No abstract

Background Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been associated with improved symptom management and quality of life in patients with cancer. However, the implementation of PROs in an academic clinical practice has not been thoroughly described. Here we report on the execution, feasibility and healthcare utilization outcomes of an electronic PRO (ePRO) application for cancer patients at an academic medical center. Methods We conducted a randomized trial comparing an experimental ePRO arm to standard of care in patients with advanced cancer in the thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary oncology groups at Stanford Cancer Center from March 2018 to November 2019. We describe the pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases of the ePRO arm, technological barriers, electronic health record (EHR) integration, clinician burden, and patient data privacy and security. Feasibility was pre-specified to be at least 70% completion of all questionnaires. Acceptability was based on patient and clinician feedback. Ambulatory healthcare utilization was assessed by reviewing numbers of phone messages, electronic portal messages, and referrals for supportive care. Results Of 617 ePRO questionnaires sent to 72 patients, 445 (72%) were completed. Most clinicians (87.5%) and patients (93%) felt neutral or positive about the ePRO tool’s ease of use. Exposure to ePRO did not cause a measurable change in ambulatory healthcare utilization, with a median of less than two phone messages and supportive care referrals, and 5–6 portal messages. Conclusions Web-based ePRO tools for patients with advanced cancer are feasible and acceptable without increasing clinical burden. Key lessons include the importance of pilot testing, engagement of stakeholders at all levels, and the need for customization by disease group. Future directions for this work include completion of EHR integration, expansion to other centers, and development of integrated workflows for routine clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Patients with metastatic cancer benefit from advance care planning (ACP) conversations. We aimed to improve ACP using a computer model to select high-risk patients, with shorter predicted survival, for conversations with providers and lay care coaches. Outcomes included ACP documentation frequency and end-of-life quality measures. METHODS: In this study of a quality improvement initiative, providers in four medical oncology clinics received Serious Illness Care Program training. Two clinics (thoracic/genitourinary) participated in an intervention, and two (cutaneous/sarcoma) served as controls. ACP conversations were documented in a centralized form in the electronic medical record. In the intervention, providers and care coaches received weekly e-mails highlighting upcoming clinic patients with < 2 year computer-predicted survival and no prior prognosis documentation. Care coaches contacted these patients for an ACP conversation (excluding prognosis). Providers were asked to discuss and document prognosis. RESULTS: In the four clinics, 4,968 clinic visits by 1,251 patients met inclusion criteria (metastatic cancer with no prognosis previously documented). In their first visit, 28% of patients were high-risk (< 2 year predicted survival). Preintervention, 3% of both intervention and control clinic patients had ACP documentation during a visit. By intervention end (February 2021), 35% of intervention clinic patients had ACP documentation compared with 3% of control clinic patients. Providers' prognosis documentation rate also increased in intervention clinics after the intervention (2%-27% in intervention clinics, P < .0001; 0%-1% in control clinics). End-of-life care intensity was similar in intervention versus control clinics, but patients with ≥ 1 provider ACP edit met fewer high-intensity care measures ( P = .04). CONCLUSION: Combining a computer prognosis model with care coaches increased ACP documentation.

Objective/Hypothesis: Despite the importance of symptom management and end-of-life (EOL) care in head and neck cancers (HNC), there is little literature on care practices in this population. This study examines EOL care practice patterns using nationally established metrics.Study Design: Retrospective chart review. Methods: Review of HNC patients who were actively followed and treated (defined as one clinic note within 90 days, two within preceding 9 months, and having received treatment at our institution) and died between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2018. The cohort was reviewed for performance on Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI ® ) and other metrics.Results: Of 133 patients identified, 52 met inclusion criteria. The average age at death was 69.8 years. About 59% had distant metastases, 30% had locoregional disease, 11% were undergoing primary treatment. Twenty-three percentage received chemotherapy within the last 14 days of life. Fifty percentage of patients were admitted in the last 30 days of life, and 33% died in the hospital. Fifty-four percentage of patients had either Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment or Advanced Directive on file. Eighty-one percentage of patients had any type of goals of care discussion documented. Sixty-five percentage of all patients received referrals to palliative care and 46% of all patients enrolled in hospice. The median days in hospice was 12. Having a goals of care discussion was significantly associated with utilization of palliative and hospice care.Conclusions: Provider-documented goals of care discussions were strongly correlated to referrals and enrollment in palliative and hospice care. Areas for improvement include better documentation of treatment directives and reducing low-utility treatments.

Diet is intimately linked to the gastrointestinal (GI) tract and has potent effects on intestinal immune homeostasis. Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is characterized by chronic inflammation of the GI tract. The therapeutic implications of diet in patients with IBD have received significant attention in recent years. In this review, we provide a contemporary and comprehensive overview of dietary exposures and interventions in IBD. Epidemiological studies suggest that ultra-processed foods, food additives, and emulsifiers are associated with a higher incidence of IBD. Exclusion and elimination diets are associated with improved symptoms in patients with IBD, but no effects on objective markers of inflammation. Specific dietary interventions (e.g., Mediterranean, specific carbohydrate, high fiber, ketogenic, anti-inflammatory diets) have been shown to reduce symptoms, improve inflammatory biomarkers, and quality of life metrics to varying degrees, but these studies are limited by study design, underpowering, heterogeneity, and confounding. To date, there is no robust evidence that any dietary intervention alone may replace standard therapies in patients with IBD. However, diet may play an adjunct role to induce or maintain clinical remission with standard IBD therapies. The results of novel dietary trials in IBD such as personalized fiber, intermittent fasting, and time-restricted diets are eagerly awaited.