Citations

AbstractThe Enhanced EHR-facilitated Cancer Symptom Control (E2C2) Trial is a pragmatic trial testing a collaborative care approach for managing common cancer symptoms. There were challenges in identifying cancer site and metastatic status.This study compares three different approaches to determine cancer site and six strategies for identifying the presence of metastasis using EHR and cancer registry data.The E2C2 cohort included 50,559 patients seen in the medical oncology clinics of a large health system. SPPADE symptoms were assessed with 0 to 10 numeric rating scales (NRS). A multistep process was used to develop three approaches for representing cancer site: the single most prevalent International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th Revision (ICD-10) code, the two most prevalent codes, and any diagnostic code. Six approaches for identifying metastatic disease were compared: ICD-10 codes, natural language processing (NLP), cancer registry, medications typically prescribed for incurable disease, treatment plan, and evaluation for phase 1 trials.The approach counting the two most prevalent ICD-10 cancer site diagnoses per patient detected a median of 92% of the cases identified by counting all cancer site diagnoses, whereas the approach counting only the single most prevalent cancer site diagnosis identified a median of 65%. However, agreement among the three approaches was very good (kappa > 0.80) for most cancer sites. ICD and NLP methods could be applied to the entire cohort and had the highest agreement (kappa = 0.53) for identifying metastasis. Cancer registry data was available for less than half of the patients.Identification of cancer site and metastatic disease using EHR data was feasible in this large and diverse cohort of patients with common cancer symptoms. The methods were pragmatic and may be acceptable for covariates, but likely require refinement for key dependent and independent variables.

1530 Background: Regular breast cancer screening reduces mortality. The American College of Radiology (ACR) recommends annual screening mammography for asymptomatic, average risk 1) transgender and gender diverse (TGD) men (individuals assigned female sex at birth but identify as men) age 40+ and with residual breast tissue and 2) TGD women (individuals assigned male sex at birth but identify as women) age 40+ and on gender-affirming hormone therapy for 5+ years. This nationwide study investigated screening mammography in TGD individuals. Methods: Four cohorts were identified with complex algorithms of medical and pharmacy data in the OptumLabs Data Warehouse, a longitudinal, administrative insurance claims database that includes patients with commercial insurance and Medicare Advantage: 1) TGD men, 2) TGD women, 3) individuals with gender dysphoria not meeting other TGD criteria (NMOT), and 4) cisgender women -- all of whom met ACR screening criteria. The primary endpoint was the percentage of individuals with high adherence, defined as completing >75% of recommended screenings; comparisons were made across the cohorts (Chi-square test). Multivariable logistic regression was used to compare adherence between TGD men and cisgender women with adjustment for demographics and with 1:4 matching (on race/ethnicity, age group, year of healthcare plan enrollment, and duration of follow-up). Results: 10,478 TGD individuals (3,778 TGD men; 1,294 TGD women; and 5,406 with gender dysphoria NMOT) and 6,218,369 cisgender women were identified. For TGD men, TGD women, individuals with gender dysphoria NMOT, and cisgender women, high adherence was observed in 41.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 39.5, 42.6%); 7.4% (95% CI: 6.0, 8.8%); 11.9% (95% CI: 11.0, 12.7%); and 38.3% (95% CI: 38.3, 38.4%), respectively, p < 0.0001. No screening ever in these same populations was observed in 23.6% (95% CI: 22.2, 24.9%); 81.3% (95% CI: 79.2, 83.4%), 72.8% (95% CI: 71.6, 74%), and 35.9% (95% CI: 35.8, 35.9%), respectively, p < 0.0001. When TGD men were matched and compared to 15,112 cisgender women, a differential association was observed between gender and high adherence by age group (p < 0.0001); compared to cisgender women, the likelihood of high adherence in TGD men ages 40-49 (n = 2,472), 50-59 (n = 852), 60-69 (n = 320), and 70+ (n = 134) were as follows: odds ratios (OR‘s): 1.38 (95% CI: 1.28, 1.50), p < 0.0001; 1.57 (95% CI: 1.35, 1.81), p < 0.0001; 0.812 (95% CI: 0.619, 1.065), p = 0.1316; and 1.277 (95% CI 0.835, 1.951), p = 0.2595, respectively. Conclusions: This study found that TGD men manifest relatively high adherence to screening mammography, whereas TGD women and individuals with gender dysphoria NMOT manifest low adherence. Future research should focus on improving breast cancer screening in these underserved populations.

Abstract Rationale: Ongoing healthcare staffing shortages have prompted new care paradigms that incorporate remote care delivery to support timely detection of patient physiological deterioration through mechanisms other than clinician bedside evaluations. In partnership with institutional Information Technology, our team has developed a unique clinical informatics environment, known as the Advanced Medical Practice (AMP) platform, that incorporates data from multiple sources and platforms and supports remote observation of patients from the electronic intensive care unit(eICU). AMP takes advantage of technologies outside of vendor-supported EHRs, and its advanced user-interface design reduces information overload while incorporating real-time data from novel devices and sensors. We partnered with the hospital practice to co-develop a score within the AMP platform(Clinical Events Detection and Response[CEDAR]) that incorporates heart rate, blood pressure, respiratory rate, and SpO2 to stratify patient risk and generate deterioration alerts for the electronic ICU(eICU) team. This formative evaluation employed an implementation science approach to refine CEDAR and ensure it is acceptable to users and can be feasibly implemented in practice. Methods: The study team conducted this pilot work in the eICU at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN). We observed the eICU workflow and documented feedback from eICU staff in fieldnotes. eICU staff were asked to log issues in a tracking file during shifts. Issues were reviewed daily and discussed at multidisciplinary team meetings weekly. Observation and tracking data were coded to constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research(CFIR 2.0) framework and mapped to Expert Recommendations for Implementation Change(ERIC) strategies that targeted key determinants. Results: Between 9/23/24 and 10/25/24 we completed 25 days of observations. Most identified issues related to technical/design issues like unclear vital trigger alerts (CFIR: Innovation trialability and design); staff knowledge of CEDAR functionality and attitudes about functionality, complexity, or relative advantage compared to current systems (CFIR: Inner setting access to knowledge and information and relative advantage); and difficulties incorporating CEDAR into workflow(CFIR: Inner setting/compatibility). Implementation strategies mapped to CFIR determinants included promoting adaptability of customized interface features; staging implementation scale-up with iterative improvements; providing local technical assistance; assessing for readiness and identifying facilitators and barriers; and conducting educational outreach visits. Conclusions: Formative evaluation during pilot studies are a critical step in the process of intervention development and testing. User engagement and frameworks from implementation science can identify issues of feasibility and inform strategies to ensure acceptability prior to intervention scale-up in clinical practice and readiness for conducting larger implementation studies.

