Effectiveness of a multi-modal intervention to improve inpatient new cancer diagnosis communication.

430 Background: Hospitalized patients with a new cancer diagnosis have high information needs and decisional conflict, impeding decision-making during and after hospitalization. Our objective was to develop and evaluate an intervention to improve communication of key information for new cancer diagnoses. Methods: We used Stanford’s Design Thinking process to develop an intervention with stakeholders (oncologists, hospitalists, patients, caregivers, and a patient advisory council): 1) Empathize: conduct semi-structured interviews with stakeholders. 2) Define: synthesize barriers in a fishbone diagram and propose solutions. 3) Ideate: select a solution based on impact and effort. 4) Prototype: design the intervention, a New Cancer Diagnosis Information Sheet, with stakeholders. 5) Test: create an implementation plan with hospitalists & oncologists. We evaluated implementation and effectiveness using mixed methods. Quantitative outcomes were 1) oncologist intervention adoption and 2) presence of 7 cancer information elements in discharge instructions for the analysis population (inpatients with a new cancer diagnosis and scheduled for a new oncology clinic visit), compared 3 mo pre- vs 3 mo post-intervention using Fisher’s exact test. Qualitative outcomes were patient/caregiver and oncologist/hospitalist satisfaction collected via semi-structured interviews and open-ended e-mail questions, respectively, and analyzed via thematic analysis. Results: Based on barriers of patient information overload and inconsistent oncologist-hospitalist information flow, we developed a New Cancer Diagnosis Information Sheet. This sheet consisted of an EHR template (cancer type, stage, treatment options and intent, next steps, and resources) for oncologists to tailor to each patient, then delivered to the patient in multiple formats (print & electronic) through multiple channels (oncologist & hospitalist). We began dissemination on 1/14/25 via meetings, emails, and flyers to oncologists & hospitalists. 10 oncologists created the sheet for 31 patients. Table 1 describes pre- vs post- outcomes in the analysis population (n=21). Qualitatively, 5 patients/caregivers appreciated simple language, prognostic information, and digital and physical formats to share; 3 hospitalists and 5 oncologists reported the sheet was easy to use and helped communicate difficult information. Conclusions: We developed a well-received multimodal intervention associated with increased written communication of key cancer information. Future directions include dissemination to other specialties and evaluation of patient-centered outcomes. Change in discharge information content pre- vs post-intervention. Information Element Pren=30 Postn=21 Mention of Cancer* 53% 86% Type 37% 62% Explanation of Cancer 17% 38% Treatment 33% 48% Stage 23% 48% Prognosis* 0% 33% Next Steps 100% 95% *p<0.05.