Sugalski, Jessica

Abstract The adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) has transformed health care, improving efficiency and chart accessibility. However, the widespread reliance on unstructured data entry and the lack of standardized documentation frameworks have resulted in significant data fragmentation across health care systems. The prevalence of unstructured data in EHRs limits their potential for clinical decision support, trial matching, real‐world evidence (RWE) generation, and quality measurement. Data fragmentation in health care triggers a cascade of challenges that ultimately compromise patient care. Clinicians face an excessive documentation burden and struggle to locate critical information buried in unstructured notes. Researchers encounter difficulties in extracting reliable clinical data. EHR vendors grapple with standardizing unstructured information for interoperability, and payers are unable to process unstructured clinical data efficiently to support value‐based care models. These challenges are particularly acute in oncology, where complex clinical elements like cancer staging, disease status, and treatment changes require precise, structured documentation. Emerging artificial intelligence (AI) technologies, such as large language models (LLMs) and ambient listening, offer a path to automate structured data generation while reducing the workload on providers. Here, the authors propose LLM‐based workflows that balance automation with clinician verification, streamlining data entry without compromising accuracy. Realizing these benefits requires coordinated efforts among clinicians, researchers, EHR vendors, payers, and policymakers to align regulatory frameworks with AI‐driven innovations. This article outlines a strategy to enhance structured data capture within EHRs, ultimately improving patient care, research, and health care efficiency.

PURPOSE Multidisciplinary tumor boards (MTBs) support high-quality cancer care. Little is known about the impact of information technology (IT) tools on the operational and technical aspects of MTBs. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network EHR Oncology Advisory Group formed a workgroup to investigate the impact of IT tools such as EHRs and virtual conferencing on MTBs. METHODS The workgroup created a cross-sectional survey for oncology clinicians (eg, pathology, medical, surgical, radiation, etc) participating in MTBs at 31 National Comprehensive Cancer Network member institutions. A standard invitation e-mail was shared with each EHR Advisory Group Member with a hyperlink to the survey, and each member distributed the survey to MTB participants at their institution or identified the appropriate person at their institution to do so. The survey was open from February 26, 2022, to April 26, 2022. Descriptive statistics were applied in the analysis of responses, and a qualitative thematic analysis of open-ended responses was completed. RESULTS Individuals from 27 institutions participated. Almost all respondents (99%, n = 764 of 767) indicated that their MTBs had participants attending virtually. Most indicated increased attendance (69%, n = 514 of 741) after virtualization with the same or improved quality of discussion (75%, n = 557 of 741) compared with in-person MTBs. Several gaps between the current and ideal state emerged regarding EHR integration: 57% (n = 433 of 758) of respondents noted the importance of adding patients for MTB presentation via the EHR, but only 40% (n = 302 of 747) reported being able to do so most of the time. Similarly, 87% (n = 661 of 760) indicated the importance of documenting recommendations in the EHR, but only 53% (n = 394 of 746) reported this occurring routinely. CONCLUSION Major gaps include the lack of EHR integration for MTBs. Clinical workflows and EHR functionalities could be improved to further optimize EHRs for MTB management and documentation.

Electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) programs may offer advantages for patients with cancer, clinicians, health care systems, payors, and society in general; but developing and maintaining an ePRO program will require cancer centers to navigate defining meaningful problems, collecting ePROs, implementing action when those ePROs require intervention without over‐burdening clinicians, and monitoring the successes and failures of their ePRO programs. Physician informaticists from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Electronic Health Record Advisory Group offer 10 guiding principles to consider when contemplating, building, or refining an ePRO program for patients with cancer.

