PURPOSE: Early detection and management of symptoms in patients with cancer improves outcomes. However, the optimal approach to symptom monitoring and management is unknown. InSight Care is a mobile health intervention that captures symptom data and facilitates patient-provider communication to mitigate symptom escalation. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients initiating antineoplastic treatment at a Memorial Sloan Kettering regional location were eligible. Technology supporting the program included the following: a predictive model that identified patient risk for a potentially preventable acute care visit; a secure patient portal enabling communication, televisits, and daily delivery of patient symptom assessments; alerts for concerning symptoms; and a symptom-trending application. The main outcomes of the pilot were feasibility and acceptability evaluated through enrollment and response rates and symptom alerts, and perceived value evaluated on the basis of qualitative patient and provider interviews. RESULTS: The pilot program enrolled 100 high-risk patients with solid tumors and lymphoma (29% of new treatment starts v goal of 25%). Over 6 months of follow-up, the daily symptom assessment response rate was 56% (the goal was 50%), and 93% of patients generated a severe symptom alert. Patients and providers perceived value in the program, and archetypes were developed for program improvement. Enrolled patients were less likely to use acute care than were other high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: InSight Care was feasible and holds the potential to improve patient care and decrease facility-based care. Future work should focus on optimizing the cadence of patient assessments, the workforce supporting remote symptom management, and the return of symptom data to patients and clinical teams.

PURPOSE: Oncology patients are vulnerable to adverse outcomes associated with COVID-19, and clinical deterioration must be identified early. Several institutions launched remote patient monitoring programs (RPMPs) to care for patients with COVID-19. We describe patients' perspectives on a COVID-19 RPMP at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center. METHODS: Patients who tested positive for COVID-19 were eligible. Enrolled patients received a daily electronic COVID-19 symptom assessment, and a subset of high-risk patients also received a pulse oximeter. Monitoring was provided by a centralized team and was discontinued 14 days after a patient's positive test result and following 3 days without worsening symptoms. Patients who completed at least one assessment and exited the program were sent a patient engagement survey to evaluate the patient's experience with digital monitoring for COVID-19. RESULTS: The survey was distributed to 491 patients, and 257 responded (52% completion rate). The net promoter score was 85%. Most patients agreed that the RPMP was worthwhile, enabled better management of their COVID-19 symptoms, made them feel more connected to their healthcare team, and helped prevent emergency room visits. Identified themes regarding patient-perceived value of a RPMP included (1) security: a clinical safety net; (2) connection: a link to their clinical team during a period of isolation; and (3) empowerment: an education on the virus and symptom management. CONCLUSION: RPMPs are perceived to be of value to oncology patients with COVID-19. Policymakers should consider how these programs can be reimbursed to keep vulnerable patients at home and out of the acute care setting.

1504 Background: Oncology patients are particularly vulnerable to adverse outcomes from COVID-19 and require careful monitoring to identify early deterioration and render higher level care when indicated. Several institutions launched remote patient monitoring programs (RPMPs) to care for patients with COVID-19. We describe patients’ perspectives on a COVID-19 RPMP at a National Comprehensive Cancer Center. Methods: Adult patients who had either tested positive for COVID-19 on an outpatient microbiology test or were discharged after hospitalization for the virus were eligible. Patients enrolled in the RPMP received a daily 10-question electronic patient-reported outcome assessment of COVID-19 symptoms and their responses generated alerts to a centralized monitoring team for new or worsening symptoms. A subset of high-risk patients also received a pulse oximeter which alerted when blood oxygen levels dropped below 93%. RPM was discontinued 14 days after a patient’s positive test result and following 3 days without worsening symptoms or fever. Patients who exited the program and had completed at least one assessment were sent a patient engagement survey. The objective of the survey was to evaluate the patient’s experience with digital monitoring and symptom management for COVID-19. The assessment was structured with objective response questions, including a net promoter score, and free text questions to elicit patient perspectives on RPM value. Free text responses were analyzed using grounded theory to identify primary themes regarding perceived value. Results: The survey was distributed to 452 patients; 241 responded as of June 10, 2020 (53% completion rate). The net promoter score was 91%. The table provides responses to objective questions. Qualitative analysis of free text responses identified the primary themes regarding patient perceived value which included: 1) Security: patients appreciated that the RPMP provided a clinical safety net; 2) Connection: patients appreciated the link to their clinical team during a period of isolation; 3) Empowerment: patients appreciated that the RPMP provided education on the virus and symptom management. Conclusions: RPMPs are perceived to be of value to oncology patients with COVID-19. A key barrier to maintaining these programs is cost. Policymakers should consider how these programs can be reimbursed in the future so that they can continue to provide care to vulnerable patients and keep them at home out of the acute care setting.[Table: see text]

2027 Background: Early detection and management of symptoms in patients with cancer improves outcomes, however, the optimal approach to symptom monitoring and management is unknown. This pilot program uses a mobile health intervention to capture and make accessible symptom data for high-risk patients to mitigate symptom escalation. Methods: Patients initiating antineoplastic treatment at a Memorial Sloan Kettering regional location were eligible. A dedicated staff of RNs and nurse practitioners managed the patients remotely. The technology supporting the program included: 1) a predictive model that identified patients at high risk for a potentially preventable acute care visit; 2) a patient portal enabling daily ecological momentary assessments (EMA); 3) alerts for concerning symptoms; 4) an application that allowed staff to review and trend symptom data; and 5) a secure messaging platform to support communications and televisits between staff and patients. Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated through enrollment (goal ≥25% of new treatment starts) and response rates (completion of > 50% of daily symptom assessments); symptom alerts; perceived value based on qualitative interviews with patients and providers; and acute care usage. Results: Between October 15, 2018 and July 10, 2019, the pilot enrolled 100 high-risk patients with solid tumors and lymphoma initiating antineoplastic treatment (median age: 66 years, 45% female). This represented 29% of patients starting antineoplastics. Over six months of follow-up, the response rate to the daily assessments was 56% and 93% of patients generated a severe symptom alert (Table). Both patients and providers perceived value in the program and 5,010 symptom-related secure messages were shared between staff and enrolled patients during the follow-up period. There was a preliminary signal in acute care usage with a 17% decrease in ED visits compared to a cohort of high-risk unenrolled patients. Conclusions: This pilot program of intensive monitoring of high-risk patients is feasible and holds significant potential to improve patient care and decrease hospital resources. Future work should focus on the optimal cadence of EMAs, the workforce to support remote symptom management, and how best to return symptom data to patients and clinical teams. [Table: see text]