,893 GI NEN patients identified, 416 patients (0.6%) were diagnosed with PHNEN. Most of them were older than 60 years of age (63%), female (52.3%), and non-Hispanic whites (65.4%). About one-third of patients had localized disease at presentation and 56.4% had histology consistent with neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). In a multivariate analysis, patients with grade III (poorly differentiated) or IV (undifferentiated/anaplastic) disease, vs. grade I (well differentiated), were associated with decreased cause specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with neuroendocrine tumor histology were associated with a better CSS (HR 0.36, CI 0.21-0.65) and OS (HR 0.46, CI 0.28-0.75) than NEC histology. Patients who underwent surgical resection were also associated with better CSS (HR 0.19, CI 0.11-0.36) and OS (HR 0.19, CI 0.11-0.33) when compared to those that did not undergo surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: We describe a large series of cases with PHNEN, identified from the US population-based registry, that helps better characterize this uncommon disease. We found tumor grade, not SEER historical stage (local, regional, or distant), is an independent prognostic factor. Despite its rarity, PHNENs that are well-differentiated NETs can still have improved survival when surgical resection is considered.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are relatively rare, accounting for 1-2% of all gastrointestinal (GI) tumors. The liver is the most common site of secondary NEN metastases; however, hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PHNEN) arising as a primary tumor is very rare. In the literature, fewer than 150 cases have been reported. We sought a populationbased registry to identify and describe the incidence, management, and survival of PHNEN.

METHODS: Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2017 using SEER*Stat software. A chi-squared test was used to compare the clinicopathological characteristics. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used for survival comparisons. A Cox proportional model was implemented for multivariate analyses of the patient population and hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding confidence intervals (CI) were generated.

RESULTS: Among 71,893 GI NEN patients identified, 416 patients (0.6%) were diagnosed with PHNEN. Most of them were older than 60 years of age (63%), female (52.3%), and non-Hispanic whites (65.4%). About one-third of patients had localized disease at presentation and 56.4% had histology consistent with neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). In a multivariate analysis, patients with grade III (poorly differentiated) or IV (undifferentiated/anaplastic) disease, vs. grade I (well differentiated), were associated with decreased cause specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with neuroendocrine tumor histology were associated with a better CSS (HR 0.36, CI 0.21-0.65) and OS (HR 0.46, CI 0.28-0.75) than NEC histology. Patients who underwent surgical resection were also associated with better CSS (HR 0.19, CI 0.11-0.36) and OS (HR 0.19, CI 0.11-0.33) when compared to those that did not undergo surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: We describe a large series of cases with PHNEN, identified from the US population-based registry, that helps better characterize this uncommon disease. We found tumor grade, not SEER historical stage (local, regional, or distant), is an independent prognostic factor. Despite its rarity, PHNENs that are well-differentiated NETs can still have improved survival when surgical resection is considered.

BACKGROUND: Neuroendocrine neoplasms (NENs) are relatively rare, accounting for 1-2% of all gastrointestinal (GI) tumors. The liver is the most common site of secondary NEN metastases; however, hepatic neuroendocrine neoplasm (PHNEN) arising as a primary tumor is very rare. In the literature, fewer than 150 cases have been reported. We sought a populationbased registry to identify and describe the incidence, management, and survival of PHNEN.

METHODS: Patients were identified from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) database from 2010 to 2017 using SEER*Stat software. A chi-squared test was used to compare the clinicopathological characteristics. Kaplan–Meier analysis and log-rank tests were used for survival comparisons. A Cox proportional model was implemented for multivariate analyses of the patient population and hazard ratios (HR) and corresponding confidence intervals (CI) were generated.

RESULTS: Among 71,893 GI NEN patients identified, 416 patients (0.6%) were diagnosed with PHNEN. Most of them were older than 60 years of age (63%), female (52.3%), and non-Hispanic whites (65.4%). About one-third of patients had localized disease at presentation and 56.4% had histology consistent with neuroendocrine carcinoma (NEC). In a multivariate analysis, patients with grade III (poorly differentiated) or IV (undifferentiated/anaplastic) disease, vs. grade I (well differentiated), were associated with decreased cause specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). Patients with neuroendocrine tumor histology were associated with a better CSS (HR 0.36, CI 0.21-0.65) and OS (HR 0.46, CI 0.28-0.75) than NEC histology. Patients who underwent surgical resection were also associated with better CSS (HR 0.19, CI 0.11-0.36) and OS (HR 0.19, CI 0.11-0.33) when compared to those that did not undergo surgery.

CONCLUSIONS: We describe a large series of cases with PHNEN, identified from the US population-based registry, that helps better characterize this uncommon disease. We found tumor grade, not SEER historical stage (local, regional, or distant), is an independent prognostic factor. Despite its rarity, PHNENs that are well-differentiated NETs can still have improved survival when surgical resection is considered.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is often fragmented for the patient undergoing complex care. Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation require coordination with medical services and infusion centers. Past practices utilizing telephone communication limited care coordination. Before advances in technology, patients were restricted to obtain their health care information through conversation. Care coordination paired with patient-centered technology enables collaboration among the health care team and creates structure through visual displays of essential information.

OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to introduce technology and maximize enrollment for the patient by: (1) Establishing MyHealtheVet within the Hematology- Oncology department for increased patient support to memorialize communication. (2) Create access to care to better manage treatment of health-related issues. (3) Empower the patient to participate in managing their care.

METHODS: In October of 2017 the NF/SGVA began implementing MyHealtheVet . The Hematology-Oncology department had no formal process. By the Fall of 2019 the infusion room process was to enroll each patient or upgrade the patients’ account to premium status at the time of their first encounter with nursing during chemotherapy education.

RESULTS: MyHealtheVet usage and chemotherapy education appointments within the Hematology-Oncology department were surveyed. Over a two-year period, use in the Hematology-Oncology department at the NF/SGVA showed steady escalation of secure messaging as more oncology patients enrolled. When COVID19 arose in February 2020, the Hematology- Oncology department was already poised to handle care coordination for their patients during this crisis. With our established practices, coordination of care for patients in treatment well prepared to receive care and communication electronically through MyHealtheVet .

CONCLUSIONS: Personal health networks (PHN) have evolved and have become a novel solution to address challenges of the cancer care continuum. MyHealtheVet serves as a voice for the VA for navigating patient care coordination needs. My- HealtheVet is a clinical tool that functions locally using administrative features to involve, engage, and educate the patient with an array of resources. This enrollment process allowed us to remain patient- centered and well equipped to face COVID19 related access challenges as they quickly evolved in the spring of 2020. Pharmacy functions and Secure Messaging emerge as the strongest tools in our communication toolbox.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is often fragmented for the patient undergoing complex care. Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation require coordination with medical services and infusion centers. Past practices utilizing telephone communication limited care coordination. Before advances in technology, patients were restricted to obtain their health care information through conversation. Care coordination paired with patient-centered technology enables collaboration among the health care team and creates structure through visual displays of essential information.

OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to introduce technology and maximize enrollment for the patient by: (1) Establishing MyHealtheVet within the Hematology- Oncology department for increased patient support to memorialize communication. (2) Create access to care to better manage treatment of health-related issues. (3) Empower the patient to participate in managing their care.

METHODS: In October of 2017 the NF/SGVA began implementing MyHealtheVet . The Hematology-Oncology department had no formal process. By the Fall of 2019 the infusion room process was to enroll each patient or upgrade the patients’ account to premium status at the time of their first encounter with nursing during chemotherapy education.

RESULTS: MyHealtheVet usage and chemotherapy education appointments within the Hematology-Oncology department were surveyed. Over a two-year period, use in the Hematology-Oncology department at the NF/SGVA showed steady escalation of secure messaging as more oncology patients enrolled. When COVID19 arose in February 2020, the Hematology- Oncology department was already poised to handle care coordination for their patients during this crisis. With our established practices, coordination of care for patients in treatment well prepared to receive care and communication electronically through MyHealtheVet .

CONCLUSIONS: Personal health networks (PHN) have evolved and have become a novel solution to address challenges of the cancer care continuum. MyHealtheVet serves as a voice for the VA for navigating patient care coordination needs. My- HealtheVet is a clinical tool that functions locally using administrative features to involve, engage, and educate the patient with an array of resources. This enrollment process allowed us to remain patient- centered and well equipped to face COVID19 related access challenges as they quickly evolved in the spring of 2020. Pharmacy functions and Secure Messaging emerge as the strongest tools in our communication toolbox.

BACKGROUND: Cancer care is often fragmented for the patient undergoing complex care. Cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and radiation require coordination with medical services and infusion centers. Past practices utilizing telephone communication limited care coordination. Before advances in technology, patients were restricted to obtain their health care information through conversation. Care coordination paired with patient-centered technology enables collaboration among the health care team and creates structure through visual displays of essential information.

OBJECTIVE: Our goals were to introduce technology and maximize enrollment for the patient by: (1) Establishing MyHealtheVet within the Hematology- Oncology department for increased patient support to memorialize communication. (2) Create access to care to better manage treatment of health-related issues. (3) Empower the patient to participate in managing their care.

METHODS: In October of 2017 the NF/SGVA began implementing MyHealtheVet . The Hematology-Oncology department had no formal process. By the Fall of 2019 the infusion room process was to enroll each patient or upgrade the patients’ account to premium status at the time of their first encounter with nursing during chemotherapy education.

RESULTS: MyHealtheVet usage and chemotherapy education appointments within the Hematology-Oncology department were surveyed. Over a two-year period, use in the Hematology-Oncology department at the NF/SGVA showed steady escalation of secure messaging as more oncology patients enrolled. When COVID19 arose in February 2020, the Hematology- Oncology department was already poised to handle care coordination for their patients during this crisis. With our established practices, coordination of care for patients in treatment well prepared to receive care and communication electronically through MyHealtheVet .

CONCLUSIONS: Personal health networks (PHN) have evolved and have become a novel solution to address challenges of the cancer care continuum. MyHealtheVet serves as a voice for the VA for navigating patient care coordination needs. My- HealtheVet is a clinical tool that functions locally using administrative features to involve, engage, and educate the patient with an array of resources. This enrollment process allowed us to remain patient- centered and well equipped to face COVID19 related access challenges as they quickly evolved in the spring of 2020. Pharmacy functions and Secure Messaging emerge as the strongest tools in our communication toolbox.

BACKGROUND: Timely hospice care in oncology improves end-of-life care, decreases hospitalizations, improves quality of life and satisfaction. However, collaborative practice of palliative care and oncology remains inconsistent, resulting in absent or delayed hospice services. Short hospice length of service is a marker of poor quality of care and end-user dissatisfaction. Most Americans desire end-of-life care in their homes; however, most of them receive their end-of-life care in hospitals.

HYPOTHESIS: A collaborative oncology-palliative care clinic model improves access to hospice care.

INTERVENTION: In January 2015, we implemented an integrated oncology-palliative care clinic model with the following elements:
(1) Pre-clinic “huddle” among palliative care and oncology staff to identify palliative care needs for patients;
(2) Shared palliative care and oncology clinic appointments;
(3) Introduction of palliative care for every new oncology clinic patient, for advance care planning;
(4) Concurrent oncology and palliative care follow-up for all high-risk patients (aggressive histology, progressing disease, etc.) for goals of care discussions and symptom management;
(5) Palliative care and oncology staff co-managing oncology patients enrolled in hospice care.

MEASUREMENTS: In December 2019, we conducted a retrospective review of all Veterans seen in oncologypalliative care clinic during FY2018-FY2019 with specific attention to community hospice referrals, hospice length of stay, and location of Veterans’ death.

RESULTS: Of a total of 189 Veterans seen in this clinic in FY18-FY19, at the time of review.
(1) 68 (36%) Veterans accessed hospice care.
(2) Of 71 deceased Veterans, 59 (83%) died on hospice (Medicare data: 50%).
(3) Average length of stay on hospice was 64 days (other studies: 48 days).
(4) Compared to other studies, our longer hospice stay was consistent across various cancers: lung (75 vs. 40 days), prostate (69 vs. 48 days), pancreas (40 vs. 32 days), colorectal (140 vs. 46 days).
(5) Of Veterans who died on hospice care, 30 (51%) died at home (other studies: 25%).

CONCLUSION: Our intervention improved access to hospice care in cancer care.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS: (1) Impact of this intervention of cost of end-of-life care.
(2) Future innovative clinic models for delivery of collaborative comprehensive care for complex nee

BACKGROUND: Timely hospice care in oncology improves end-of-life care, decreases hospitalizations, improves quality of life and satisfaction. However, collaborative practice of palliative care and oncology remains inconsistent, resulting in absent or delayed hospice services. Short hospice length of service is a marker of poor quality of care and end-user dissatisfaction. Most Americans desire end-of-life care in their homes; however, most of them receive their end-of-life care in hospitals.

HYPOTHESIS: A collaborative oncology-palliative care clinic model improves access to hospice care.

INTERVENTION: In January 2015, we implemented an integrated oncology-palliative care clinic model with the following elements:
(1) Pre-clinic “huddle” among palliative care and oncology staff to identify palliative care needs for patients;
(2) Shared palliative care and oncology clinic appointments;
(3) Introduction of palliative care for every new oncology clinic patient, for advance care planning;
(4) Concurrent oncology and palliative care follow-up for all high-risk patients (aggressive histology, progressing disease, etc.) for goals of care discussions and symptom management;
(5) Palliative care and oncology staff co-managing oncology patients enrolled in hospice care.

MEASUREMENTS: In December 2019, we conducted a retrospective review of all Veterans seen in oncologypalliative care clinic during FY2018-FY2019 with specific attention to community hospice referrals, hospice length of stay, and location of Veterans’ death.

