Timely administration of antibiotics in febrile neutropenia per updated ASCO/IDSA guidelines

41

Background: Current ASCO guidelines for management of febrile neutropenia (FN) recommend initial antibiotic administration within one hour of triage, and initial assessment within 15 minutes of triage for patients presenting with FN within 6 weeks of chemotherapy. The University of Illinois Cancer Center (UICC) implemented an early identification and management strategy in the ambulatory setting for FN in 2017, with success in increasing the percentage of FN patients receiving antibiotics within 2 hours from 50% to 92% over a 6 months (05/2017-11/2017) period. Given updated joint ASCO/IDSA guidelines, we aimed to increase percentage of FN patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour from 56% to more than 90% over 16 months. Methods: A multidisciplinary team involving oncology, hematology (attendings and fellows), pharmacy, and nursing met quarterly to review FN cases including time to antibiotic administration and documentation of prompt assessment. Two Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles were completed, including development and deployment of an electronic medical record automated order set and targeted education for fellows and nurses. Results: Between 12/17 and 04/19, of 7 patients with FN, 100% (N = 7) received antibiotics in clinic. The percentage of FN patients receiving antibiotics within 1 hour of triage post first and second interventions was as follows: 25% (N = 1), 100% (N = 4). 100% (N = 7) of FN patients had documentation of prompt assessment, but time from triage was not specified. Conclusions: We were successful in improving the percentage of FN patients receiving antibiotics from 56% to more than 90% over 16 months. We are targeting our next PDSA cycle to increase assessments within 15 minutes of triage. Additional future interventions include tailoring antibiotics based on FN with low or high risk of complication via focus group and root case analyses discussion with our attendings, fellows, and nurses, and collaborating with ED on a standard care pathway for FN management.

Multi-institution quality improvement in supportive oncology: Results of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

33

Background: The Institute of Medicine and Commission on Cancer recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology care for cancer patients. The CSOC is focused on quality improvement (QI) of supportive care across Chicago cancer centers (Weldon ASCO ’17). Supportive oncology includes distress, practical, family, physical, nutrition, pain, fatigue and care concerns. To support QI, cross-institution teams developed unique, relevant tools, methods, care delivery processes, patient handouts and online training. Methods: Ten centers (5 academic, 1 VA, 1 public, 2 safety net, 1 community) implemented supportive oncology screening and care delivery quality improvements. Centers collected data for relevant Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) metrics. Analyses used simple frequencies and Fishers exact test. Results: Five of six QOPI measures were improved at statistically significant levels from 2014 to 2017, p < .00001. Improvements are more modest in 2016 & 2017 as 4 of the centers started this QI in 2017. Conclusions: The CSOC achieved significant improvements in supportive oncology screening and identifying and addressing patients’ needs and concerns. Additional work is needed to improve these measures to achieve the best quality of cancer care possible for every patient based on their needs and concerns.

[Table: see text]

Does the innovative 4R Care Delivery Model improve timing and sequencing of guideline recommended breast cancer care in safety net and non-safety net centers?

36

Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model which enables patient (pt) and care team to manage timing and sequencing of interdependent care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Project Plan (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Weldon ASCO ‘18). Methods: A new study tested impact of 4R on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net US centers. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18, 4R cohort. Clinical and pt reported data analyses compared 4R cohort (N = 105) to a historical control cohort of pts who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17 (N = 190). Results: We significantly improved 3 referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics - receipt of care by pts who were referred (Table). After referrals, safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in receiving genetic consult (72%, 21/29 vs. 42%, 18/43, p = .02) and dental visit (100%, 6/6 vs. 20%, 1/5, p = .02). They had lower increases in flu shot referrals (41%, 24/58, vs 36%, 37/104, NS) and dental referrals (10%, 6/58, vs 5%, 5/104, NS) than non safety net pts who had significant increases. Other metrics improved at a similar rate for safety net and non safety net pts. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care. For most metrics safety net pts benefited from 4R at a similar or higher rate than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. Low increases in referrals for safety net pts and in trial referral/enrollment for all pts must be addressed. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work.

