6 Background: Cancer patients are frequently admitted to the hospital requiring medical oncologists to take an active role in coordinating with multiple teams. In an effort to redesign care to put patients at the center and address increasing demands on our medical oncologist’s time, we created the Oncology Coordinator (OC) role focused on care setting transitions. We aimed to evaluate whether the OC would improve quality of care and decrease healthcare utilization. Methods: The OCs, are non-clinical and serve as a single point of contact for disease-based teams as patients prepare for elective admissions or discharge from the hospital. The 3 OCs received specialized training in systems and processes in both settings. They coordinate outpatient appointments, prescription delivery, transportation while also providing clinical support. Additionally, they facilitate two interdisciplinary rounds per day across three dedicated oncology units and assist with patients off-unit. We evaluated all patient discharges facilitated by the OCs during 1/1/19-2/29/20 and compared that to non-OC facilitated discharges. Using descriptive statistics, we evaluated the OCs impact on 7- and 30-day readmissions, discharge before noon rate (DBN), average time from admission to chemotherapy start and patient experience as measured by Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (HCAHPS). Results: We had a total of 2,818 discharges between 1/1/19-2/29/20; 1,032 (36.6%) facilitated by the OCs. For those OC facilitated discharges we observed a 5.07% reduction in 7-day readmissions and 30-day readmissions (2.6%). We observed an overall higher average monthly rate of DBN (4.85%) compared to non-OC facilitated discharges. In addition, the average time from admission to chemotherapy administration decreased by 1 hour 31 minutes (6.8%) for the OC facilitated admissions. In the HCAHPS survey, there were improvements in Discharge Information and Care Transitions on the inpatient units where OCs were most active. Conclusions: At our academic medical center, the OCs have contributed to reduction in readmissions, time from admission to chemotherapy administration as well as improvements in discharges before noon and patient experience. This pilot demonstrates that investment in dedicated lay staff to facilitate admissions and discharges for cancer patients across care settings could lead to meaningful improvements in healthcare utilization, quality and the patient experience. Future work will evaluate the sustainability of this program and evaluate association with healthcare costs.

No abstract

e13652 Background: Patients with cancer have high rates of healthcare utilization due to complications of disease and treatment. Early identification of patient illness may help reduce acute care use and improve quality of care. Remote patient monitoring (RPM), a type of telemedicine involving collection and transmission of health data from a patient’s home to clinicians, has promise to alleviate disparities by providing timely access and early intervention, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Studies of digital interventions in oncology have demonstrated reduction in symptom distress and unplanned hospitalizations but lack focus on minority patients whereas studies of telehealth aiming to address disparities have not focused on patients with cancer. In this pilot study, we aimed to evaluate the feasibility of RPM among patients with cancer at a large urban medical center serving a racially and socioeconomically diverse population. Methods: We partnered with a secure HIPAA-compliant platform and FDA-approved RPM device, Current Health, which monitored heart rate, temperature, respiration, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure. The kit included broadband access and a tablet to provide telehealth services. Oncology Clinicians determined clinical inclusion and exclusion criteria of RPM initiation for patients on the bone marrow transplant service and patients with myeloma and lung cancer. A centralized team of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) monitored alarms. Clinical alarms indicated abnormal vital signs; technical alarms indicated no data transmission for a 12-hour period. We measured feasibility by recruitment and retention, and used descriptive statistics to describe the study population, time enrolled on RPM, and alarms. Results: To date, we enrolled 30 patients on the RPM platform over a 10-month period with a weekly census of 9-10 patients undergoing RPM monitoring. Of the 30 patients, 17 (57%) were white, 7 (23%) Black, and 2 (7%) Asian; 2 patients (7%) identified as Hispanic. The average age was 57.4 years. The majority of patients (93%) had hematologic malignancies, all of whom were enrolled on hospital discharge. Of the 2 patients with lung cancer, 1 patient was enrolled from the outpatient setting and 1 following hospital discharge. The mean length of time per patient enrolled with the device was 21.7 days. Over 10 months, there were 393 technical and 62 clinical alarms with an average of 3 clinical alarms per week addressed by NPs by phone, indicating low clinician burden. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of RPM monitoring in patients with cancer. Future studies should evaluate patient-reported and healthcare utilization outcomes, as well as barriers to reimbursement. The identification of best practices in telemedicine implementation can accelerate adoption and increase high quality, timely, and equitable cancer care.