RESULTS: Of a total of 189 Veterans seen in this clinic in FY18-FY19, at the time of review.
(1) 68 (36%) Veterans accessed hospice care.
(2) Of 71 deceased Veterans, 59 (83%) died on hospice (Medicare data: 50%).
(3) Average length of stay on hospice was 64 days (other studies: 48 days).
(4) Compared to other studies, our longer hospice stay was consistent across various cancers: lung (75 vs. 40 days), prostate (69 vs. 48 days), pancreas (40 vs. 32 days), colorectal (140 vs. 46 days).
(5) Of Veterans who died on hospice care, 30 (51%) died at home (other studies: 25%).

CONCLUSION: Our intervention improved access to hospice care in cancer care.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS: (1) Impact of this intervention of cost of end-of-life care.
(2) Future innovative clinic models for delivery of collaborative comprehensive care for complex nee

BACKGROUND: Timely hospice care in oncology improves end-of-life care, decreases hospitalizations, improves quality of life and satisfaction. However, collaborative practice of palliative care and oncology remains inconsistent, resulting in absent or delayed hospice services. Short hospice length of service is a marker of poor quality of care and end-user dissatisfaction. Most Americans desire end-of-life care in their homes; however, most of them receive their end-of-life care in hospitals.

HYPOTHESIS: A collaborative oncology-palliative care clinic model improves access to hospice care.

INTERVENTION: In January 2015, we implemented an integrated oncology-palliative care clinic model with the following elements:
(1) Pre-clinic “huddle” among palliative care and oncology staff to identify palliative care needs for patients;
(2) Shared palliative care and oncology clinic appointments;
(3) Introduction of palliative care for every new oncology clinic patient, for advance care planning;
(4) Concurrent oncology and palliative care follow-up for all high-risk patients (aggressive histology, progressing disease, etc.) for goals of care discussions and symptom management;
(5) Palliative care and oncology staff co-managing oncology patients enrolled in hospice care.

MEASUREMENTS: In December 2019, we conducted a retrospective review of all Veterans seen in oncologypalliative care clinic during FY2018-FY2019 with specific attention to community hospice referrals, hospice length of stay, and location of Veterans’ death.

RESULTS: Of a total of 189 Veterans seen in this clinic in FY18-FY19, at the time of review.
(1) 68 (36%) Veterans accessed hospice care.
(2) Of 71 deceased Veterans, 59 (83%) died on hospice (Medicare data: 50%).
(3) Average length of stay on hospice was 64 days (other studies: 48 days).
(4) Compared to other studies, our longer hospice stay was consistent across various cancers: lung (75 vs. 40 days), prostate (69 vs. 48 days), pancreas (40 vs. 32 days), colorectal (140 vs. 46 days).
(5) Of Veterans who died on hospice care, 30 (51%) died at home (other studies: 25%).

CONCLUSION: Our intervention improved access to hospice care in cancer care.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS: (1) Impact of this intervention of cost of end-of-life care.
(2) Future innovative clinic models for delivery of collaborative comprehensive care for complex nee

A 70-year-old veteran followed in clinic for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was found to have a new left axillary lymph node conglomerate on routine imaging, despite stable PSA on Enzalutamide therapy. Biopsy of the axillary mass showed metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, with a differential diagnosis of small cell carcinoma of unknown primary vs. Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC). Given his prostate cancer diagnosis and the rarity of MCC, small cell differentiation of prostate cancer was initially favored. However, the patient appeared well and subsequent PET/CT only showed two subcutaneous hypermetabolic lesions. These findings would be unusual with small cell differentiation of prostate cancer. A second biopsy of a subcutaneous lesion was most consistent with MCC, confirming our diagnosis.

At time of diagnosis, staging MRI Brain revealed 3 parenchymal brain lesions, presumed to be metastatic MCC. As per a landmark trial by Nghiem et al, the patient was started on Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every three weeks for treatment of metastatic MCC. Brain lesions were locally treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

Although his mCRPC was under good control with Enzalutamide, this drug is associated with increased risk of seizures in clinical trial and is not recommended for those with predisposing seizure risk. In light of MCC brain metastases, we decided to switch mCRPC therapy to Darolutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist that has lower penetration of the blood-brain barrier and less incidence of seizures. He tolerated the combination of Darolutamide with Pembrolizumab well, with only a grade 1 acneiform rash.

After just 1 cycle of Pembrolizumab, the patient’s clinically-evident MCC drastically regressed. After 8 months of treatment, his MCC continues to respond clinically and radiographically. This case emphasizes the importance of not relying on “Occam’s razor” – that one should assume a single diagnosis for multiple findings. The simplest explanation of the patient’s left axillary mass biopsy would have been small cell differentiation of prostate cancer; however, this has proved to be a synchronous MCC, which portends a much more favorable prognosis with immunotherapy treatment. We also demonstrate a successful approach to concurrent treatment of metastatic MCC and mCRPC.

A 70-year-old veteran followed in clinic for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was found to have a new left axillary lymph node conglomerate on routine imaging, despite stable PSA on Enzalutamide therapy. Biopsy of the axillary mass showed metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, with a differential diagnosis of small cell carcinoma of unknown primary vs. Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC). Given his prostate cancer diagnosis and the rarity of MCC, small cell differentiation of prostate cancer was initially favored. However, the patient appeared well and subsequent PET/CT only showed two subcutaneous hypermetabolic lesions. These findings would be unusual with small cell differentiation of prostate cancer. A second biopsy of a subcutaneous lesion was most consistent with MCC, confirming our diagnosis.

At time of diagnosis, staging MRI Brain revealed 3 parenchymal brain lesions, presumed to be metastatic MCC. As per a landmark trial by Nghiem et al, the patient was started on Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every three weeks for treatment of metastatic MCC. Brain lesions were locally treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

Although his mCRPC was under good control with Enzalutamide, this drug is associated with increased risk of seizures in clinical trial and is not recommended for those with predisposing seizure risk. In light of MCC brain metastases, we decided to switch mCRPC therapy to Darolutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist that has lower penetration of the blood-brain barrier and less incidence of seizures. He tolerated the combination of Darolutamide with Pembrolizumab well, with only a grade 1 acneiform rash.

After just 1 cycle of Pembrolizumab, the patient’s clinically-evident MCC drastically regressed. After 8 months of treatment, his MCC continues to respond clinically and radiographically. This case emphasizes the importance of not relying on “Occam’s razor” – that one should assume a single diagnosis for multiple findings. The simplest explanation of the patient’s left axillary mass biopsy would have been small cell differentiation of prostate cancer; however, this has proved to be a synchronous MCC, which portends a much more favorable prognosis with immunotherapy treatment. We also demonstrate a successful approach to concurrent treatment of metastatic MCC and mCRPC.

A 70-year-old veteran followed in clinic for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) was found to have a new left axillary lymph node conglomerate on routine imaging, despite stable PSA on Enzalutamide therapy. Biopsy of the axillary mass showed metastatic neuroendocrine carcinoma, with a differential diagnosis of small cell carcinoma of unknown primary vs. Merkel Cell Carcinoma (MCC). Given his prostate cancer diagnosis and the rarity of MCC, small cell differentiation of prostate cancer was initially favored. However, the patient appeared well and subsequent PET/CT only showed two subcutaneous hypermetabolic lesions. These findings would be unusual with small cell differentiation of prostate cancer. A second biopsy of a subcutaneous lesion was most consistent with MCC, confirming our diagnosis.

