Fruth, Briant

Abstract Background: Modern clinical practice places time restrictions on the amount of information and processing that can be done in a typical office visit. Meeting patient needs within the healthcare system is challenging, contributing to patient (pt) and clinician dissatisfaction and potential suboptimal outcomes. We developed an electronic point-of-care case management system for cancer patients. The system's goal is to obtain patient-reported quality of life (PROQOL) outcomes and provide clinicians with information regarding QOL issues to address. We tested this system in a prospective randomized study against usual care (UC). The primary objective was to determine if PROQOL system would improve mean QOL over time. Methods: Eligible pts were adults with multiple myeloma (MM) or light amyloidosis (AL), seen at Mayo Clinic. Pts were randomized 2:1 to PROQOL system or usual care. PROQOL system was offered prior to every visit. Pts select from various categories about their single biggest concern, and receive a printed list of actionable resources based on selected concern. Clinicians also receive the PROQOL results to review with pts. Providers and pts randomized to PROQOL completed a "was it worth it survey" (WIWI). An 8 item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment was used to assess QOL, the primary endpoint. Secondary endpoints included distribution of choices of most important concern and their relationship to demographic and clinical variables. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference in QOL between groups. Results: There were 233 patients enrolled (171 MM, 62 AL) in this study between July 1, 2016 and April 17, 2018. Median age was 65 years (range 31-87), and 59% were male. Median time from diagnosis to study consent was 37 months (PROQOL 36.3 versus UC 39.6). Median follow up for all patients was 15 months (range: 0.7-22 months), and median follow up for PROQOL pts was 16 months and 14 months for UC pts (p=0.027). There were 25 pts that have died since enrollment and 208 alive. No statistical significant difference in QOL between PROQOL and UC (median QOL 7 vs 7, p=0.75). The most prevalent main concerns selected were Physical Health (37%) and Cancer and Diagnosis (27%), the pattern remained even when pts were given the option to pick a second major concern 26% and 20% respectively. No other concern was listed more than 8% at baseline. All category selections and percentages are shown in the Figure. The average time to complete the instrument was 6 minutes. Pts found the PROQOL system was worth their time (75%), they would choose it again (87%) and recommend it to others (82%). Eighty-two percent of clinicians did not think the PROQOL tool negatively impacted their practice and 75% believed they may see improvement in pt wellbeing. Discussion: The PROQOL system was well received by pts and clinicians but did not improve QOL relative to UC in this study. The PROQOL demonstrates that majority of patients strongly desire more information regarding ongoing therapy, clinical trials, prognosis and toxicity. Further investigation is needed to understand whether communication is limited by time or mechanism of information delivery, such as verbal or written, or whether it should be undertaken in a separate allied health care visit. Figure. Figure. Disclosures Gertz: spectrum: Consultancy, Honoraria; Abbvie: Consultancy; Research to Practice: Consultancy; annexon: Consultancy; Medscape: Consultancy; Physicians Education Resource: Consultancy; Amgen: Consultancy; janssen: Consultancy; Alnylam: Honoraria; Teva: Consultancy; Apellis: Consultancy; Ionis: Honoraria; celgene: Consultancy; Prothena: Honoraria. Kumar:Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Takeda: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Janssen: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; Oncopeptides: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; KITE: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Celgene: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Merck: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; AbbVie: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding. Dingli:Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Millennium Takeda: Research Funding; Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.: Other: Participates in the International PNH Registry (for Mayo Clinic, Rochester) for Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.. Lacy:Celgene: Research Funding. Dispenzieri:Celgene, Takeda, Prothena, Jannsen, Pfizer, Alnylam, GSK: Research Funding.

