9026 Background: Integrating specialty palliative care (SPC) improves outcomes for patients with advanced cancer, yet effective collaboration requires a shared understanding of the clinical condition. Oncologists report that SPC professionals lack familiarity with new oncologic therapies and their implications for prognosis and decision-making—a gap that can hinder the quality and timing of communication amongst providers as well as goals of care conversations with patients and surrogates. Addressing this gap may enhance the value of SPC consultations and support more aligned co-management of patients with advanced malignancies. Objective: To design, implement, and evaluate an interdisciplinary oncology curriculum for SPC health science professionals (HSPs) at a single institution, with the goal of enhancing SPC’s knowledge and confidence in caring for patients with advanced solid-tumor malignancies. Methods: An informal needs assessment was conducted with oncologists and palliative care physicians to inform content development. The topics identified to discuss included oncologic terminology, therapeutics, side effects, and disease trajectories for breast, lung, colon, and pancreatic cancer. The curriculum comprised five synchronous virtual sessions delivered over five months. Sessions incorporated active learning strategies grounded in principles of Andragogy and Self-Determination Theory. Medical oncologists reviewed content and participated in sessions. Electronic flashcards were distributed to provide learners asynchronous background knowledge and for post-session reviews. A paired pre/post survey assessed knowledge (via 19 multiple-choice questions for physicians, APPs, and pharmacists) and SPC’s attitudes (via 5-point Likert scale). Results: Of 79 invited SPC HSPs across nine sites, 51 participated: 17 APPs, 26 physicians, 1 pharmacist, 7 social workers, and 1 chaplain. 87% of the participants attended at least 4 of the 5 curriculum sessions. 67% of the participants utilized the flashcards. Among the physicians, APPs, and pharmacists completing knowledge assessments (pretest n= 42, posttest n= 35), mean scores improved from 53.9% (SD 13.6) to 67.8% (SD 13.1), p < 0.001. Confidence in applying oncology concepts increased from 2.7 (0.8) to 3.5 (0.5), p < 0.001. Perceived importance of this education remained high throughout (pre 4.2 0.6, post 4.1 0.8, p = 0.609). Conclusions: This oncologist-informed curriculum significantly improved SPC’s oncology knowledge and confidence. By equipping specialty palliative care teams with stronger oncologic foundations, this curriculum offers a scalable approach to enhancing interdisciplinary collaboration—potentially improving consultation quality, communication, and shared decision-making for patients with advanced cancer.
Ramsey et al. (Thu,) studied this question.