Fischer, Kristin

PURPOSE The enhanced, electronic health record (EHR)–facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2) trial is a cohort cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge, hybrid type II trial that leverages EHR systems to facilitate a collaborative care model (CCM) approach with the goal of improving cancer symptom management. Understanding factors that influence care team adoption of EHR systems remains a critical understudied area of research. This study examines how oncology care teams' perceptions regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of E2C2 EHR systems preimplementation were associated with adoption 3 months after implementation and characterizes differences in adoption by individual- and system-level factors. METHODS Care team members completed an electronic survey before and 3 months after implementation of E2C2 for their respective sequence. Adoption was defined as frequency of use to statements aligned with care team–directed EHR systems designed to facilitate CCM approaches. Chi-square tests assessed differences in adoption while logistic regression models estimated associations between baseline mean scores of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness on care team adoption at 3 months. RESULTS Results from 94 care team members (37.2% oncologists, 72.6% female, 55.3% in their role for 6+ years) found that adoption rates ranged from 48.9% to 71.7%, with significant differences observed by location (community-based health care systems v tertiary medical center) and professional role. Adjusting for professional role, care team members reporting higher levels of perceived acceptability and appropriateness at baseline had greater odds of adopting EHR systems at 3 months. CONCLUSION EHR systems perceived as acceptable and appropriate are more likely to be adopted by oncology care teams in our sample. Future implementation efforts should consider tailored strategies to facilitate adoption of EHR systems designed to promote CCM-based approaches to improve cancer symptom management.

AbstractObjectiveObesity is stigmatized and people with obesity report experiencing stigmatizing situations when seeking health care. The implications of these experiences are not well understood. This study tests an indirect effects model of negative care experiences as an intermediate variable between obesity and care avoidance/utilization and switching primary care doctors.MethodsA survey was completed by 2380 primary care patients in the Learning Health Systems Network (LHSNet) Clinical Data Research Network with a BMI >25 kg/m2. Measures included scales assessing stigmatizing situations, perceived patient‐centered communication, perceived respect, having delayed needed care, and having looked for a new primary doctor in the past 12 months. Sequential and serial indirect effects of care experiences and respect in the association between BMI and care utilization outcomes was modeled.ResultsThe hypothesized model was supported by findings. The associations between BMI and delaying needed care (OR = 1.06, p < 0.001) and attempting to switch primary doctors (OR = 1.02, p = 0.04) was mediated by both stigmatizing situations experienced in a health care context and lower patient‐centered communication. Lower perceived respect mediated the association between care experiences and utilization outcomes.ConclusionsPeople with higher BMIs may avoid care or switch doctors as a result of stigmatizing experiences and poor communication with doctors. These outcomes may contribute to morbidity in people with obesity if they delay or avoid care for health concerns when symptoms first present.

5554 Background: A better understanding regarding the burden of treatment side effects in patients with gynecological malignancies could help guide symptom interventions and oncologic therapy decision-making. We aim to inform understanding of symptom burden in epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC) by analyzing patient-reported symptom data from patients treated for this condition over a 16-month period. Methods: Patients receiving medical oncology care at Mayo Clinic Rochester and at Midwest Mayo Clinic Health System community sites have received symptom-focused surveys prior to each medical oncology visit since March 28, 2019 through the Enhanced Electronic Health Record Facilitated Cancer Symptom Control Study (E2C2). These surveys, administered either through the electronic medical record portal or on a clinic tablet prior to each oncology office visit, no more frequently than every 2 weeks, include six linear analogue scales measuring sleep disturbance, pain, anxiety, emotional distress, and fatigue (SPADE), as well as physical dysfunction on a scale of 0 (none) to 10 (as bad as you can imagine). Scores of 0-3 were considered mild symptoms, 4-6 moderate symptoms, and 7-10 severe symptoms. We collected survey results from March 28, 2019 to July 20, 2020 for patients with EOC and reviewed the number of surveys per patient in addition to the average symptom scores. Results: From March 2019 to July 2020, for patients with EOC, there were 2974 encounter-based surveys from 762 patients. The number of surveys completed by each patient ranged from 1-20. The following number of patients returned the correlating number of surveys: 1 survey:240 patients; 2 surveys:145; 3 surveys:79; 4 surveys:56; 5 surveys:58; 6 surveys:45; 7 surveys:38; 8 surveys:27; 9 surveys:22; ≥10 surveys:52. The average score from all surveys for each symptom was: 2.41 for sleep disturbance, 2.03 for pain, 2.32 for anxiety, 1.97 for emotional distress, 3.26 for fatigue, and 2.50 for physical dysfunction. Please see the table for the proportion of surveys that reported symptoms as mild, moderate, or severe. Conclusions: Fatigue and physical dysfunction were reported most frequently in patients with EOC, while emotional distress and pain were reported least frequently. 20% of surveys reported moderate to severe emotional distress, while 40% reported moderate to severe fatigue. A targeted approach to symptom management is needed for patients undergoing EOC evaluation and treatment. Our next steps in this analysis include an assessment of potential predictors of greater symptom burden (e.g., specific treatments, age, and other clinical and sociodemographic characteristics). Clinical trial information: NCT03892967. [Table: see text]