At time of diagnosis, staging MRI Brain revealed 3 parenchymal brain lesions, presumed to be metastatic MCC. As per a landmark trial by Nghiem et al, the patient was started on Pembrolizumab 2 mg/kg every three weeks for treatment of metastatic MCC. Brain lesions were locally treated with stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS).

Although his mCRPC was under good control with Enzalutamide, this drug is associated with increased risk of seizures in clinical trial and is not recommended for those with predisposing seizure risk. In light of MCC brain metastases, we decided to switch mCRPC therapy to Darolutamide, an androgen receptor antagonist that has lower penetration of the blood-brain barrier and less incidence of seizures. He tolerated the combination of Darolutamide with Pembrolizumab well, with only a grade 1 acneiform rash.

After just 1 cycle of Pembrolizumab, the patient’s clinically-evident MCC drastically regressed. After 8 months of treatment, his MCC continues to respond clinically and radiographically. This case emphasizes the importance of not relying on “Occam’s razor” – that one should assume a single diagnosis for multiple findings. The simplest explanation of the patient’s left axillary mass biopsy would have been small cell differentiation of prostate cancer; however, this has proved to be a synchronous MCC, which portends a much more favorable prognosis with immunotherapy treatment. We also demonstrate a successful approach to concurrent treatment of metastatic MCC and mCRPC.

PURPOSE: Analysis of data from nearly 150 VA medical centers over a three-year period in 2019 by the Partnership for Public Service and the Boston Consulting Group showed a statistically significant link between employee engagement and patient satisfaction. Schwartz Rounds, sponsored by the national Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare, offer a way to engage providers in an interdisciplinary dialogue and improve communication (the Joint Commission lists Schwartz Rounds as a recommended resource for this purpose). Schwartz Rounds are currently held at a number of VA medical centers, but there is limited data on their effectiveness in the VA. The purpose of this initiative was to establish Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut and assess its effectiveness in engaging providers and improving communication.

BACKGROUND: Schwartz Rounds provide an opportunity to discuss the social and emotional issues providers face in caring for patients and families. In contrast to traditional medical rounds, the focus is on the human dimension of medicine. Providers have an opportunity to share their experiences, thoughts and feelings on diverse topics, often drawn from patient cases. Schwartz Rounds have been shown to enhance providers’ teamwork, decrease their perceived stress and improve their ability to cope with the psychosocial demands of care (Lown, 2010).

RESULTS: We initiated quarterly Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut in early 2020. They are based in our Cancer Center but coordinated through Hospital Education and open to all employees, and CME is available. We have held two sessions to date, the second via Webex due to COVID-19. We collected detailed survey data from participants after each session. Feedback was positive with 79% and 65% of respondents rating the sessions as excellent, 95% and 90% reporting feeling less isolated, and 100% at both sessions reporting feeling better prepared to understand the experiences of and communicate with colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS: Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut have been well received and effective in engaging providers. Preliminary data suggests a positive impact on well-being and relationships with colleagues. This forum may help VA medical centers improve multidisciplinary employee engagement and communication, goals that have become even more important during the recent pandemic.

PURPOSE: Analysis of data from nearly 150 VA medical centers over a three-year period in 2019 by the Partnership for Public Service and the Boston Consulting Group showed a statistically significant link between employee engagement and patient satisfaction. Schwartz Rounds, sponsored by the national Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare, offer a way to engage providers in an interdisciplinary dialogue and improve communication (the Joint Commission lists Schwartz Rounds as a recommended resource for this purpose). Schwartz Rounds are currently held at a number of VA medical centers, but there is limited data on their effectiveness in the VA. The purpose of this initiative was to establish Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut and assess its effectiveness in engaging providers and improving communication.

BACKGROUND: Schwartz Rounds provide an opportunity to discuss the social and emotional issues providers face in caring for patients and families. In contrast to traditional medical rounds, the focus is on the human dimension of medicine. Providers have an opportunity to share their experiences, thoughts and feelings on diverse topics, often drawn from patient cases. Schwartz Rounds have been shown to enhance providers’ teamwork, decrease their perceived stress and improve their ability to cope with the psychosocial demands of care (Lown, 2010).

RESULTS: We initiated quarterly Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut in early 2020. They are based in our Cancer Center but coordinated through Hospital Education and open to all employees, and CME is available. We have held two sessions to date, the second via Webex due to COVID-19. We collected detailed survey data from participants after each session. Feedback was positive with 79% and 65% of respondents rating the sessions as excellent, 95% and 90% reporting feeling less isolated, and 100% at both sessions reporting feeling better prepared to understand the experiences of and communicate with colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS: Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut have been well received and effective in engaging providers. Preliminary data suggests a positive impact on well-being and relationships with colleagues. This forum may help VA medical centers improve multidisciplinary employee engagement and communication, goals that have become even more important during the recent pandemic.

PURPOSE: Analysis of data from nearly 150 VA medical centers over a three-year period in 2019 by the Partnership for Public Service and the Boston Consulting Group showed a statistically significant link between employee engagement and patient satisfaction. Schwartz Rounds, sponsored by the national Schwartz Center for Compassionate Healthcare, offer a way to engage providers in an interdisciplinary dialogue and improve communication (the Joint Commission lists Schwartz Rounds as a recommended resource for this purpose). Schwartz Rounds are currently held at a number of VA medical centers, but there is limited data on their effectiveness in the VA. The purpose of this initiative was to establish Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut and assess its effectiveness in engaging providers and improving communication.

BACKGROUND: Schwartz Rounds provide an opportunity to discuss the social and emotional issues providers face in caring for patients and families. In contrast to traditional medical rounds, the focus is on the human dimension of medicine. Providers have an opportunity to share their experiences, thoughts and feelings on diverse topics, often drawn from patient cases. Schwartz Rounds have been shown to enhance providers’ teamwork, decrease their perceived stress and improve their ability to cope with the psychosocial demands of care (Lown, 2010).

RESULTS: We initiated quarterly Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut in early 2020. They are based in our Cancer Center but coordinated through Hospital Education and open to all employees, and CME is available. We have held two sessions to date, the second via Webex due to COVID-19. We collected detailed survey data from participants after each session. Feedback was positive with 79% and 65% of respondents rating the sessions as excellent, 95% and 90% reporting feeling less isolated, and 100% at both sessions reporting feeling better prepared to understand the experiences of and communicate with colleagues.

CONCLUSIONS: Schwartz Rounds at VA Connecticut have been well received and effective in engaging providers. Preliminary data suggests a positive impact on well-being and relationships with colleagues. This forum may help VA medical centers improve multidisciplinary employee engagement and communication, goals that have become even more important during the recent pandemic.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) typically enroll highly selected populations. Oncology RCTs have an average of 16 eligibility criteria (Unger JNCI 2014). Registry analyses indicate that up to ~40% of ‘real-world’ MM patients are ineligible for RCTs based on common criteria (Shah CLML 2017).

PURPOSE: US MM-6 (NCT03173092) is evaluating iCT from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) in MM patients treated at US community oncology centers. Eligibility criteria are less stringent than RCTs, to enroll patients more representative of the real-world MM population.

