Our values-based ACP paradigm is acceptable but may increase distress in cancer outpatients. Further studies are investigating the underpinnings of these effects and ways to best support cancer patients in ACP.

Context. Optimal advance care planning allows patients to articulate their values as a touchstone for medical decision making. Ideally, this occurs when patients are clinically stable, and with opportunities for iteration as the clinical situation unfolds. Objectives. Testing feasibility and acceptability in busy outpatient oncology clinics of a novel program of systematic, oncology nurse-led values discussions with all new cancer patients. Methods. Within an institutional initiative integrating primary and specialist palliative care from diagnosis for all cancer patients, oncology nurses were trained to use specific questions and an empathic communication framework to discuss health-related values during outpatient clinic visits. Nurses summarized discussions on a template for patient verification, oncologist review, and electronic medical record documentation. Summaries were reviewed with the patient at least quarterly. Feasibility and acceptability were evaluated in three clinics for patients with hematologic or gastrointestinal malignancies. Results. Oncology nurses conducted 177 total discussions with 67 newly diagnosed cancer patients (17 with hematologic and 50 with gastrointestinal malignancies) over two years. No patient declined participation. Discussions averaged eight minutes, and all patients verified values summaries. Clinic patient volume was maintained. Of 31 patients surveyed, 30 (97%) reported feeling comfortable with the process, considered it helpful, and would recommend it to others. Clinicians strongly endorsed the values discussion process. Conclusion. Nurse-led discussions of patient values soon after diagnosis are feasible and acceptable in busy oncology clinics. Further research will evaluate the impact of this novel approach on additional patient-oriented outcomes after broader dissemination of this initiative throughout our institution.

Background: Prior work to integrate early palliative care in oncology has focused on patients with advanced cancer and primarily on palliative care consultation. We developed this outpatient clinic initiative for newly diagnosed patients at any stage, emphasizing primary (nonspecialist) palliative care by oncology teams, with enhanced access to palliative care specialists. Methods: We piloted the project in two medical oncology specialty clinics (for patients with myelodysplastic syndrome and GI cancer, respectively) to establish feasibility. On a visit-based schedule, patients systematically reported symptoms, information/decision-making preferences, and illness understanding. They also participated in discussions of their core values with their oncology nurse. Oncology teams were first responders to palliative care needs, whereas specialists were available for clinician support and direct patient consultation. Results: All 58 eligible patients were enrolled. In both clinics, patient self-reports documented a heavy symptom burden. Information/decision-making preferences and illness understanding levels varied across patients. Patients prepared new advance directives. Oncology nurses documented discussions of core values. Requests for palliative care consultation decreased over time as oncology teams embraced their primary palliative care role with coaching from the specialists. Clinic workflow and patient volume were maintained. Conclusion: Our pilot experience suggests that in outpatient oncology clinics, a structured, scheduled, and systematic approach is feasible to deliver palliative care to newly diagnosed patients with cancer at any stage and throughout their illness trajectory. This novel approach identified important, actionable palliative care needs, relying primarily on oncology teams to respond to these needs, while enhancing access to palliative care specialist input. Expansion to additional clinics will allow evaluation of scalability and generalizability, along with measurement of a broader range of important outcomes.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic surge in New York City in Spring 2020 resulted in an unprecedented constraint on health care resources. This study aimed to explore the experiences of doctors providing care to oncology patients during this time. METHODS: Hospitalists and medical oncologists from two large inpatient services at a dedicated cancer center participated in virtual in-depth interviews exploring how the pandemic affected their practice and to what extent it may have affected decisions for urgent evaluation or hospital admission, interventions, or goals-of-care discussions. Interviews also explored how the pandemic affected each individual physician's psychologic well-being. Transcripts were analyzed by three independent coders in Atlas.ti v. 7.5, using a thematic analysis approach. RESULTS: Eighteen physicians were interviewed (n = 6 GI medical oncologists, n = 6 gynecologic medical oncologists, and n = 6 hospitalists). Analysis identified five major themes related to fear and distress: (1) perceived patient fears of the hospital during COVID-19, leading to avoidance and delay of acute care needs before admission, (2) physicians' fear and distress delivering oncology care during COVID-19, (3) physician distress resulting from ambiguity in decision making, (4) distress and anxiety balancing the need for patient contact with the need to minimize infection risk, and (5) distress regarding impact of uncertainty and acuity of COVID-19 on goals-of-care discussions. CONCLUSION: Insight into the experiences of physicians providing cancer care during a COVID-19 surge underscores the need for strategies mitigate short-term distress and long-term psychologic impacts. Findings can also inform practitioner training and preparedness for future pandemics in the oncology setting.

Purpose-Person-Centered Oncologic Care and Choices (P-COCC) combines an advance care planning (ACP) value-focused patient interview with a care goal video decision aid. Our randomized study showed that P-COCC was acceptable but increased participant distress, compared with video-alone and usual care study arms. This mixed methods approach explores the ACP values in the P-COCC arm and their relationship to the distress phenomenon. Methods-Qualitative thematic analysis of the 46 audio-recorded P-COCC interview transcripts with advanced gastrointestinal cancer patients was performed by multiple reviewers. Quantitative (Likert scale) changes in ACP values were compared across study arms. ACP themes and value change were analyzed in participants with increased distress. Results-Transcript analysis resulted in thematic saturation and identified eight distinct themes on ACP values relating to end-of-life wishes, communication needs, and psychosocial supports. Of 98 participants (33 P-COCC, 43 videos, 22 usual care) who completed the change in value measure, there was no difference detected with P-COCC compared with either video (p =0.052) or usual care (p = 0.105) arms alone, but P-COCC led to a frequency distribution of more change in personal values compared with the other study arms combined (p = 0.043). Among the subset of P-COCC participants with increased distress, there was no statistical relationship with change in values. Conclusions-The ACP paradigm P-COCC both informs and supports patients in individualized, value-based decision-making. Distress is not associated with changes in ACP