A community cancer clinic, through cooperation with its parent health care system, developed a lung cancer multidisciplinary clinic (MDC) to enhance patient care and prevent outmigration to competing health care systems. The local medical and radiation oncologists collaborated with a thoracic surgeon from the tertiary care hospital in establishing the lung MDC. All the participating physicians are employed by the health care system. A cancer care coordinator assured that all necessary tests were obtained and available to the physicians at least 1 day before the clinic. The multidisciplinary team also included a pulmonologist and met every third week. Other sub-specialists were involved as necessary. Final treatment recommendations using National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines were made for each patient at the MDC visit. This clinic, once established, resulted in significant improvements in the quality of care, patient satisfaction and retention of patients. Time from diagnosis to initiation of treatment was reduced to a mean of 18 days from a mean of 24 days. The community cancer clinic had an increase in lung cancer patient care by 28% and a 9.1% increase in gross revenue. The tertiary care hospital benefited by providing all patients with definitive surgery, including minimally invasive surgery. The tertiary hospital thoracic surgeon had a 75% increase in referrals from the lung MDC geographic area over the previous year. This collaboration in the development of MDCs demonstrates how patients, caregivers, and the health care system benefit from MDCs.

ImportanceCancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed.ObjectiveTo assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsAccredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022.ExposuresCollaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods.ResultsOf 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, −13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, −23.1 to −3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

e12012 Background: VIA Oncology evidence-based pathways have been integrated into our medical oncology workflows since November 2014. Within 3 months, compliance was high for our 42 medical oncologists at 19 sites working with a common EHR with over 85% of pts treated on pathway. The aim of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference in the overall cost of treatment between pts treated on pathway versus off pathway, and whether on pathway pts had a lower rate of ED use and unplanned admissions within 30 days of chemotherapy as required in the new CMS directives. Methods: Newly diagnosed stage 2 breast cancer pts diagnosed between January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2017 were identified from the tumor registry for the system. The VIA database was queried to separate these pts into two groups–those pts who were treated on pathway, and those who were off pathway. The data warehouse was utilized to determine the total charges of adjuvant medical oncology treatment for these pts. In addition, data was extracted for the same groups to determine those pts who sought ED evaluation and or hospital admission within 30 days of chemotherapy treatment. Statistical analysis was performed utilizing Fisher’s exact test to compare proportions and t-test to compare treatment costs and ED/hospitalizations between the on and off pathway groups. Results: During the 2 years, 412 (93%) Stage 2 breast cancer pts were treated on pathway (including clinical trials); 32 (7%) were off pathway. 81% of the on-pathway group were + for ER and/or PR and 17% were HER-2 +; 78% of the off-pathway group were + for ER and/or PR and 38% were HER-2 +. Mean cost for treating the on-pathway group was $111,067 compared to $200,717 for the off-pathway pts (p=0.01). 18.8% of the off-pathway pts were seen in the ED / unplanned admissions and had more multiple visits compared to 12.1% of on-pathway pts within 30 days of chemotherapy (p=0.026). Conclusions: Standardized usage of evidence based pathways can be used successfully across a large number of providers over wide geography. Adherence to pathways results in significant cost savings for each patient, and significant reduction in ED/hospital utilization for on pathway patients.

129 Background: Via Oncology (Via) is a decision support tool that integrates patient information, their disease, and goals of care to develop a treatment algorithm. Via prioritizes treatments by efficacy first, toxicity second, and cost third. The recommended regimen is offered to the doctor and patient who may accept it or choose an off pathway treatment. The pathways are updated quarterly and are expected to speed the integration of new treatments into practice, standardize therapy, improve quality, and decrease cost. Physicians are often unaware that a trial is available for a patient and EHR’s are not commonly used to facilitate accrual to clinical trials. A pathway system could also alert doctors to the availability of a clinical trial and is designed to increase accrual to clinical trials. Methods: The integration of Via into the Epic EHR was facilitated by 3 major interfaces: patient information sent from the EHR to Via, the providers’ schedules sent from the EHR to Via, and the protocol selected in Via sent back to the EHR. Within the decision algorithm, clinical trials were recommended as the first option in all lines of therapy when available. Results: After 11 months and 103,515 visits, the visit capture rate was 82.7%%. With 3,844 decisions made, 83.9% of all treatment decisions were on pathway. Clinical trial enrollment was 122 patients in the 459 days prior to Via implementation, and 102 patients in the 271 days afterwards. This increase in accrual rate was significant (p = 0.00174.) Conclusions: The pathway program was rapidly accepted by physicians and the recommendations were commonly accepted. The subsequent increase in clinical accrual, while not definitive of causation, is promising. An upgrade of the Epic EHR is planned in the near future. A single log in to open Via and the EHR concomitantly is planned. An additional interface to bring staging information from the EHR to Via is being planned.

36 Background: Integrating early palliative care with cancer treatment improves quality of life and survival. Effective communication among physicians, patients and their loved ones is crucial to end-of-life, hospice and palliative care discussions. To address the inherent challenges in these discussions, we implemented a structured outpatient palliative care family conference (OFC) program at our community cancer clinic. Methods: A team comprising a hematologist/oncologist, cancer nurse navigator and social worker developed a toolkit for conducting an OFC, recognizing that each family conference is a unique adaptive challenge. New patients with advanced malignancies and limited life expectancy (<12 months) were offered a 90-minute structured OFC attended by the care team, patient and family members and or friends. Pre and post-conference patient satisfaction surveys and other data were collected prospectively. Results: From March 2014 through May 2015, fortyOFC were conducted (16 female and 24 male patients, median age: 67 years). Diagnoses were advanced gastrointestinal (14), lung (12), hematologic (6) and other (8) malignancies. As a direct result of the OFC program, 18 patients ordered do-not-resuscitate bracelets, 15 completed advanced directives, 7 submitted paperwork for disabled parking permits, 7 were referred to hospice and 4 for rehabilitation therapy. Further results are shown in the table. Conclusions: Structured outpatient palliative care family conferences improve satisfaction of end-of-life discussions and facilitate integration of palliative care options. Enhanced communication between providers, patients and loved ones eases the challenges of such discussions. The OFC approach could be a model for integrating palliative care in community cancer clinics. [Table: see text]