METHODS: Non-transplant-eligible newly-diagnosed MM patients with stable disease or better after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based induction are being enrolled at 22 US community sites (including three Veterans Affairs hospitals) to receive ixazomib-Rd for up to 39 28- day cycles or until progression/toxicity.

DATA ANALYSIS: We reviewed 84 consecutively enrolled patients using standard RCT eligibility criteria. Initially, six criteria were explored to determine the proportion of patients who might have been RCT-ineligible: renal dysfunction, congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, prior malignancies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and memory loss. Dosing information was evaluated to determine any correlation between dose modifications and eligibility status.

RESULTS: Based on six criteria, 24/84 patients (29%) may have been RCT-ineligible: 12% (n=10) had renal dysfunction, 7% (n=6) CHF, 6% (n=5) stroke, 5% (n=4) each other prior malignancies and COPD, and 2% (n=2) memory loss; 6% (n=5) had >1 criterion. Among the 24 RCT-ineligible patients, 75% (n=18), 42% (n=10), and 54% (n=13) received the highest starting doses of ixazomib (4mg), lenalidomide (25mg), and dexamethasone (40mg), respectively. Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone dose reductions were required in 29% (n=7), 25% (n=6), and 21% (n=5), respectively (due to adverse events [AEs]: 21% [n=5], 21% [n=5], 4% [n=1]). 50% (n=12) discontinued treatment (consent withdrawal/patient decision, n=7; disease progression, n=2; sufficient response, AE, death, each n=1); n=3/2/2 discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide/ dexamethasone due to AEs.

IMPLICATIONS: US MM-6 is enrolling real-world, community- based MM patients, including those who may be ineligible for RCTs based on standard inclusion criteria. Our analysis indicates that iCT to ixazomib- Rd appears to be feasible in these RCT-ineligible US MM-6 patients. Further criteria will be analyzed and presented.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) typically enroll highly selected populations. Oncology RCTs have an average of 16 eligibility criteria (Unger JNCI 2014). Registry analyses indicate that up to ~40% of ‘real-world’ MM patients are ineligible for RCTs based on common criteria (Shah CLML 2017).

PURPOSE: US MM-6 (NCT03173092) is evaluating iCT from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) in MM patients treated at US community oncology centers. Eligibility criteria are less stringent than RCTs, to enroll patients more representative of the real-world MM population.

METHODS: Non-transplant-eligible newly-diagnosed MM patients with stable disease or better after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based induction are being enrolled at 22 US community sites (including three Veterans Affairs hospitals) to receive ixazomib-Rd for up to 39 28- day cycles or until progression/toxicity.

DATA ANALYSIS: We reviewed 84 consecutively enrolled patients using standard RCT eligibility criteria. Initially, six criteria were explored to determine the proportion of patients who might have been RCT-ineligible: renal dysfunction, congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, prior malignancies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and memory loss. Dosing information was evaluated to determine any correlation between dose modifications and eligibility status.

RESULTS: Based on six criteria, 24/84 patients (29%) may have been RCT-ineligible: 12% (n=10) had renal dysfunction, 7% (n=6) CHF, 6% (n=5) stroke, 5% (n=4) each other prior malignancies and COPD, and 2% (n=2) memory loss; 6% (n=5) had >1 criterion. Among the 24 RCT-ineligible patients, 75% (n=18), 42% (n=10), and 54% (n=13) received the highest starting doses of ixazomib (4mg), lenalidomide (25mg), and dexamethasone (40mg), respectively. Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone dose reductions were required in 29% (n=7), 25% (n=6), and 21% (n=5), respectively (due to adverse events [AEs]: 21% [n=5], 21% [n=5], 4% [n=1]). 50% (n=12) discontinued treatment (consent withdrawal/patient decision, n=7; disease progression, n=2; sufficient response, AE, death, each n=1); n=3/2/2 discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide/ dexamethasone due to AEs.

IMPLICATIONS: US MM-6 is enrolling real-world, community- based MM patients, including those who may be ineligible for RCTs based on standard inclusion criteria. Our analysis indicates that iCT to ixazomib- Rd appears to be feasible in these RCT-ineligible US MM-6 patients. Further criteria will be analyzed and presented.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) typically enroll highly selected populations. Oncology RCTs have an average of 16 eligibility criteria (Unger JNCI 2014). Registry analyses indicate that up to ~40% of ‘real-world’ MM patients are ineligible for RCTs based on common criteria (Shah CLML 2017).

PURPOSE: US MM-6 (NCT03173092) is evaluating iCT from parenteral bortezomib-based induction to all-oral ixazomib-lenalidomide-dexamethasone (ixazomib-Rd) in MM patients treated at US community oncology centers. Eligibility criteria are less stringent than RCTs, to enroll patients more representative of the real-world MM population.

METHODS: Non-transplant-eligible newly-diagnosed MM patients with stable disease or better after 3 cycles of bortezomib-based induction are being enrolled at 22 US community sites (including three Veterans Affairs hospitals) to receive ixazomib-Rd for up to 39 28- day cycles or until progression/toxicity.

DATA ANALYSIS: We reviewed 84 consecutively enrolled patients using standard RCT eligibility criteria. Initially, six criteria were explored to determine the proportion of patients who might have been RCT-ineligible: renal dysfunction, congestive heart failure (CHF), stroke, prior malignancies, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and memory loss. Dosing information was evaluated to determine any correlation between dose modifications and eligibility status.

RESULTS: Based on six criteria, 24/84 patients (29%) may have been RCT-ineligible: 12% (n=10) had renal dysfunction, 7% (n=6) CHF, 6% (n=5) stroke, 5% (n=4) each other prior malignancies and COPD, and 2% (n=2) memory loss; 6% (n=5) had >1 criterion. Among the 24 RCT-ineligible patients, 75% (n=18), 42% (n=10), and 54% (n=13) received the highest starting doses of ixazomib (4mg), lenalidomide (25mg), and dexamethasone (40mg), respectively. Ixazomib, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone dose reductions were required in 29% (n=7), 25% (n=6), and 21% (n=5), respectively (due to adverse events [AEs]: 21% [n=5], 21% [n=5], 4% [n=1]). 50% (n=12) discontinued treatment (consent withdrawal/patient decision, n=7; disease progression, n=2; sufficient response, AE, death, each n=1); n=3/2/2 discontinued ixazomib/lenalidomide/ dexamethasone due to AEs.

IMPLICATIONS: US MM-6 is enrolling real-world, community- based MM patients, including those who may be ineligible for RCTs based on standard inclusion criteria. Our analysis indicates that iCT to ixazomib- Rd appears to be feasible in these RCT-ineligible US MM-6 patients. Further criteria will be analyzed and presented.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is very effective in treating a variety of cancer types however, it has the potential to cause dose limiting ototoxicity that may result in permanent hearing loss. Studies have shown that hearing loss can affect quality of life by interfering with relationships and degrading communication. Early detection of hearing loss assists the oncologist in determining drug dosing and selecting the appropriate treatment regimens. It also allows the audiologist the opportunity for early intervention with rehabilitative measures. At our facility, Veterans starting cisplatin did not consistently have an audiology consult placed or a baseline audiogram completed prior to initiating treatment. A literature review was conducted, and an interdisciplinary team was formed with key stakeholders from medical oncology, audiology, pharmacy, and nursing.

