Enhanced PAtient Clinical Streamlining (EPACS): Quality Initiative to Improve Healthcare for New Surgical Outpatient Visits.

PURPOSE: For patients who select a specialty hospital for cancer treatment, the wait time until the initial consultation leaves patients anxious and delays treatment. To improve quality of care, we implemented an enhanced patient clinical streamlining (EPACS) process that establishes an early connection and coordinates care before the first surgical outpatient visit at our specialty cancer center. METHODS: During a pre-visit EPACS phone call to new patients, an advanced practice provider (APP) collected medical history and ordered work-up tests or consultations if feasible. First visit cancellation rate, number of patients who started treatment, time to start of treatment, and satisfaction by the care team and patient were compared between patients treated with versus without EPACS. RESULTS: Among 5062 consecutive new patients, 720 (14%) received an EPACS call and 4342 did not (86%); work-up was ordered pre-visit in 34% and 16%, respectively. Fewer EPACS patients cancelled the first visit (4.6% vs. 12%, p < 0.001), more started treatment (55% vs. 50%, p = 0.037), and their time to treatment was shorter, but not significantly (median 17 vs. 19 days, p = 0.086). Patient interaction was considered to be improved by EPACS by 17 of 17 APPs and 14 of 16 surgeons, and outpatient clinic efficiency by 14 of 17 APPs and 13 of 16 surgeons. EPACS reduced anxiety and increased preparedness for the first visit in 29 of 31 patients. CONCLUSIONS: EPACS improved effectiveness, timeliness, and physician and patient satisfaction with health care at our cancer center.

Ovarian cancer recurrence detection may not require in-person physical examination: an MSK team ovary study.

OBJECTIVE: Given the inconvenience and financial burden of frequent ovarian cancer surveillance and the risks of in-person visits due to COVID-19, which have led to the acceleration of telehealth adaptation, we sought to assess the role of in-person physical examination for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence among patients enrolled in a routine surveillance program. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of patients initially seen from January 2015 to December 2017 who experienced ovarian cancer recurrence during first clinical remission. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analyses were performed to compare differences in detection methods and in patient and disease characteristics. RESULTS: Among 147 patients who met our inclusion criteria, there were no recurrences detected by physical examination alone. Forty-six (31%) patients had recurrence first detected by tumor marker, 81 (55%) by radiographic scan, 17 (12%) by presentation of new symptoms, and 3 (2%) by biopsies taken during non-oncological surgery. One hundred and eleven patients (75%) had multiple positive findings at the time of recurrence. Of all 147 patients, 48 (33%) had symptoms, 21 (14%) had physical examination findings, 106 (72%) had increases in tumor markers, and 141 (96%) had changes on imaging. CONCLUSIONS: In-person physical examination was not a primary means of detection for ovarian cancer recurrence for any patient. Substituting in-person visits for virtual visits that include patient-reported symptoms, alongside a regular surveillance protocol that includes tumor marker testing and imaging, may be a suitable approach for the detection of ovarian cancer recurrence while also reducing patient inconvenience and risks to health.