1536 Background: The use of oncology hospitalists has been shown to improve quality outcomes among hospitalized patients, though there is limited data on the use of hospitalists to care for patients with hematologic malignancies. The Hematology Malignancy Hospitalist Service (HMHS) was created in efforts to decrease patient volume on the primary hematology malignancy services at an academic hospital. Patients with active oncologic issues requiring specialty oncology management were cared for by oncologists on the primary leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma services while patients with acute medicine-related issues were cared for by medicine hospitalists on HMHS. Methods: Criteria were established based on level of acuity and reason for admission to HMHS, which was comprised of a hospitalist attending and nurse practitioner. New admissions to HMHS were evaluated by the primary hematology malignancy service team as consultants and remained involved in patient care as deemed appropriate. Oncology attendings continued to care for patients on the primary leukemia, lymphoma, and myeloma services. We conducted a retrospective analysis from 6/28/21 through 6/30/22 excluding 1/2/22 to 2/6/22 when HMHS was paused due to the COVID Omicron surge. We compared length of stay (LOS), discharge before noon (DBN), and 30-day readmission rates of patients admitted to the HMHS service and those admitted to the primary services to assess for differences in outcomes. Results: There were a total of 95 (12%) admissions to HMHS and 669 (88%) to the primary services; 35.6% patients were white, 21.7% Black, and 10.3% Asian and 26.3% patients identified as Hispanic. The average age was 61.6 years. The average LOS in days was 9±9.09, 16.03±14.96, 11.41±14.88, and 12.68±11.40 (p = 0.005) for patients admitted to HMHS, leukemia, lymphoma and myeloma services, respectively. DBN on HMHS (6%) was similar to the leukemia service (6%) and improved compared to the lymphoma service (11%) and myeloma service (7%); p = 0.66. The 30-day readmission rate was also improved on HMHS (12%) compared to leukemia (21%), lymphoma (21%), and myeloma (18%); p=0.25. Conclusions: The development and implementation of a medicine hospitalist-driven hematology malignancy service significantly improved LOS without a negative impact on 30-day readmission rates when compared to a primary hematology malignancy service model. The addition of medicine hospitalists to the inpatient care of patients with hematologic malignancies demonstrates improvement in healthcare utilization. This is an important area for future evaluation to determine the most appropriate patients to admit to these services and assess other important outcomes.

441 Background: Remote patient monitoring (RPM) is a form of telemedicine involving collection and transmission of health data from patients to providers using non-invasive digital technology. RPM may offer earlier recognition of clinical deterioration to help reduce acute care use and improve healthcare outcomes. Studies of digital interventions in oncology have demonstrated reduction in symptom distress and unplanned hospitalizations but lack focus on minority patients. Studies of telehealth aiming to address disparities have not focused on patients with cancer. In this pilot study, we evaluated the feasibility of RPM among patients with cancer at a large urban medical center serving a racially and socioeconomically diverse population. Methods: We partnered with Current Health to provide an FDA-approved RPM wearable device, which included a secure HIPAA-compliant platform, to collect heart rate, temperature, respiration, oxygen saturation, and blood pressure. The kit included broadband access and a tablet to provide telehealth services. Oncology coordinators determined clinical inclusion and exclusion criteria of RPM initiation for patients. A centralized team of Nurse Practitioners (NPs) monitored alarms. Clinical alarms indicated abnormal vital signs; technical alarms indicated no data transmission for a 12-hour period. We measured feasibility by recruitment and retention, and used descriptive statistics to describe the study population, time enrolled on RPM, and alarms. Results: To date, we enrolled 39 patients on the RPM platform over a 14-month period with a weekly census of 10 patients undergoing RPM monitoring. Of the 39 patients, 19 (49%) were white, 10 (26%) Black, and 5 (13%) Asian; 3 (8%) patients identified as Hispanic. Nine (23%) patients had either primary or secondary Medicaid insurance. The average age was 57.9 years. The majority of patients (95%) had hematologic malignancies, all of whom were enrolled on hospital discharge. The mean length of time per patient enrolled with the device was 21.7 days. Over 14 months, there were 607 technical and 118 clinical alarms with an average of 2 clinical alarms per week addressed by NPs by phone, indicating low clinician burden. Conclusions: This pilot study demonstrated the feasibility of RPM in patients with cancer at home. Future studies should focus on equity-driven implementation of RPM in patients with cancer, as well as patient-reported and healthcare utilization outcomes to identify best practices in telemedicine implementation. RPM has promise to deliver high quality and equitable cancer care.