RESULTS: The initial data review from January 1, 2016 to August 8, 2018 (n=85) showed only 17 Veterans (20%) had an audiology consult placed prior to initiating treatment. The target timeframe determined by the audiology department for baseline audiogram completion was eight weeks prior to or up to 24 hours post initial cisplatin administration. Following these guidelines, only seven (8%) of the 17 audiology consults were placed and completed within the recommended timeframe. Our goal was to increase the number of Veterans receiving audiograms prior to cisplatin administration from 8% to 100% by January 1, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS: enhanced provider education for early identification of Veterans starting cisplatin, creation of an email group for increased communication between nursing and audiology, trialing a portable audiometer in the outpatient infusion clinic, and adding a quick order set to the audiology consult on all cisplatin templates. A post-intervention data review from January 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020 (n=17) demonstrated all 17 (100%) Veterans had an audiology consult placed prior to the first dose of cisplatin. The data review also showed that 17 out of 17 Veterans (100%) had an audiogram completed within the target timeframe. This quality improvement project is aimed at maintaining quality of life for our Veterans throughout their cancer journey.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is very effective in treating a variety of cancer types however, it has the potential to cause dose limiting ototoxicity that may result in permanent hearing loss. Studies have shown that hearing loss can affect quality of life by interfering with relationships and degrading communication. Early detection of hearing loss assists the oncologist in determining drug dosing and selecting the appropriate treatment regimens. It also allows the audiologist the opportunity for early intervention with rehabilitative measures. At our facility, Veterans starting cisplatin did not consistently have an audiology consult placed or a baseline audiogram completed prior to initiating treatment. A literature review was conducted, and an interdisciplinary team was formed with key stakeholders from medical oncology, audiology, pharmacy, and nursing.

RESULTS: The initial data review from January 1, 2016 to August 8, 2018 (n=85) showed only 17 Veterans (20%) had an audiology consult placed prior to initiating treatment. The target timeframe determined by the audiology department for baseline audiogram completion was eight weeks prior to or up to 24 hours post initial cisplatin administration. Following these guidelines, only seven (8%) of the 17 audiology consults were placed and completed within the recommended timeframe. Our goal was to increase the number of Veterans receiving audiograms prior to cisplatin administration from 8% to 100% by January 1, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS: enhanced provider education for early identification of Veterans starting cisplatin, creation of an email group for increased communication between nursing and audiology, trialing a portable audiometer in the outpatient infusion clinic, and adding a quick order set to the audiology consult on all cisplatin templates. A post-intervention data review from January 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020 (n=17) demonstrated all 17 (100%) Veterans had an audiology consult placed prior to the first dose of cisplatin. The data review also showed that 17 out of 17 Veterans (100%) had an audiogram completed within the target timeframe. This quality improvement project is aimed at maintaining quality of life for our Veterans throughout their cancer journey.

BACKGROUND: Platinum-based chemotherapy is very effective in treating a variety of cancer types however, it has the potential to cause dose limiting ototoxicity that may result in permanent hearing loss. Studies have shown that hearing loss can affect quality of life by interfering with relationships and degrading communication. Early detection of hearing loss assists the oncologist in determining drug dosing and selecting the appropriate treatment regimens. It also allows the audiologist the opportunity for early intervention with rehabilitative measures. At our facility, Veterans starting cisplatin did not consistently have an audiology consult placed or a baseline audiogram completed prior to initiating treatment. A literature review was conducted, and an interdisciplinary team was formed with key stakeholders from medical oncology, audiology, pharmacy, and nursing.

RESULTS: The initial data review from January 1, 2016 to August 8, 2018 (n=85) showed only 17 Veterans (20%) had an audiology consult placed prior to initiating treatment. The target timeframe determined by the audiology department for baseline audiogram completion was eight weeks prior to or up to 24 hours post initial cisplatin administration. Following these guidelines, only seven (8%) of the 17 audiology consults were placed and completed within the recommended timeframe. Our goal was to increase the number of Veterans receiving audiograms prior to cisplatin administration from 8% to 100% by January 1, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS: enhanced provider education for early identification of Veterans starting cisplatin, creation of an email group for increased communication between nursing and audiology, trialing a portable audiometer in the outpatient infusion clinic, and adding a quick order set to the audiology consult on all cisplatin templates. A post-intervention data review from January 1, 2020 to April 30, 2020 (n=17) demonstrated all 17 (100%) Veterans had an audiology consult placed prior to the first dose of cisplatin. The data review also showed that 17 out of 17 Veterans (100%) had an audiogram completed within the target timeframe. This quality improvement project is aimed at maintaining quality of life for our Veterans throughout their cancer journey.

PURPOSE: To establish a program utilizing a multidisciplinary team to address health care disparities and improve outcomes. To develop a process that would streamline our navigation workflow and assist with the identification of barriers to care. Thus, enabling the Cancer Care program to focus on what really matters— - Veterans.

PROBLEM: The Cancer Care program utilized a series of spreadsheets and an Access database to follow the care of Veterans receiving care within Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) and for those Veterans being care for in the community. Each navigator has distinct intervals in which they contact or educate their patients for which care must be carefully coordinated. Our team strives to provide a multidisciplinary approach, but our former workflow of 12 years not only restricted us to one user at a time, but it also restricted usage to one service at a time. Our Clinical Nurse Navigators, Cancer Care Social Worker and Registered Nutritionist were creating and utilizing customized spreadsheets via an Excel program which also restricted access within services. These technological constraints further increased potential for negative outcomes and delays in care.

METHOD: Standardize our navigation process and allow for systemic changes within the department. With over 200 patient navigation programs to choose from (Institute for Alternative Futures, 2007); we adopted OncoNav as our navigation software program. OncoNav is oncologyspecific software designed to help Patient Navigators schedule, track, organize, and report their interactions with patients. It is designed to integrate into the Navigator’s workflow, allowing Navigators to quickly view pertinent patient information, add notes, schedule appointments and run patient-specific reports seamlessly from one system. After purchasing and implementing, ONCONAV, staff participated in training and tailored the package to meet the needs unique to our cancer team.

OUTCOME: Enables staff to schedule, track, organize and report interventions. It optimizes a multidisciplinary approach in which the team can provide their respective expert recommendations and interventions in a singular location; easily accessible by all navigation team members.

IMPLICATIONS: Our goal is to promote and help establish our navigation process as best practice that will be utilized across VA networks.

PURPOSE: To establish a program utilizing a multidisciplinary team to address health care disparities and improve outcomes. To develop a process that would streamline our navigation workflow and assist with the identification of barriers to care. Thus, enabling the Cancer Care program to focus on what really matters— - Veterans.