[Table: see text]

Does the innovative 4R Cancer Care Delivery Model improve patient self-management in safety net and non-safety net centers?

172

Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) enables patient (pt) and care team to manage complex care continuum with an innovative multimodality 4R Care Project Plan. 4R includes a novel “project” feature – a graphical description of care interdependencies. 4R was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Trosman ASCO ‘18). Methods: In this new study, we improved and tested 4R for impact on pSM at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net centers across the US. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18 (4R cohort). We surveyed the 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of pts who received care at same centers pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17. Results: Survey response rates: 65%, 105/162 (4R cohort); 44%, 190/432 (control). 4R markedly improved 4 of 5 pSM metrics vs control (Table). Additional analyses showed that safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in “seldom overwhelmed” (84%, 49/58 vs 64%, 67/104 respectively, p = .007), while non safety net pts had nonsignificant increase. Other metrics improved to a similar extent for safety net vs non safety net pts. Within the 4R cohort, 85% found 4R useful in organizing their care and 73% found 4R’s novel “project” feature useful in understanding care interdependencies. Safety net pts reported similar usefulness of 4R in organizing their care as non safety net pts (88%, 51/58 vs 81%, 38/47, NS) and similar usefulness of the “project’ feature in understanding care interdependencies as non safety net pts (74% vs. 72%, NS). Conclusions: 4R significantly improved patient self-management, but further efforts are needed to expand the benefit to as close to a 100% of pts as feasible. Safety net pts benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work.

[Table: see text]

Multi-institution quality improvement in supportive oncology: Results of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

6606

Background: The Institute of Medicine and Commission on Cancer recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology care for cancer patients. The CSOC is focused on quality improvement (QI) of supportive care across Chicago cancer centers (Weldon ASCO ’17). Supportive oncology includes distress, practical, family, physical, nutrition, pain, fatigue and care concerns. To support QI, cross-institution teams developed unique, relevant tools, methods, care delivery processes, patient handouts and online training. Methods: Ten centers (5 academic, 1 VA, 1 public, 2 safety net, 1 community) implemented supportive oncology screening and care delivery quality improvements. Centers collected data for relevant Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) metrics. Analyses used simple frequencies and Fishers exact test. Results: Five of six QOPI measures were improved at statistically significant levels from 2014 to 2017, p < .00001. Improvements are more modest in 2016 & 2017 as 4 of the centers started this QI in 2017. Conclusions: The CSOC achieved significant improvements in supportive oncology screening and identifying and addressing patients’ needs and concerns. Additional work is needed to improve these measures to achieve the best quality of cancer care possible for every patient based on their needs and concerns. [Table: see text]

Does the innovative 4R Care Delivery Model improve timing and sequencing of guideline recommended breast cancer care in safety net and non-safety net centers?

562

Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model which enables patient (pt) and care team to manage timing and sequencing of interdependent care with a novel multimodality 4R Care Project Plan (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info/Care/Patient/Time) was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Weldon ASCO ‘18). Methods: A new study tested impact of 4R on timing and sequencing of guideline recommended care at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net US centers. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan-Nov’18, 4R cohort. Clinical and pt reported data analyses compared 4R cohort (N=105) to a historical control cohort of pts who received care pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17 (N=190). Results: We significantly improved 3 referral metrics and 4 referral completion metrics - receipt of care by pts who were referred (Table). After referrals, safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in receiving genetic consult (72%, 21/29 vs. 42%, 18/43, p=.02) and dental visit (100%, 6/6 vs. 20%, 1/5, p=.02). They had lower increases in flu shot referrals (41%, 24/58, vs 36%, 37/104, NS) and dental referrals (10%, 6/58, vs 5%, 5/104, NS) than non safety net pts who had significant increases. Other metrics improved at a similar rate for safety net and non safety net pts. Conclusions: 4R markedly improved referral and receipt of interdependent guideline recommended breast cancer care. For most metrics safety net pts benefited from 4R at a similar or higher rate than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. Low increases in referrals for safety net pts and in trial referral/enrollment for all pts must be addressed. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

Does the innovative 4R Cancer Care Delivery Model improve patient self-management in safety net and non-safety net centers?