46 Background: Tumor boards (TBs) are considered a key component for ensuring high quality cancer care. However, little is known about TB operational aspects that impact effectiveness. We aimed to understand how TBs leverage Electronic Health Record (EHR) functionalities and how pandemic-driven transitions from in-person TBs to virtual TBs impacted TB quality and effectiveness. Methods: The National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Oncology EHR Advisory Group formed a Workgroup to assess the current state of TBs, obtain providers’ views on ideal TB state, and develop recommendations for improving TB quality and effectiveness. The Workgroup surveyed providers in various specialties at 31 NCCN Member Institutions in March 2022. Results: 846 providers from 27 institutions responded to the survey (n = 76 respondents were excluded from analysis because they reported not participating in TBs). Almost all (n = 764/767, 99%) indicated that one or more participants always or frequently attended TB meetings virtually. When comparing (newly established) virtual to (pre-pandemic) in-person TBs, 69% indicated increased attendance at virtual TBs. 65% reported no change in case volume, and 56% reported unchanged discussion quality while 19% reported increased discussion quality when comparing virtual to in-person TB meetings. In regards to EHR integration, several gaps between current and ideal state were noted. For instance, 40% always or frequently added patients to the TB roster via the EHR, but 57% reported this functionality to be very important or important for TBs. Additionally, 53% always or frequently document TB recommendations within the EHR, while 87% indicated EHR documentation of recommendations as very important or important. Respondents reported that barriers to documentation include resource constraints, concerns with patient access to documentation, legal and liability concerns, and poor EHR functionality. Conclusions: Overall, the majority of responding providers reported virtual TBs to be at least similar in quality to in-person TB meetings. A major gap identified by this study is the lack of documentation of TB recommendations in the EHR. Workflows and EHR functionalities could be improved to fully optimize the EHR for TB management and documentation.[Table: see text]

Background: Financial distress from medical treatment is an increasing concern. Healthcare organizations may have different levels of organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes of screening and management of patient financial distress. Patients and Methods: In November 2018, representatives from 17 (63%) of the 27 existing NCCN Member Institutions completed an online survey. The survey focused on screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes about such practices. Due to the lack of a validated questionnaire in this area, survey questions were generated after a comprehensive literature search and discussions among the study team, including NCCN Best Practices Committee representatives. Results: Responses showed that 76% of centers routinely screened for financial distress, mostly with social worker assessment (94%), and that 56% screened patients multiple times. All centers offered programs to help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers, and payment plans. Charity care was provided by 100% of the large centers (≥10,000 unique annual patients) but none of the small centers that responded (<10,000 unique annual patients; P =.008). Metrics to evaluate the impact of financial advocacy services included number of patients assisted, bad debt/charity write-offs, or patient satisfaction surveys. The effectiveness of institutional practices for screening and management of financial distress was reported as poor/very poor by 6% of respondents. Inadequate staffing and resources, limited budget, and lack of reimbursement were potential barriers in the provision of these services. A total of 94% agreed with the need for better integration of financial advocacy into oncology practice. Conclusions: Three-fourths of NCCN Member Institutions reported screening and management programs for financial distress, although the actual practices and range of services vary. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar programs and identify best practices in this area.

11615 Background: Deficiencies and barriers exist to delivering comprehensive and affordable cancer care. Understanding the variation in organizational commitment, existing programs, and expected outcomes for screening and management of financial distress is needed. Methods: Representatives from 17 of 27 NCCN Member Institutions (63%) completed an online survey in November 2018 conducted by the NCCN Best Practices Committee. Centers were classified based on number of unique patients seen per year, as large ( > 10,000) (76%), or small ( < 10,000) (34%). The survey focused on institutions’ screening and management practices for patient financial distress, perceived barriers in implementation, and leadership attitudes. Results: Routine screening for financial distress was reported by 77% of centers, and most used social worker assessments (94%). 56% screened patients throughout the cancer journey. Help with drug costs, meal or gas vouchers and payment plans were offered by 100% of centers. Formal pre-authorization programs and assistance with claims and denials was offered by 81%. Charity care for medical costs was provided by 100% of the large centers compared to only 33% of small centers (p = 0.03). Median number of social workers (24 vs. 3; p = 0.01) and pharmacy representatives (6 vs. 2; p = 0.02) was also different between large and small centers. 76% evaluated the impact of financial advocacy services through number of patients assisted (85%), bad debt and charity write-offs (85%) or patient satisfaction surveys (54%). 6% and 12% reported overall effectiveness of institutional practice for screening and management of financial distress as poor/ very poor respectively. Inadequate staffing and real time resources (69%), limited institutional budget (50%), lack of reimbursement (50%), and clinical time constraints (50%) were reported as potential barriers in provision of these services. 94% agreed about stronger integration of financial advocacy services into oncology practice and 84% felt that success of these services should be a quality metric. 31% of large centers vs. 100% of small centers plan to increase staffing in this area in the next 5 years. Conclusions: Majority of NCCN Member Institutions report screening and management programs for financial distress, though the actual practices and range of services vary widely. Information from this study can help centers benchmark their performance relative to similar cancer programs and identify best practices in this area.