PROBLEM: The Cancer Care program utilized a series of spreadsheets and an Access database to follow the care of Veterans receiving care within Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) and for those Veterans being care for in the community. Each navigator has distinct intervals in which they contact or educate their patients for which care must be carefully coordinated. Our team strives to provide a multidisciplinary approach, but our former workflow of 12 years not only restricted us to one user at a time, but it also restricted usage to one service at a time. Our Clinical Nurse Navigators, Cancer Care Social Worker and Registered Nutritionist were creating and utilizing customized spreadsheets via an Excel program which also restricted access within services. These technological constraints further increased potential for negative outcomes and delays in care.

METHOD: Standardize our navigation process and allow for systemic changes within the department. With over 200 patient navigation programs to choose from (Institute for Alternative Futures, 2007); we adopted OncoNav as our navigation software program. OncoNav is oncologyspecific software designed to help Patient Navigators schedule, track, organize, and report their interactions with patients. It is designed to integrate into the Navigator’s workflow, allowing Navigators to quickly view pertinent patient information, add notes, schedule appointments and run patient-specific reports seamlessly from one system. After purchasing and implementing, ONCONAV, staff participated in training and tailored the package to meet the needs unique to our cancer team.

OUTCOME: Enables staff to schedule, track, organize and report interventions. It optimizes a multidisciplinary approach in which the team can provide their respective expert recommendations and interventions in a singular location; easily accessible by all navigation team members.

IMPLICATIONS: Our goal is to promote and help establish our navigation process as best practice that will be utilized across VA networks.

PURPOSE: To establish a program utilizing a multidisciplinary team to address health care disparities and improve outcomes. To develop a process that would streamline our navigation workflow and assist with the identification of barriers to care. Thus, enabling the Cancer Care program to focus on what really matters— - Veterans.

PROBLEM: The Cancer Care program utilized a series of spreadsheets and an Access database to follow the care of Veterans receiving care within Southeast Louisiana Veterans Health Care System (SLVHCS) and for those Veterans being care for in the community. Each navigator has distinct intervals in which they contact or educate their patients for which care must be carefully coordinated. Our team strives to provide a multidisciplinary approach, but our former workflow of 12 years not only restricted us to one user at a time, but it also restricted usage to one service at a time. Our Clinical Nurse Navigators, Cancer Care Social Worker and Registered Nutritionist were creating and utilizing customized spreadsheets via an Excel program which also restricted access within services. These technological constraints further increased potential for negative outcomes and delays in care.

METHOD: Standardize our navigation process and allow for systemic changes within the department. With over 200 patient navigation programs to choose from (Institute for Alternative Futures, 2007); we adopted OncoNav as our navigation software program. OncoNav is oncologyspecific software designed to help Patient Navigators schedule, track, organize, and report their interactions with patients. It is designed to integrate into the Navigator’s workflow, allowing Navigators to quickly view pertinent patient information, add notes, schedule appointments and run patient-specific reports seamlessly from one system. After purchasing and implementing, ONCONAV, staff participated in training and tailored the package to meet the needs unique to our cancer team.

OUTCOME: Enables staff to schedule, track, organize and report interventions. It optimizes a multidisciplinary approach in which the team can provide their respective expert recommendations and interventions in a singular location; easily accessible by all navigation team members.

IMPLICATIONS: Our goal is to promote and help establish our navigation process as best practice that will be utilized across VA networks.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic ordering is high in both complexity and risk for medication errors. Joint Commission and institutional policy recommends computerized prescriber order entry and verification by a pharmacist as a best practice for patient safety. The use of ordering templates minimizes the risk of errors and ensures appropriate supportive care is being provided. The Veterans Affairs electronic medical record does not feature an antineoplastic ordering component; historically, templates have been on paper. The oncology, pharmacy, and clinical informatics departments in our health system formed a team to create electronic antineoplastic ordering templates.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates on pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions.

METHODS: Ordering templates, which included standard dosing and supportive care medications, were developed and activated for prescribers in phases over the course of two years. Immunotherapy and oral oncolytic templates were activated initially, followed by full implementation of the majority of intravenous (IV) ordering templates. Percent of electronic antineoplastic orders, pharmacy processing time, time to first drug delivery, and number of pharmacist encounters and interventions were documented daily for four weeks after initial implementation and for ten weeks after full implementation. Means were compared using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: After initial implementation, the percentage of electronic antineoplastic orders increased from 0% to 100% for oral antineoplastics and from 0% to 39% for IV orders. After full implementation, IV orders increased to 69% in weeks 1-5 and 96% in weeks 6-10. Mean pharmacy processing time for supportive care medications was 35 minutes initially. This increased briefly after full implementation (weeks 1-5), then decreased to 17 minutes in weeks 6-10 (p<0.01). Delivery of the first medication to the infusion center decreased by 31 minutes at week ten (<0.01). Mean daily pharmacist encounters increased by 28%(<0.01) and documented interventions increased by 22% (<0.01).

IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates increased provider order entry, pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions. These outcomes may translate to improved patient safety and patient access to quality care. Templates developed can serve as a model for other health systems to implement electronic antineoplastic ordering.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic ordering is high in both complexity and risk for medication errors. Joint Commission and institutional policy recommends computerized prescriber order entry and verification by a pharmacist as a best practice for patient safety. The use of ordering templates minimizes the risk of errors and ensures appropriate supportive care is being provided. The Veterans Affairs electronic medical record does not feature an antineoplastic ordering component; historically, templates have been on paper. The oncology, pharmacy, and clinical informatics departments in our health system formed a team to create electronic antineoplastic ordering templates.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates on pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions.

METHODS: Ordering templates, which included standard dosing and supportive care medications, were developed and activated for prescribers in phases over the course of two years. Immunotherapy and oral oncolytic templates were activated initially, followed by full implementation of the majority of intravenous (IV) ordering templates. Percent of electronic antineoplastic orders, pharmacy processing time, time to first drug delivery, and number of pharmacist encounters and interventions were documented daily for four weeks after initial implementation and for ten weeks after full implementation. Means were compared using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: After initial implementation, the percentage of electronic antineoplastic orders increased from 0% to 100% for oral antineoplastics and from 0% to 39% for IV orders. After full implementation, IV orders increased to 69% in weeks 1-5 and 96% in weeks 6-10. Mean pharmacy processing time for supportive care medications was 35 minutes initially. This increased briefly after full implementation (weeks 1-5), then decreased to 17 minutes in weeks 6-10 (p<0.01). Delivery of the first medication to the infusion center decreased by 31 minutes at week ten (<0.01). Mean daily pharmacist encounters increased by 28%(<0.01) and documented interventions increased by 22% (<0.01).

IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates increased provider order entry, pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions. These outcomes may translate to improved patient safety and patient access to quality care. Templates developed can serve as a model for other health systems to implement electronic antineoplastic ordering.

BACKGROUND: Antineoplastic ordering is high in both complexity and risk for medication errors. Joint Commission and institutional policy recommends computerized prescriber order entry and verification by a pharmacist as a best practice for patient safety. The use of ordering templates minimizes the risk of errors and ensures appropriate supportive care is being provided. The Veterans Affairs electronic medical record does not feature an antineoplastic ordering component; historically, templates have been on paper. The oncology, pharmacy, and clinical informatics departments in our health system formed a team to create electronic antineoplastic ordering templates.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the impact of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates on pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions.

