e18326 Background: Supportive care in cancer (SCC) may create a financial burden, compared to a standard cancer department. In 2011, a specific SCC inpatient unit was developed in an academic hospital, based on a multidisciplinary approach in order to anticipate patient’s disability and limit emergency hospitalization. Assess the cost effectiveness of the SCC unit expenses and benefits compared to Medical (MO) and Gastro-Intestinal (GI) oncology departments. Methods: Data were analyzed over a six year period (2011-2016). Cost of hospital stays and cost per year were calculated based on the hospital’s standard cost accounting method. Hospital benefits were calculated as the difference between total incomes and total expenses (cost and Diagnosis Related Group tariffs for the stay) and results were compared (period available for comparison 2011 to 2014). Results: Total costs for the hospital, primarily due to staff expenses, were lower for the SCC unit compared to MO and GI in 2011 and 2014, as well as the daily cost per stay (DCS). Benefit per year was also higher for the SCC unit permitting it, to benefit financially compared to the two other oncology units (Table). Incomes reimbursed by the National Health system for SCC unit were 1,632,601 euros in 2015 and 2,096,285 euros in 2016 with a total of 357 and 408 patients admitted in the 8 bed SCC unit in 2015 and 2016 respectively. Conclusions: The SCC unit was less expensive to operate compared to our other oncology units. Our results suggest that its development permitted the oncology department to enhance its quality of care without any additional expenses. [Table: see text]

e14025 Background: Patients’ needs are still underestimated during cancer course. The development of a simple and accessible screening tool to identify supportive care needs is an innovative approach to improve the cancer care pathway. Supportive Scale sCore (SCC) is a new tool developed to trigger alert in main need of supportive care such as social, nutritional, physical, pain or psychological disorders. This study aimed to develop and validate the SCC tool for detecting supportive care needs. Methods: The SCC, the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), a symptom scale and the EQ-5D (for Quality Of Life) was distributed to cancer patients over a week, in an ambulatory hospital of oncology department. The acceptability was assessed by the fill rate. The validity of alerts generated by the SCC scale was assessed by their consistency with ESAS and EQ-5D scores. Results: Hundred patients were included with an average age of 67,2 years. Acceptability was good with a fill rate of over 90%. For a-priori defined risk groups by SCC with alert or not, ESAS symptom score and QOL differed significantly (p < 0,05) between groups. We observed higher ESAS symptom scores in the alert group [nutritional alert: appetite: 4 (Standard Deviation SD 2,4) vs 0 (SD 1,6), p < 0,001; physical alert: fatigue: 4 (SD 1,7) vs 2 (SD 2,2) p < 0,001; psychological alert: depressed: 3,5 (SD 2,7) vs 0 (SD 1,5), p < 0,001; anxiety: 4 (SD 2,9) vs 0 (SD 1,5), p < 0,001; unwell-being: 4,5 (SD 2,7) vs. 0 (SD 1,5), p < 0,001]. Moreover, the QOL was poorer in each domain of EQ-5D in the alert group. [Social alert, self-care: 9,3% vs 0%, p = 0,02; usual activities: 25% vs 5,4%, p = 0,005. Physical alert, usual activities: 21,3% vs 2,6%, p = 0,008; mobility 29,5% vs 2,6%, p = 0,01. Pain alert, pain: 81,8% vs 11,9%, p < 0,001. Psychological alert, psychological: 56,3% vs 11,9%, p < 0,001]. Conclusions: The SCC seems to be a reliable instrument to detect cancer patients’ supportive care needs.

No abstract

185 Background: An in-patient unit for supportive care in oncology (USSO) was created in 2011 in the Georges Pompidou European Hospital. Its primary objective is to improve patient care and manage the complications of cancer as well as their specific treatment. Patients are previously screened by a cross disciplinary team at an early stage before complication. Methods: A prospective observational study was performed through a yearly evaluation of the unit’s activity from January 1st, 2011 to December 31st, 2013. Results: 594 patients were admitted in the unit during the three years period of study. Most of them (64.3%) came directly from home, with an increase of this rate along this period (59.4% to 67.6%). The early screening thereby rendered emergency admission from 17.7% (2011) to 6.5% (2013). The predominant diseases observed were head and neck cancer (42.4%) and lung cancer (23%), followed by breast (7.2%) and ovarian cancer (7.2%). The main grounds for hospitalization were state of health impairment 32%, pain 12.8%, and invasive procedures 11.8%, increasing from 2011 to 2013. Therefore, an interdisciplinary approach is the cornerstone of the unit with the daily collaboration of dieticians (for 90% of inpatients), social workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and pain specialists (34%, 46%, 56% and 50% of inpatients respectively). The average length of stay decreased from 2011 (10.2 days) to 2013 (8.3 days) and 58.4% of the patients were home discharged. With the help of a social worker, 12% of the patients were transferred to a recovery unit and 9.7% to a palliative care unit while 9% died in the unit. Conclusions: With the opening of the in-patient USSO, and the development of its interdisciplinary strategy, most of the patients recover faster and regain better health. Preventive care can accommodate a majority of patients coming from home and allows for ambulatory secured discharge. These positive results conducted to enhance the USSO’s beds capacity and supportive care development in order to improve cancer care organisation in the hospital as well as patient’s quality of life.