Drescher, Charles W.

PURPOSE Routine collection of sexual orientation (SO) and gender identity (GI; collectively SOGI) in cancer clinics advances cancer care equity. METHODS In 2022, NCI Community Oncology Research Program (NCORP) practice groups were asked about routine collection of SOGI data in the electronic health record. The proportions of practice groups reporting collection of SO and/or GI data were calculated, and practice group characteristics were assessed for associations. RESULTS Of 271 practice groups nationwide, 42% (n = 112) collect SO data, 58% (n = 157) collect GI data, and 35% (n = 96) collect both. In multivariate analyses, SO data collection was associated with practice groups having minority outreach staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.07 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.81]; P = .02); GI data collection was associated with practice groups located in the Northeastern United States (OR, 2.08 [95% CI, 0.73 to 5.91]; P = .045), and those with a higher proportion of new patients who were White (OR, 1.02 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.04]; P < .001). Practice groups in the South were least likely to collect SOGI data (OR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.26 to 0.94]; P = .004). There were no statistically significant differences in SO and/or GI collection on the basis of the practice group's proportion of Medicaid/Medicare patients, number of new patients with cancer per year, or practice ownership. CONCLUSION Slightly over one third of NCORP practice groups report routinely collecting SOGI data. There are regional differences in data collection, underscoring the need to craft targeted, region-specific interventions focused on boosting the capture and recording of SOGI data in an affirming manner.

307 Background: In the US, more than 12,000 people die from ovarian cancer annually. Although new treatments have recently become available, ovarian cancer care delivery remains suboptimal. The Association of Community Cancer Centers (ACCC) developed a series of initiatives to improve the quality of care for patients with ovarian cancer. In Phase I, ACCC evaluated the needs of cancer programs, conducted 3 quality improvement (QI) workshops, and developed expert-driven Quality of Care recommendations to aid cancer programs in self-assessment and quality improvement. In Phase II, ACCC invited programs to self-assess their level of care using the Quality of Care recommendations. Methods: In 2022, ACCC surveyed 7 ovarian cancer programs across the US. Developed by a multidisciplinary expert steering committee, the 26-question survey assessed the patient populations served, services provided, diagnostic evaluations performed, access to molecular testing, and a self-assessment of quality care delivery and interest in conducting QI projects related to self-identified needs. The survey was administered in Qualtrics and summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Surveys were completed by 1 community, 2 comprehensive community, 2 hospital-associated, 1 academic comprehensive, and 1 NCI-designated comprehensive cancer programs. The median annual ovarian cases was 40 [range: 2 to 68]. The 7 programs serve diverse racial/ethnic distribution of patients with ovarian cancer ranging from 55% Black to 60% Asian and 30% Pacific Islander. Five programs have a multidisciplinary team for ovarian cancer. All 5 multidisciplinary teams included gynecologic oncology and pathology; 3 teams also included medical oncology and or radiology colleague(s). Sites assessed their level of care for 7 domains of quality care from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). The average score was 4.0 for Care Coordination and Patient Education, Treatment Planning, and Disease Surveillance. Diagnosis and Initial Management scored on average 3.8, Equity in Care 3.25, Prevention and Screening 3.25, and Quality of Life 3.2. Sites ranked areas of interest for future QI projects (1 = area of most interest, 7 = area of least interest). The highest ranked domains were Care Coordination and Patient Education as well as Diagnosis and Initial management (average rankings 2.8). These were followed by Quality of Life (average 3.0), Prevention and Screening (Average 3.8), Treatment Planning (Average 4.4), Equity in Care (Average 5.0), and Disease Surveillance (Average 6.2). Conclusions: This assessment will be used to identify 4 additional sites for Phase II QI workshops. Findings from these projects will be combined, summarized, and disseminated to inform future education opportunities and QI initiatives. This initiative aims to help organize and standardize the care of patients with ovarian cancer and improve patient care coordination.