METHODS: Ordering templates, which included standard dosing and supportive care medications, were developed and activated for prescribers in phases over the course of two years. Immunotherapy and oral oncolytic templates were activated initially, followed by full implementation of the majority of intravenous (IV) ordering templates. Percent of electronic antineoplastic orders, pharmacy processing time, time to first drug delivery, and number of pharmacist encounters and interventions were documented daily for four weeks after initial implementation and for ten weeks after full implementation. Means were compared using unpaired t tests.

RESULTS: After initial implementation, the percentage of electronic antineoplastic orders increased from 0% to 100% for oral antineoplastics and from 0% to 39% for IV orders. After full implementation, IV orders increased to 69% in weeks 1-5 and 96% in weeks 6-10. Mean pharmacy processing time for supportive care medications was 35 minutes initially. This increased briefly after full implementation (weeks 1-5), then decreased to 17 minutes in weeks 6-10 (p<0.01). Delivery of the first medication to the infusion center decreased by 31 minutes at week ten (<0.01). Mean daily pharmacist encounters increased by 28%(<0.01) and documented interventions increased by 22% (<0.01).

IMPLICATIONS: Implementation of electronic antineoplastic ordering templates increased provider order entry, pharmacy and infusion clinic efficiency and pharmacist interventions. These outcomes may translate to improved patient safety and patient access to quality care. Templates developed can serve as a model for other health systems to implement electronic antineoplastic ordering.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Incidence and onset time of irAEs vary across therapies and trials. There is lack of data regarding irAEs in veterans. The aim of this study was to evaluate irAEs in a real-world veteran population to assess the safety of ICIs.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study of United States veterans who received at least one ICI dose from 1/1/14 to 10/31/19 at VA Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS). The primary objectives are to describe the incidence of irAEs and time to onset after ICI therapy. The secondary objectives are to identify factors that may predict irAE occurrence and to compare the incidence and time to irAE onset at VALBHS to literature data. The irAEs evaluated were diarrhea/colitis, kidney injury, pneumonitis, thyroid disorder, and transaminitis, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression where appropriate.

RESULTS: Of 140 evaluable patients, 31 experienced 1 or more irAEs, for a total of 37 irAEs. Baseline characteristics among patients with irAEs versus patients with no irAEs were not statistically significant except for thoracic cancer (19.4% vs. 45%, p=0.01) and number of ICI doses received (median 9 vs. 5 doses, =0.01), respectively. There were 5 incidences of diarrhea/colitis, 5 kidney injury, 2 pneumonitis, 17 thyroid disorder, and 8 transaminitis. Severity ranged from grade 1-3. The median time to irAE onset was 18 weeks (range, 1-78 weeks). The factors examined (age, gender, race, cancer type, ICI drug class, and number of ICI doses received) did not significantly predict irAE occurrence (B<0.436, >0.21). When compared to literature data, VALBHS had broadly similar irAE incidence rates, but patients generally had a longer time to irAE onset.

CONCLUSION: Incidence of irAEs in the veteran population at VALBHS is generally consistent with the literature. The longer time to irAE onset in the study underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring during ICI therapy, as irAEs can happen anytime and there were no patient factors that helped predict occurrence.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Incidence and onset time of irAEs vary across therapies and trials. There is lack of data regarding irAEs in veterans. The aim of this study was to evaluate irAEs in a real-world veteran population to assess the safety of ICIs.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study of United States veterans who received at least one ICI dose from 1/1/14 to 10/31/19 at VA Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS). The primary objectives are to describe the incidence of irAEs and time to onset after ICI therapy. The secondary objectives are to identify factors that may predict irAE occurrence and to compare the incidence and time to irAE onset at VALBHS to literature data. The irAEs evaluated were diarrhea/colitis, kidney injury, pneumonitis, thyroid disorder, and transaminitis, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression where appropriate.

RESULTS: Of 140 evaluable patients, 31 experienced 1 or more irAEs, for a total of 37 irAEs. Baseline characteristics among patients with irAEs versus patients with no irAEs were not statistically significant except for thoracic cancer (19.4% vs. 45%, p=0.01) and number of ICI doses received (median 9 vs. 5 doses, =0.01), respectively. There were 5 incidences of diarrhea/colitis, 5 kidney injury, 2 pneumonitis, 17 thyroid disorder, and 8 transaminitis. Severity ranged from grade 1-3. The median time to irAE onset was 18 weeks (range, 1-78 weeks). The factors examined (age, gender, race, cancer type, ICI drug class, and number of ICI doses received) did not significantly predict irAE occurrence (B<0.436, >0.21). When compared to literature data, VALBHS had broadly similar irAE incidence rates, but patients generally had a longer time to irAE onset.

CONCLUSION: Incidence of irAEs in the veteran population at VALBHS is generally consistent with the literature. The longer time to irAE onset in the study underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring during ICI therapy, as irAEs can happen anytime and there were no patient factors that helped predict occurrence.

BACKGROUND: Cancer treatment with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) can cause immune-related adverse events (irAEs). Incidence and onset time of irAEs vary across therapies and trials. There is lack of data regarding irAEs in veterans. The aim of this study was to evaluate irAEs in a real-world veteran population to assess the safety of ICIs.

METHODS: This is a retrospective study of United States veterans who received at least one ICI dose from 1/1/14 to 10/31/19 at VA Long Beach Healthcare System (VALBHS). The primary objectives are to describe the incidence of irAEs and time to onset after ICI therapy. The secondary objectives are to identify factors that may predict irAE occurrence and to compare the incidence and time to irAE onset at VALBHS to literature data. The irAEs evaluated were diarrhea/colitis, kidney injury, pneumonitis, thyroid disorder, and transaminitis, as defined by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines. Statistical analysis was performed using Fisher’s exact test, Mann-Whitney U test, and logistic regression where appropriate.

RESULTS: Of 140 evaluable patients, 31 experienced 1 or more irAEs, for a total of 37 irAEs. Baseline characteristics among patients with irAEs versus patients with no irAEs were not statistically significant except for thoracic cancer (19.4% vs. 45%, p=0.01) and number of ICI doses received (median 9 vs. 5 doses, =0.01), respectively. There were 5 incidences of diarrhea/colitis, 5 kidney injury, 2 pneumonitis, 17 thyroid disorder, and 8 transaminitis. Severity ranged from grade 1-3. The median time to irAE onset was 18 weeks (range, 1-78 weeks). The factors examined (age, gender, race, cancer type, ICI drug class, and number of ICI doses received) did not significantly predict irAE occurrence (B<0.436, >0.21). When compared to literature data, VALBHS had broadly similar irAE incidence rates, but patients generally had a longer time to irAE onset.

CONCLUSION: Incidence of irAEs in the veteran population at VALBHS is generally consistent with the literature. The longer time to irAE onset in the study underscores the importance of ongoing monitoring during ICI therapy, as irAEs can happen anytime and there were no patient factors that helped predict occurrence.