Background: Collaborative methods are necessary to meet patient palliative care (PC) needs because of the inadequate supply of PC specialists. Objective: This study aimed to conduct a needs assessment and determine primary care, emergency, and hospital physicians’ general attitudes about primary PCs, confidence in managing common PC scenarios, and preferences for interaction with specialty PCs. Design: A sequential mixed-methods study design was used, whereby individual qualitative interviews informed the content of a quantitative survey. Semistructured telephone interviews were conducted by a member of the study team with expertise in qualitative research methods. Setting/Subjects: The quantitative survey, delivered to primary care, emergency, and hospital physicians across four distinct geographic locations of a large health system, solicited impressions on common clinical PC scenarios that might pose challenges. Measurements: Survey data included demographic information, clinician confidence levels, preferences for support in managing PC scenarios, and likelihood to refer to PC. Results: The quantitative survey was completed by 126 physicians (response rate, 13.9%). Overall mean (standard deviation) confidence levels were lowest for a scenario about handling pain (5.57 [2.35] out of 10) and highest for goals-of-care conversations with the patient (7.80 [2.02]). Spearman correlations between mean confidence and likelihood to refer to PC demonstrated weak to moderate inverse correlations. Respondents with previous training in PC had higher mean confidence in managing symptoms and goals-of-care conversations. Conclusions: Continuing efforts are needed to help improve physicians’ confidence in primary PC skills and develop innovative methods to provide collaborative support of specialty PCs across various specialties and PC needs.

Background: Latinas with mammographic dense breasts are at increased risk of breast cancer. This randomized controlled trial tests the effectiveness of three breast density (BD) educational approaches on adherence to subsequent mammography screening among Latinas receiving care at a Federally Qualified Health Center (FQHC). Measure(s): Adherence was ascertained using electronic health record and survey responses. Kaplan–Meier estimates of the time to subsequent mammogram were used to obtain adherence rates at 1- and 2-years post baseline mammogram. Cox modeling assessed whether adherence differed by patient characteristics or group assignment. Results: This analysis was limited to Latinas enrolled between October 27, 2016, and December 21, 2018 ( n = 946; 66.1% <50 years of age, 53.5% with dense breasts). Adherence rates at 1 year was 24.8% increasing to 51.7% by year 2. Latinas randomized to the Promotora + brochure + letter arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.09 [95% confidence interval [95% CI] 0.87 to 1.36]) or brochure + letter (HR: 1.03 [95% CI 0.82 to 1.29]) arm were not more likely to be adherent to subsequent mammography compared to the letter only arm ( p = 0.76) . Adjusting for age and study group, having more prior mammograms, being “extremely likely” to get an annual mammogram, and having more confidence to get an annual mammogram at baseline were significant drivers of subsequent adherence. Conclusion: Informational interventions targeting BD education alone are unlikely to significantly improve adherence to subsequent mammography among Latinas receiving care in FQHCs.

Abstract Introduction: Pragmatic trials aim to speed translation to practice by integrating study procedures in routine care settings. This study evaluated implementation outcomes related to clinician and patient recruitment and participation in a trial of community paramedicine (CP) and presents successes and challenges of maintaining pragmatic study features. Methods: Adults in the pre-hospital setting, emergency department (ED), or hospital being considered for referral to the ED/hospital or continued hospitalization for intermediate-level care were randomized 1:1 to CP care or usual care. Referral and enrollment data were tracked administratively, and patient characteristics were abstracted from the electronic health record (EHR). Enrolled patients completed baseline surveys, and a subset of intervention patients were interviewed. All CPs and a sample of clinicians and administrators were invited to complete a survey and interview. Results: Between January 2022 and February 2023, 240 enrolled patients (42% rural) completed surveys, and 22 completed an interview; 63 staff completed surveys and 20 completed an interview. Ninety-three clinicians in 27 departments made at least one referral. Factors related to referrals included program awareness and understanding the CP practice scope. Most patients were enrolled in the hospital, but characteristics were similar to the primary care population and included older and medically complex patients. Challenges to achieving representativeness included limited EHR infrastructure, constraints related to patient consenting, and clinician concerns about patient randomization disrupting preferred care. Conclusion: Future pragmatic trials in busy clinical settings may benefit from regulatory policies and EHR capabilities that allow for real-world study conduct and representative participation. Trial registration: NCT05232799.

AbstractObjectivesTo report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.Materials and MethodsIMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.ResultsCI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.DiscussionBringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.ConclusionImplementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

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.