Background Virtual Reality (VR) is used as an effective tool for distraction and as an adjunct for pain management. This study was conducted to compare VR to standard iPad use after surgery and examine its effect on pain score and opioid consumption. Methods This was a randomized controlled study, with stratification by surgery type, age group (7-12yo, 13-18yo) and gender. Pain and anxiety were assessed with validated scales (STAI, FACES, VAS, FLACC) and outcomes were compared between each group. Results 50 of the 106 enrolled patients used the VR device. After adjusting for age, gender, and STAI, patients had a decreased FLACC score while using the VR device compared to the iPad group (odds ratio 2.95, P = .021). The younger patients were found to have lower FLACC scores while using the VR device (odds ratio 1.15, p=0.044); this finding was most significant when patients used the VR device for 20-30 minutes (odds ratio 1.67, P = .0003). Additionally, after adjusting for treatment group, gender, and STAI, the younger patients had higher odds of withdrawal or exclusion from the study (odds ratio 1.18, P = .021). No significant difference in opioid consumption between the groups was found. Discussion Virtual reality was well tolerated and more effective in decreasing pain during the immediate postoperative period than iPad use. Despite a slightly higher withdrawal rate, younger patients benefited more from the intervention.

Purpose Telemedicine has the potential to lessen healthcare burden of older patients due to frequent appointments, physical disabilities, and reliance on caretakers. To benefit from telemedicine, patients must have the capacity and willingness to engage with technology. This study aimed to better understand the telemedicine experiences of older women with nonmetastatic breast cancer regarding visit convenience, completeness, and interpersonal satisfaction. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted in a convenience sample of women age 65+, post-primary treatment for stage I-III breast cancer, who had received in-person outpatient care at a cancer center in urban North Carolina before a telemedicine appointment occurring after March 2020. Patients were interviewed about their perceptions of telemedicine (telephone, video) as compared to in-person visits. Audio files of interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes and subthemes established a priori in the interview protocol. Results Fifteen patients (telephone = 5, video = 10) were consented and interviewed July-October 2021, mean age 74. Thirteen participants reported they preferred a hybrid care model that included telemedicine care over in-person care alone. COVID-19, physical disability, and transportation burden were the most common factors for telemedicine preference. Comfort with familiar face-to-face interactions and having a physical exam were common factors for in-person appointment preference. In-person appointment was favored early in the post-primary treatment phase; telemedicine was more acceptable when relationships were well-established and patients were farther out from diagnosis. Conclusions Patient-provider discussions about appointment modality should take into account newness of diagnosis, patient familiarity with the care team, travel burden, and necessity of physical exam.

PURPOSE The Commission on Cancer seeks to promote robust survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs' survivorship programs range from cursory (eg, developing care plans without robust services) to robust (eg, facilitating follow-up care). To inform cancer programs' future efforts, in this study, we identified the implementation strategies that cancer programs used to achieve robust survivorship programs, distinguishing them from cursory programs. METHODS We sampled 39 cancer programs across the United States with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to robust on the basis of LIVESTRONG survivorship care consensus elements. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semistructured interviews with a total of 42 health care professionals. We used template analysis to distinguish implementation strategies used in cancer programs with robust survivorship programs from strategies that yielded cursory survivorship programs. RESULTS Cancer programs with robust survivorship programs established clear systems survivorship care and formal committees to improve the survivorship care processes. They sought buy-in from multiple stakeholders to leverage cancer program resources and defined clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. By contrast, cancer programs with cursory survivorship programs reported less consistency in survivorship care processes and lacked buy-in from key stakeholders. They had limited resources, faced persistent structural concerns, and had insufficient clarity in roles among team members. CONCLUSION Accrediting bodies may consider incorporating the implementation strategies that robust survivorship programs have used as guidance for supporting cancer programs in operationalizing survivorship care and evaluating the use of these strategies during the accreditation and review process.

No abstract

209 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) seeks to promote comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs among accredited cancer programs. In practice, cancer programs’ approaches range from cursory (e.g., developing care plans without robust services) to comprehensive (e.g., facilitating follow-up care). This study identified strategies that were unique to cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs. Methods: We sampled 39 CoC-accredited cancer programs with approaches to survivorship program implementation ranging from cursory to comprehensive, as reported in CoC annual surveys. Within sampled cancer programs, we conducted in-depth semi-structured interviews with a total of 42 healthcare professionals (1-2/program). We identified strategies unique to cancer programs with comprehensive approaches by comparing them to cancer programs with cursory approaches. Results: Cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs had formal committees with ample opportunities to evaluate the progress, revise roles, and acquire multiple stakeholders’ support. Keeping a good record system enabled these cancer programs to meet accreditation requirements and improve processes. Buy-in from upper management and key physicians was deemed crucial in leveraging cancer program resources. These programs also had clear roles with shared accountability among multidisciplinary groups. Like cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to implementing survivorship programs, many cancer programs with cursory approaches also had formal committees; however, cancer programs with cursory approaches lacked buy-in from key stakeholders, relying on few staff or a champion for implementation. Cancer programs with cursory approaches had limited resources, cumbersome processes, and team members with unclear roles. Conclusions: Cancer programs with comprehensive approaches to survivorship program implementation gained broad stakeholder buy-in and established clear team member roles with shared accountability. Study findings will inform more than 1500 CoC-accredited US cancer programs’ approaches to implementing survivorship programs. At the conference, we will have results from quantitative and measures validation companion studies.

No abstract

Explosive growth in the use of telemedicine occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic. Telemedicine has the potential to lessen healthcare burden for older adults with frequent appointments, physical and cognitive disabilities, and reliance on caretakers. To benefit from telemedicine, patients must have the capacity to engage with technology, for which inexperience and access may pose barriers. This study aimed to better understand the perspectives of older women with non-metastatic breast cancer on telemedicine, in regards to visit convenience, completeness, and interpersonal satisfaction. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were conducted in a convenience sample of women age 65+, post-primary treatment for Stage I-III breast cancer, who received in-person outpatient care at NC Cancer Hospital before transitioning to telemedicine after March 2020. Patients were interviewed about their perceptions of telemedicine (telephone, video) as compared to in-person visits. Audio files of interviews were transcribed and reviewed to identify themes established a priori in the interview protocol. 15 patients (telephone=5, video=10) were consented and interviewed (July-October 2021), mean age=74. 13/15 participants reported that they preferred a hybrid care model that included telemedicine care over in-person care alone. COVID-19, physical disability, and transportation burden were associated with telemedicine preference. Comfort with familiar patient-provider interaction and lack of physical exam were associated with in-person appointment preference. Patient-clinician conversations and clinic protocols guiding use of telemedicine should take into account newness of diagnosis, patient comfort and familiarity with the care team, travel burden, disability, and whether the physical exam is or is not essential.