Trainee-Led Quality Improvement Project to Improve Fertility Preservation Counseling for Patients With Cancer

PURPOSE Oncofertility counseling regarding the reproductive risks associated with cancer therapy is essential for quality cancer care. We aimed to increase the rate of oncofertility counseling for patients of reproductive age (18-40 years) with cancer who were initiating systemic therapy at the Johns Hopkins Cancer Center from a baseline rate of 37% (25 of 68, June 2019-January 2020) to 70% by February 2021. METHODS We formed an interprofessional, multidisciplinary team as part of the ASCO Quality Training Program. We obtained data from the electronic medical record and verified data with patients by phone. We surveyed patients, oncologists, and fertility specialists to identify barriers. After considering a prioritization matrix, we implemented Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles. RESULTS We identified the following improvement opportunities: (1) oncologist self-reported lack of knowledge about counseling and local fertility preservation options and (2) lack of a standardized referral mechanism to fertility services. During the first PDSA cycle (February 2020-August 2020, disrupted by COVID-19), we introduced the initiative to increase oncofertility counseling at faculty meetings. From September 2020 to November 2020, we implemented a second PDSA cycle: (1) educating and presenting the initiative at Oncology Grand Rounds, (2) distributing informative pamphlets to oncologists and patients, and (3) implementing an electronic medical record order set. In the third PDSA cycle (December 2020-February 2021), we redesigned the order set to add information (eg, contact information for fertility coordinator) to the patient after-visit summary. Postimplementation (September 2020-February 2021), counseling rates increased from 37% to 81% (38 of 47). CONCLUSION We demonstrate how a trainee-led, patient-centered initiative improved oncofertility care. Ongoing work focuses on ensuring sustainability and assessing the quality of counseling.

[1]  F. Lundberg,et al.  Reproductive Outcomes After Breast Cancer in Women With vs Without Fertility Preservation , 2020, JAMA oncology.

[2]  F. Amant,et al.  Fertility preservation and post-treatment pregnancies in post-pubertal cancer patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines. , 2020, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[3]  R. Ramasamy,et al.  Evaluation of Reported Fertility Preservation Counseling Before Chemotherapy Using the Quality Oncology Practice Initiative Survey , 2020, JAMA network open.

[4]  J. Hooper,et al.  Association of Impaired Spermatogenesis With the Use of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in Patients With Metastatic Melanoma. , 2020, JAMA oncology.

[5]  E. Kennedy,et al.  Clinicians’ Perspectives on Barriers to Discussing Infertility and Fertility Preservation With Young Women With Cancer , 2019, JAMA network open.

[6]  D. Blayney,et al.  Using technology to improve quality metric adherence. , 2016, Journal of Clinical Oncology.

[7]  P. Katz,et al.  Pretreatment fertility counseling and fertility preservation improve quality of life in reproductive age women with cancer , 2012, Cancer.

[8]  Lindsey M. King,et al.  Discussion of fertility preservation with newly diagnosed patients: oncologists’ views , 2007, Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice.

[9]  R. Seufert,et al.  The effect of cancer treatment on female fertility and strategies for preserving fertility. , 2007, European journal of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive biology.