Abstract 1871
Background
Much of the work of a busy oncology day unit is undocumented, especially the work involved in phone triage during the working hours of 8am to 6pm. Phone calls from patients, their family doctors, palliative care teams, or from within the Hospital itself seeking advice form the majority of this aspect of the Specialist Oncology Nurse and Staff Nurses’ time. This project was performed to assess the nature of these calls and the broad advice given to the callers so that a dedicated Acute Review Specialist Oncology Nurse Clinic could be developed.
Methods
In conjunction with key oncology nurses and their medical oncologist colleagues a log to capture each answered call was developed. This centred on the date and time of the call, the source, the issue raised, the advice given, if advised to go to the Emergency Room the reason why, and other actions that were necessary. A form was completed per answered call, and collected at the end of the day. Data was recorded on a spreadsheet. All forms were annonymised with regard to patient identifiers. The forms were focused on whether the issue was successfully addressed within the day unit, the Hospital’s emergency room, the community services, or whether solely by the advice given over the telephone.
Results
A sample size of 252 incoming answered calls by the Oncology Nursing Staff to the Nurses’ station was analysed. Just over half these calls (52%) were made by patients/family members. Other calls related to internal questions such as from Interventional Radiology or other diagnostic areas of the Hospital (26%), pharmacies (7%), and family doctors (4%). The other 11% of calls were mainly from wards relating to advice on inpatients or seeking consults. Of the unwell patients calling for advice, near half (48%) were seeking advice on what action to take: stay at home or come to Hospital. 35% of patients were seeking either a new appointment or change in appointment date. The remaining 17% of patients were seeking non-emergency review by the medical oncology team.
Conclusions
This analysis of answered calls highlights the need for involvement of experienced oncology nurses in the triage of phone calls to a busy oncology day unit, and the need to develop an Acute Review Clinic, managed by an experienced oncology nurse specialist.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
Beaumont Hospital Cancer Centre.
Funding
Has not received any funding.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
2600 - Atezolizumab (atezo) vs chemotherapy (chemo) in patients (pts) with platinum-treated locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC): a long-term overall survival (OS) and safety update from the Phase III IMvigor211 study
Presenter: Michiel Van der Heijden
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3598 - Three-Year Follow-Up From the Phase 3 KEYNOTE-045 Trial: Pembrolizumab (Pembro) Versus Investigator’s Choice (Paclitaxel, Docetaxel, or Vinflunine) in Recurrent, Advanced Urothelial Cancer (UC)
Presenter: Andrea Necchi
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2382 - First Report of Efficacy and Safety From a Phase 2 Trial of Tislelizumab, an Anti-PD-1 Antibody, for the Treatment of PD-L1+ Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma (UC) in Asian Patients
Presenter: Dingwei Ye
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
2388 - Quality of Life of Metastatic Urothelial Cancer (mUC) Patients Treated with Enfortumab Vedotin (EV) Following Platinum-Containing Chemotherapy and a Checkpoint Inhibitor (CPI): Data from EV-201 Cohort 1
Presenter: Bradley McGregor
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3748 - Safety and efficacy of atezolizumab (atezo) in patients (pts) with autoimmune disease (AID): subgroup analysis of the SAUL study in locally advanced/metastatic urinary tract carcinoma
Presenter: Yohann Loriot
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1126 - Validation of the VIO prognostic index in patients with metastatic urothelial carcinoma treated with immune-checkpoint inhibitors
Presenter: Rafael Morales Barrera
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
3693 - Pathologic outcomes after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for high-risk muscle invasive bladder cancer
Presenter: Justin Matulay
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
4840 - Analysis of response to prior therapies and therapies after treatment with erdafitinib in fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR)-positive patients (pts) with metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Arlene Siefker-Radtke
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1221 - Clinical outcomes by sex with atezolizumab (atezo) monotherapy in patients (pts) with locally advanced/metastatic urothelial carcinoma (mUC)
Presenter: Jean Hoffman-censits
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract
1715 - National Small Cell Bladder Cancer Audit: Results from 26 UK institutions
Presenter: Caroline Chau
Session: Poster Display session 3
Resources:
Abstract