6601

Background: Under the NCI ASCO Teams Project, we proposed a 4R Model of teamwork and patient self-management (pSM) (Trosman JOP ’16). 4R (Right Info / Care / Patient / Time) enables patient (pt) and care team to manage complex care continuum with an innovative multimodality 4R Care Project Plan. 4R includes a novel “project” feature – a graphical description of care interdependencies. 4R was previously piloted at 3 Chicago centers (Trosman ASCO ‘18). Methods: In this new study, we improved and tested 4R for impact on pSM at 4 safety net and 3 non safety net centers across the US. 4R Plans were provided to stage 0-III breast cancer pts Jan - Nov’18 (4R cohort). We surveyed the 4R cohort and a historical control cohort of pts who received care at same centers pre-4R, Jan - Dec ’17. Results: Survey response rates: 65%, 105/162 (4R cohort); 44%, 190/432 (control). 4R markedly improved 4 of 5 pSM metrics vs control (Table). Additional analyses showed that safety net pts had a significant increase in 4R vs control cohort in “seldom overwhelmed” (84%, 49/58 vs 64%, 67/104 respectively, p = .007), while non safety net pts had nonsignificant increase. Other metrics improved to a similar extent for safety net vs non safety net pts. Within the 4R cohort, 85% found 4R useful in organizing their care and 73% found 4R’s novel “project” feature useful in understanding care interdependencies. Safety net pts reported similar usefulness of 4R in organizing their care as non safety net pts (88%, 51/58 vs 81%, 38/47, NS) and similar usefulness of the “project’ feature in understanding care interdependencies as non safety net pts (74% vs. 72%, NS). Conclusions: 4R significantly improved patient self-management, but further efforts are needed to expand the benefit to as close to a 100% of pts as feasible. Safety net pts benefited from 4R at similar or higher rates than non safety net pts, indicating that 4R may reduce care disparities. An expansion of 4R across the US continues this work. [Table: see text]

Utilization of a web-based supportive oncology training curriculum for healthcare professionals (HCPs)

59

Background: A challenge in supportive oncology is training the HCP workforce. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative clinicians (faculty) from 25 institutions (academic, community & safety net) developed a unique and easily accessible supportive oncology training curriculum (Trosman JR JNCCN 2017). Methods: Using data provided by The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Continuing Education team, we evaluated completion rates of survivorship and supportive oncology education courses using simple frequencies. Results: Over 4748 on-line courses were completed (pretest, course, post-test, evaluation) of 7184 accessed. Of 4748 courses, nurses completed 45%, physicians 17%, advance practice clinicians 16%, and others 22% (social workers, chaplains, MAs). Course completion improved from 65% to 69% after articles describing collaborative work were published in Cure and Oncology Nursing News, p = 0.0014. Conclusions: A variety of HCPs successfully completed supportive oncology guideline education via the NCCN’s education portal. These on-line courses are an efficient way to train HCPs in supportive oncology. Curriculum advertising improves course completion.[Table: see text]

Utilization of a web-based survivorship and supportive oncology training curriculum for clinicians

19

Background: A challenge in supportive oncology, integral to patient care, is training the health professional workforce. A collaborative funded by The Coleman Foundation of 30+ clinicians (faculty) from 25 institutions (academic, community & safety net) developed a unique fundamental survivorship care (Weldon JCO 2017) and supportive oncology training curriculum (Trosman JNCCN 2017). Methods: Using data from The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Continuing Education team, we analyzed utilization of survivorship and supportive oncology education courses using simple frequencies. Results: Over 3200 courses were completed (pretest, course, post-test, evaluation) and 4850 accessed. Nurses completed 56%, physicians 15%, social workers/psychologists/support staff 14%, advance practice clinicians 8%, and various roles for the rest. Courses in table. Conclusions: NCCN’s education portal achieved strong utilization from a variety of healthcare professionals in these courses. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative supports improvement in supportive care with tools, processes and training and will continue to update/offer courses through this portal.[Table: see text]

