Background The first confirmed case of COVID-19 in Ireland was on February 29th 2020. From March until late April, the number of cases increased exponentially. The delivery of anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic was extremely challenging. In order to balance the benefits of continuing anti-cancer therapy with the associated increased hospital visits, combined with the risk of COVID-19 infection, we undertook a series of system changes in the delivery of cancer care. Methods Patients who attended our dayward over a 4-month period were included. Data were obtained from patient and chemotherapy prescribing records. Patients were screened for symptoms of COVID-19 at two separate timepoints: prior to their visit via telephone, and using a symptom questionnaire on arrival at the hospital. If patients displayed COVID-19 symptoms, they were isolated and a viral swab arranged. Results A total of 456 patients attended from January 1st to April 30th. The numbers of visits from January to April were 601, 586, 575, and 607, respectively. During this period, there were 2369 patient visits to the dayward and 1953 (82%) intravenous regimens administered. Of the 416 visits that did not lead to treatment, 114 (27%) were scheduled non-treatment review visits, 194 (47%) treatments were held due to disease-related illness, and 108 (26%) treatments were held due to treatment-related complications. Screening measurements were implemented on March 18th due to rising COVID-19 prevalence in the general population. Overall, 53 treatments were held due to the screening process: 19 patients (36%) elicited COVID-19 symptoms via telephone screening; 34 patients (64%) were symptomatic in our pre-assessment area and referred for swabs, of which 4 were positive. Those with a negative swab were rescheduled for chemotherapy the following week. Conclusions With careful systematic changes, safe and continued delivery of systemic anti-cancer therapy during the COVID-19 pandemic is possible.

Funding Acknowledgements Type of funding sources: None. OnBehalf Our Hearts Our Minds Purpose Can a virtual cardiovascular prevention and rehabilitation programme be as effective as face-to-face programme. Background The Our Hearts Our Minds (OHOM) prevention and rehabilitation programme rapidly transitioned to a virtual platform in the covid era.  Here we compare if a virtual programme potentially could offer the same standard of the nursing intervention (education, smoking cessation, medical risk factor management and psychosocial health) as the previous face to face programme Methods Both the initial assessment (IA) and end of programme (EOP) assessments were conducted via telephone/video as per patient preference. The following measures were recorded at both time points (home blood pressure (BP) monitors were provided) Smoking (self report) BP/Heart rate, Lipids/HbA1c (facilitated by phlebotomy hub), cardio protective drugs (doses, adherence), Hospital Anxiety and Depression score, EuroQoL Nursing Intervention Smoking cessation counselling and pharmacotherapy where appropriate Weekly meeting with cardiologist to optimise BP and lipid management and up titration cardio protective drugs Bimonthly virtual coaching consultation for monitoring/goal resetting Bimonthly group video education sessions Results From April to November 2020, of the 432 referrals received 400 were eligible with 377 accepting the offer of an IA (94% response rate). 262 have had an IA with the remaining 115 awaiting an assessment date.  Of the completed IA’s 257 were willing to attend the programme (98% uptake).  120 had been offered an end of programme assessment with 114 attending (96% of those offered). The results for the virtual programme were then compared to the same period one year previously when the programme was fully face to face and are outlined in the table below. The comparison of results delivered via remote delivery are remarkably similar to those achieved in the previous year delivered via face to face. Conclusion Initial data has shown that virtual delivery of the nursing component of the OHOM prevention/rehabilitation programme was highly acceptable to patients and was as effective as that of the traditional face to face service. Table 1 below exhibits the clinical and patient-reported outcomes.

care (18% globally) 11% felt they had 'never' or only 'sometimes' been treated with dignity and respect by their treatment team (9% globally). Conclusions: The survey demonstrates that a pan-European patient experience survey can take place. It also suggests more could be done across nations to improve lung cancer patients' experience, particularly involvement in decisions around treatment and care. We are grateful to all the patients who responded and shared their experiences.

Background: Representatives from 8 global cancer coalitions/alliances, representing 650 cancer patient groups and the interests of over 14 million patients have come together during the pandemic to review and evaluate the patient-perspective impact. Cancer services have faced challenges as a result of COVID-19, including suspension of screening and diagnostic services; delays in diagnosis leading to higher mortality rates; cancellation/deferral of life-saving treatments; changes in treatment regimens and suspension of vital research. For organisations that provide support to cancer patients, declining income, the need to reduce staff and move to virtual working practices has put extra strain while demand for support due to the pandemic has increased.Methods: 5 coalitions surveyed their member organisations. A number of coalitions consulted their members by individual surveys or consultations.Results: A survey of 157 organisations representing advanced breast, bladder, lymphoma, ovarian and pancreatic cancer patient groups from 56 countries found that 57% experienced an average increase of 44% in patient calls and emails. 45% reported that their future viability may be under threat because of the impact of COVID-19 on income. Qualitative data will also be presented. Examples of good practice were reported where healthcare systems have acted to protect patients and cancer services. These include the introduction of COVID-free centres, separation of cancer patients from those who may have COVID-19, and the introduction of virtual and telemedicine services. Organisations have also introduced new ways of working including virtual psychological support services and app-based support groups. These best practices should form part of a global plan of action for future health crisis.Conclusions: Collaboration between patient advocacy organisations, governments and health services is needed to ensure the ground lost to the COVID-19 pandemic is regained. Action is required to restore cancer services safely and effectively without delay. Additional resources for organisations that support cancer patients are required to ensure that they continue to provide vital services. Finally, a global plan of action for cancer is required to meet the challenges of any future health crisis.Legal entity responsible for the study: World Ovarian Cancer Coalition.

No abstract