Abstract Background A better understanding of social determinants of health and psychosocial and economic sequelae of cancer for an ethnoculturally diverse population is needed. A Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life (PROQOL) instrument has been developed to capture less commonly discussed patient concerns. We sought to adapt this instrument and pilot it in underserved, ethnic minority cancer patients at Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) in Phoenix, AZ. Methods Two focus groups (FG) were conducted to understand patient perspectives of an adapted Spanish version of PROQOL. A revised version based on FG data was then piloted among patients on active cancer treatment. Patients also completed a Linear Analog Scale Assessment (from 1-10) for quality of life (QOL) and its domains. Results All participants in both FG (11/12 female) were Hispanic, with a median age of 53 years. Participants agreed that the domains covered in the PROQOL represented the most important psychosocial needs in their cancer continuum. No difficulty in understanding the individual domains or questions for delving deeper into each domain was noted. Median age of 34 pilot study participants (74% female, 79% Hispanic) was 48 years. 28/34 completed the Spanish version. The most common concerns were ‘Money’ (32%) and ‘Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment and Survivorship’ (32%). Median overall QOL was 8 (range 3-10). Conclusions PROQOL is feasible for systematic capture of patient concerns in underserved, ethnic minority cancer patients. A better understanding of these concerns can help design interventions to improve psychosocial outcomes for the vulnerable groups and decrease disparities in care delivery.

Introduction: What if you could only ask one question of the patient during a clinic visit? Further, suppose the patient’s biggest concern can pragmatically be incorporated into routine clinical care and clinical pathways that can address the patient’s single biggest concern can be identified. If the principal concern can be dealt with efficiently at each visit through key stakeholder case management, positive outcomes should result. Therefore, motivated by the need for patient-centered health care visits, the Beacon electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) quality of life (QOL) tool was developed. Methods: Central to the tool is that at each health care visit, the patient’s biggest concern is electronically communicated to the health care team. Therefore, the tool can help catalyze important discussions between the health care team and the patient, perhaps on topics that would not have been discussed otherwise at a routine visit. In recognition of the community of resources needed to provide comprehensive care, the tool generates clinical pathways or actions that can be pursued to address the patient’s biggest concern. The concern is efficiently triaged such that members of the health care community with appropriate expertise and resources are identified to address and manage that single biggest concern signaled by the patient. A report, which can be uploaded into the patient’s medical chart, is created and provides a list of resources for a case manager to assist the patient and contains graphical presentations of the patient’s QOL and a history of prior concerns. The report also labels potentially significant changes in QOL. Discussion: The tool, which has been applied successfully in several health conditions, acts as a beacon to health care providers so that a patient’s self-reported concern can be consistently and effectively integrated into their care. Key Points: It is impractical to try to deal with every patient concern in every visit. The key to the Beacon tool is that at each visit the patient’s biggest concern is identified, clinical pathways indicated, and resources efficiently matched to address the patient’s biggest concern.

65 Background: We need better methods to understand the social determinants of health and integrate psychosocial and economic sequelae of cancer and its treatment into healthcare delivery for ethnoculturally diverse population. A Patient-Reported Outcomes Quality of Life (PROQOL) instrument has been developed to capture less commonly discussed patient concerns (Personal Relationships, Emotional health, Physical health, Cancer diagnosis and treatment, Money and Care planning) and improve patient-provider communication. We sought to adapt this instrument and pilot it in underserved, ethnically diverse solid tumor and hematological malignancies patients at Maricopa Integrated Health System (MIHS) in Phoenix, AZ. Methods: Two focus groups (FG) were conducted to understand patient perspectives of an adapted Spanish version of PROQOL. This version was then piloted among patients on active cancer treatment. Patients also completed a Linear Analog Scale Assessment (from 1-10) for quality of life (QOL) and its domains (higher scores indicate better QOL). Results: All participants in both FG (11/12 female) were Hispanics, with a median age of 53 years. Participants agreed that the domains covered in the PROQOL represented the most important psychosocial needs in their cancer continuum. No difficulty in understanding the individual domains or questions for delving deeper into each domain was noted. Median age of 34 pilot study participants (74% female) was 48 years, 79% were Hispanic, 10% were African Americans and median household income was $ 43,924 (range 23,002-98,382). 28/34 completed the Spanish version. Most common concerns were ‘Money’ (32%): difficulty paying medical bills and non-medical expenses and ‘Cancer Diagnosis, Treatment and Survivorship’ (32%): type of cancer and treatment concerns. Median overall QOL was 8 (range 3-10). Conclusions: PROQOL is feasible for systematic capture of patient concerns in underserved, ethnic minority cancer patients. A better understanding of these challenges can help design interventions to improve psychosocial and financial outcomes for the vulnerable groups and decrease disparities in care delivery.

