Das, Porag Jeet

BackgroundCommunication gaps arise early in the childhood cancer trajectory and may persist. The authors conducted a pilot study of the feasibility and acceptability of a communication intervention, the Day 100 Talk (D100). D100 involves an interprofessional family conference during initial months of treatment between oncologists, psychosocial clinicians, and parents, facilitated by a 3‐part conversation tool.MethodsThe authors enrolled English‐speaking parents of children with nonrelapsed, nonprogressive cancer who were receiving continuity care from enrolled pediatric oncologists and psychosocial clinicians at a single site. The a priori feasibility threshold was 60% parent completion of the D100 intervention. Surveys from parents and professionals and debrief interviews with professionals assessed D100 acceptability.ResultsThirty‐seven parents (77%) and 38 oncology professionals (67%) enrolled. Twenty of 33 evaluable parents (61%) participated in a D100 family conference. Most commonly, parents did not complete the D100 intervention because of scheduling difficulties related to clinical team constraints. All 17 parents who completed a post‐D100 survey agreed or strongly agreed that D100 participation was helpful. In debrief interviews, professionals identified D100 benefits, namely, stepping back to the big picture and getting on the same page, and barriers related to logistical challenges and professionals' anticipatory dread.ConclusionsThe D100 intervention pilot demonstrates high acceptability among parents of children with cancer. Despite meeting the prespecified feasibility threshold, findings highlight important barriers to D100 dissemination, namely, perceived burdens on professionals. Potential strategies to reduce burden may include using virtual visit platforms, incorporating D100 elements across multiple visits, or prioritizing intervention delivery to parents with the greatest need for enhanced communication.

53 Background: The National Academy of Medicine recommends interprofessional collaboration to promote optimal patient- and family-centered care. We sought to understand whether medical and psychosocial professionals who participated in an interprofessional communication intervention perceived it as distinct from usual clinical care. Methods: Our intervention targeted “medical” (physicians, nurse practitioners) and “psychosocial” (social workers, psychologists) professionals. It consisted of an interprofessional family conference, using a structured conversation guide, conducted during the first 6 months of a child’s cancer care. Conferences aimed to enable families to share hopes and worries and ask questions about their child’s care. Clinicians received a 60-minute training focused on communication skills, such as eliciting families’ hopes and worries, and suggested approaches to collaborating during conferences. Clinicians participated in debriefing interviews after each conference (range 1-3). Three of us conducted thematic analysis of interview data. Results: Twenty-two professionals (6 attending MDs, 4 fellow MDs, 8 NPs, and 8 psychosocial clinicians) gave 34 interviews. Medical and psychosocial professionals described interprofessional family conferences as distinct from usual practice patterns, largely due to their interprofessional colleagues’ presence. This co-presence contributed to “being on the same page.” Conferences sometimes bred a new understanding of a family’s needs and consequent care changes. However, both medical and psychosocial professionals noted that psychosocial professionals often were not vocal contributors to the conference. Some psychosocial clinicians reported being unsure of “the rules.” Conclusions: An interprofessional communication intervention promoted shared understanding between interprofessional colleagues. However, medical professionals were described as more vocal, perhaps due to insufficient role clarity or medical dominance.