AbstractRecommended colorectal cancer screening modalities vary with respect to safety, efficacy, and cost. Better understanding of the factors that influence patient preference is, therefore, critical for improving population adherence to colorectal cancer screening. To address this knowledge gap, we conducted a panel survey focused on three commonly utilized colorectal cancer screening options [fecal immunochemical test or guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (FIT/gFOBT), multi-target stool DNA (mt-sDNA) test, and colonoscopy] with a national sample of U.S. adults, ages 40–75 years and at average risk of colorectal cancer, in November 2019. Of 5,097 panelists invited to participate, 1,595 completed the survey (completion rate, 31.3%). Our results showed that when presented a choice between two colorectal cancer screening modalities, more respondents preferred mt-sDNA (65.4%) over colonoscopy, FIT/gFOBT (61%) over colonoscopy, and mt-sDNA (66.9%) over FIT/gFOBT. Certain demographic characteristics and awareness of and/or experience with various screening modalities influenced preferences. For example, uninsured people were more likely to prefer stool-based tests over colonoscopy [OR, 2.53; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.22–5.65 and OR, 2.73; 95% CI, 1.13–7.47]. People who had heard of stool-based screening were more likely to prefer mt-sDNA over FIT/gFOBT (OR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.26–3.40). People who previously had a stool-based test were more likely to prefer FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 2.75; 95% CI, 1.74–4.41), while people who previously had a colonoscopy were less likely to prefer mt-sDNA or FIT/gFOBT over colonoscopy (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.24–0.63 and OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.26–0.62). Our survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal cancer screening recommendations.Prevention Relevance:Our national survey demonstrated broad patient preference for stool-based tests over colonoscopy, contrasting the heavy reliance on colonoscopy for colorectal cancer screening in clinical practice and highlighting the importance of considering patient preference in colorectal screening recommendations.

The objective was to determine if a greater proportion of physician full-time equivalent (FTE%) relative to nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NPs/PAs) on care teams was associated with improved individual clinician diabetes quality outcomes. The authors conducted a retrospective cross-sectional study of 420 family medicine clinicians in 110 care teams in a Midwest health system, using administrative data from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2017. Poisson regression was used to examine the relationship between physician FTE% and the number of patients meeting 5 criteria included in a composite metric for diabetes management (D5). Covariates included panel size, clinician type, sex, years in practice, region, patient satisfaction, care team size, rural location, and panel complexity. Of the 420 clinicians, 167 (40%) were NP/PA staff and 253 (60%) were physicians. D5 criteria were achieved in 37.9% of NP/PA panels compared with 44.5% of physician panels ( P < .001). In adjusted analysis, rate of patients achieving D5 was unrelated to physician FTE% on the care team ( P = .78). Physicians had a 1.082 (95% confidence interval 1.007–1.164) times greater rate of patients with diabetes achieving D5 than NPs/PAs. Clinicians at rural locations had a .904 (.852-.959) times lower rate of achieving D5 than those at urban locations. Physicians had a greater rate of patients achieving D5 compared with NPs/PAs, but physician FTE% on the care team was unrelated to D5 outcomes. This suggests that clinician team composition matters less than team roles and the dynamics of collaborative care between members.

Background and Objectives: Teaching medical students patient-centered approaches to weight loss counseling occurs in myriad ways. We examined lectures and direct faculty observation to see which was associated with better patient-centered care in medical students, measured by both self-perception and independent observer evaluation. Methods: Third- and fourth-year students attending one medical school were surveyed regarding their education in (1) weight loss and health behavior counseling, (2) obesity stigma, and (3) whether they had experienced direct faculty observation of their weight loss counseling. Several weeks later, the students were observed during a standardized patient encounter for obesity and an obesity-relevant comorbidity. A postencounter survey assessed overall student satisfaction with the encounter and with the care they provided. Independent coders rated their patient-centered communication using a validated measure. Results: There was no consistent association between any dependent variable and student ratings of adequacy of instruction, nor with instructional content. Direct faculty observation was not associated with overall encounter satisfaction or their overall patient-centeredness. However, experiences with direct faculty observation were significantly and positively associated with students’ perceptions of patient engagement (b=0.1, P=.05), and with independent coders’ ratings of student friendliness (b=0.13, P=.01), responsiveness (b=0.113, P=.03), and lower student anxiety (b=-0.1, P=.01). Conclusions: Independent observation and self-report of instruction adequacy and content had no consistent association with care quality. However, direct faculty observation predicted improvement in both student self-reports and independent observer ratings of students’ interpersonal quality of care. Further work is needed to define optimal methods of imparting patient-centered care.