Raising all boats in supportive oncology: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

150

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology and survivorship care to all cancer patients. CSOC aims to improve the quality of supportive care across Chicago-area providers. Methods: 35 CSOC participating institutions (cancer centers, support centers, hospice) formed care delivery design teams - Distress, Survivorship and Palliative. Teams collaboratively developed solutions to supportive oncology gaps: patient screening tools, care delivery processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess supportive oncology quality and the CSOC impact. Six implementation centers (2 safety-net, 3 academic & 1 public) reviewed charts at baseline (2014 diagnoses) and after the initial implementation period (2015 diagnoses), compared by frequencies and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at 2 time points; improvements were seen in 7/8 metrics. (See Table). Conclusions: CSOC developed supportive oncology screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation across diverse settings. Ongoing work will further evaluate the impact of CSOC efforts on patient care. [Table: see text]

Implementation of a distress/supportive care screening tool in lung and head and neck cancer clinic

e21646

Background: Identifying and addressing depression, anxiety, and supportive care needs in cancer patients is an emerging standard of care. The Coleman Foundation “Patient Screening Questions for Supportive Care” tool was used with demographic and diagnostic data to investigate the relationships between screening scores. Methods: Lung/head/neck cancer patients at the University of Illinois Cancer Center were screened using the Coleman Foundation tool. This screening tool identified needs in several categories including Patient Health Questionnaire 4 (PHQ-4) scores; practical, family/caregiver, nutritional, treatment, physical, and spiritual/faith/religious concerns; levels of pain, fatigue, physical activity to quantitatively assess patient distress/supportive care needs. Scores were compared with age, sex, race/ethnicity, insurance, cancer type, and cancer stage. Linear regression was used for statistical analysis. Results: We performed initial screening on 164 lung/head/neck patients ages 36-88 (mean 61), with stages IA to IVC (May 2016 to Jan. 2017). Our findings are summarized in below. We found a 1oeffect that racial/ethnic minority status was significantly correlated with higher scores. We found that lung cancer was correlated with higher screening scores than head & neck on initial screen. Medicare insurance was correlated with significantly lower screening scores. Conclusions: Patients with lung/head/neck cancer have significant needs and concerns that go beyond merely treating their cancer. Our findings show that certain demographic groups have especially high burdens in some specific dimensions and that these specific concerns may be predicted based on diagnostic and demographic information. Thus, these findings serve to inform providers as to where and how to focus supportive care for these patient populations. [Table: see text]

Raising all boats in supportive oncology: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC)

e18205

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend systematic delivery of supportive oncology and survivorship care to all cancer patients. CSOC aims to improve the quality of supportive care across Chicago-area providers. Methods: 35 CSOC participating institutions (cancer centers, support centers, hospice) formed care delivery design teams Distress, Survivorship & Palliative. Teams collaboratively developed solutions to supportive oncology gaps: patient screening tools, care delivery processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess supportive oncology quality and the CSOC impact. Six implementation centers (2 safety-net, 3 academic & 1 public) reviewed charts at baseline (2014 diagnoses) and after the initial implementation period (2015 diagnoses), compared by frequencies and Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at 2 time points; improvements were seen in 7/8 metrics. Conclusions: CSOC developed supportive oncology screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation across diverse settings. Ongoing work will further evaluate the impact of CSOC efforts on patient care. [Table: see text]

A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress

47

Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice-improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing patients’ screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (providers) were surveyed after use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 175 patients, 81 assessors, and 26 referral providers (social workers, chaplains, subspecialists). The majority of patients (160/175, 91%) completed the screening in <10 minutes, across all patients the screening tool averaged 4 ½ minutes. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent <5 minutes reviewing screening results. Most patients, assessors, and providers reported the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, identified unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variability in supportive oncology screening practices may decline, thus improving patient care. The tool has implications for quality improvements and national dissemination. [Table: see text]