6572 Background: Cancer patients (pts) receive complex care that may cause physical, emotional, & financial sequelae. Current practice limits clinician time to address patient concerns. The Patient Reported Outcome Quality Of Life (PROQOL) system was developed as a self-reported electronic questionnaire to assess symptoms, QOL and provide data about bothersome issues. Our aim was to determine if the PROQOL system improves QOL without negatively impacting routine clinic workflow. Methods: Eligible pts had multiple myeloma, amyloidosis, head & neck or gynecologic cancer seen in Hematology/Oncology clinics at Mayo Clinic, and were stratified by stem cell transplant and active treatment status. Pts were randomized 2:1 to PROQOL system or usual care. PROQOL system was offered prior to every visit. Pts select from various categories about their single biggest concern, and receive a printed list of actionable resources based on selected concern. Clinicians also receive the PROQOL results to review with pts. Providers and pts randomized to PROQOL completed a “was it worth it survey” (WIWI). An 8 item Linear Analogue Self-Assessment was used to assess QOL. The study was powered to detect a 0.5 standard deviation difference in QOL between groups. Herein we report the planned results of first 6 months. Results: Among the first 118 pts accrued, 55% were female, median age was 63 (32-86), & 93% were on therapy. Median time from diagnosis to PROQOL was 26 months. The PROQOL system took 3.6 minutes to complete. Baseline median QOL (range) was 7 (3-10) for both groups. The most common PROQOL issue selected was “cancer & diagnosis” (36.5%) followed by “physical health” (35.3%). Specific concerns were related to treatment plan, prognosis, fatigue, sleep, and neuropathy. WIWI showed: 71% of pts thought it was worthwhile, 83% would participate again, 80% would recommend it, & 65% used resources provided. 80% of providers reported the PROQOL did not interfere with care & 75% believed the pt wellbeing may improve. Conclusions: Notably treatment plan & prognosis remain pts' greatest concern despite being over 2 year from diagnosis.The PROQOL system demonstrates integrated PRO reporting in clinic is quick & worthwhile to pts & providers.

32 Background: The link between patient concerns and clinical systems delivery is often suboptimal. We developed a case management system for palliative care which transforms the patient’s greatest concerns into actionable clinical pathways. Methods: The system collects patients’ single greatest and second greatest concern plus Quality of Life (QOL) data (pain, fatigue and overall QOL single-items scored 0-10 with 10 representing worst pain/fatigue, or best QOL) and produces a report to guide the physician and patient. The system presents ten “buttons” in a xylophone-like grid: Personal Relationships, Monitoring Health, Emotional Health, Money, Health Behaviors, Medication Troubles, Care Access, Work Worries, Physical Health and Care Planning. We performed a quality improvement study at Mayo Clinic sites. Results: 409 patients participated in at least one survey from 11/04/2015 to 9/22/2016 (620 total surveys). The most common Main Concern was Physical Health 265/620 (43%) followed by Monitoring Health (17%), Medication (8%), and Emotional Health, Money, and Health Behaviors (7% each), Personal Relationships (6%). Future Care Planning, Work, and Care Access/Coordination were rarely chosen ( < 5%). The most common Second greatest concern was Health Behaviors 73/409 (18%) followed by Physical Health (17%). 93/122 (67%) patients changed their greatest concern from baseline to subsequent visits. The mean QOL, fatigue and pain at baseline were 4.8, 6.0 and 4.8 respectively, indicating substantial clinically significant deficits. Post baseline mean scores improved by a maximum of 0.8, 1.1, and 0.9 points respectively, representing clinically meaningful effects. On average it took 8 minutes for patients to use the system. Conclusions: The system was quick and easy to utilize. The personal impact concerns (physical/emotional health, medications) were most often cited as the greatest concern, while care issues were de-emphasized by patients. Patients and physicians praised the system for making visits more efficient and raising issues that otherwise might not have been addressed. This system has the potential to improve patient well-being and clinical outcomes, as well as to reduce burden on clinicians and optimize case management activities.