Timely antibiotic administration in febrile neutropenia

204

Background: The University of Illinois currently lacks a standard process to ensure timely antibiotic administration for patients with febrile neutropenia. The Infectious disease society of America (IDSA) guidelines recommend administration of antibiotics within two hours. Given the variability in patient encounters, we sought to implement an early identification and interventional strategy in the ambulatory setting for febrile neutropenic patients. A retrospective chart review over 10 weeks demonstrated that of 40 patients diagnosed with neutropenia 15 % (N = 6) had febrile neutropenia. Of these 6 patients, 50% (N = 3) received antibiotics within the IDSA time frame. We aimed to increase the percentage of febrile neutropenic patients receiving antibiotics within 2 hours from 50% to 100% in 8 weeks. Methods: A focus group at our quarterly morbidity mortality and improvement conference brainstormed a list of causes of delay in antibiotic initiation based on an index case discussion. A task force generated a pareto chart after affinity sorting the prior list, and created actual and ideal process maps, from identification of neutropenic patients to patient disposition. A standard operative protocol (SOP) was developed involving the creation and implementation of an electronic provider generated neutropenia check list triggering specific actions per IDSA recommendations, and a standardized order set including STAT cultures, and STAT antibiotics. Results: The febrile neutropenia SOP will be piloted over an 8 week period starting in early November in four ambulatory settings. The primary outcome data is the time from event to antibiotic administration. Process data will include time from event to antibiotic order, time from antibiotic order to administration and compliance with high risk neutropenic check list. We plan to assess our interventions every 3-4 weeks, and pilot at least 2 PDSA cycles within the next 8 weeks. Conclusions: Although febrile neutropenia is a recognized medical emergency with clear guidelines on treatment, not all patients may receive antibiotics within the appropriate time frame. It is therefore imperative for institutions to be aware of their level of IDSA compliance and implement appropriate quality improvements as required.

Supportive oncology and survivorship care: Initial impact of the Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative

27

Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) and Commission on Cancer (CoC) recommend supportive oncology and survivorship care. The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative (CSOC) aims to improve quality of supportive care and survivorship in Chicago. Methods: CSOC includes 35 institutions (cancer centers, support and hospice), structured in two design teams (Distress & Survivorship and Palliative). Participants identified opportunities and gaps in supportive and survivorship care in an iterative development of: screening tools, follow-up processes, provider training, and quality metrics to assess CSOC impact. Six process improvement sites (2 safety-net, 3 academic, and 1 public) reviewed patient charts at baseline and Q1 2015, compared by Fisher’s exact test. Results: Eight metrics contained patient data at the 2 time points; improvements were seen in 6/8 metrics. Conclusions: CSOC successfully developed supportive oncology, survivorship screening, and care processes aligned with IOM and CoC standards. Significant improvements were shown after implementation in diverse settings. Ongoing work will continue to evaluate the impact of the CSOC on patient care.[Table: see text]

Enabling large-scale wireless broadband

The vision is tantalizing: a high-performance, scalable, and widely deployed wireless Internet that facilitates services ranging from radically new and unforeseen applications to true wireless "broadband" to residences and public spaces at rates of 10s of Mb/sec. However, while high-speed wireless access is easy to achieve in an enterprise network via low-cost IEEE 802.11 (WiFi) access points, wireless technology in public spaces is in its infancy. "Hot spots" provide high-speed wireless access, but do so in very few isolated "islands" at immense costs. Likewise, while fixed wireless (e.g. LMDS) and 3G can provide ubiquitous coverage and 3G can support mobility, throughputs can often be two orders of magnitude slower than WiFi.In this paper, we formulate the challenges of building a high-performance, scalable and widely deployed wireless Internet along 10 premises. We make the case for the requirement of a fundamental new architecture based on beamforming antennas deployed on fixed, wire-powered Transit Access Points (TAPs) that form a multi-hopping wireless backbone with a limited number of wired ingress/egress points. To address scalability, deployability, and performance challenges we present distributed, opportunistic and coordinated resource management problems and a novel "network is the channel" framework that searches for fundamental information-theoretic tradeoffs between protocol overhead and capacity.