Program Profile

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Supporting meaningful research that has a positive impact on the health and quality of life of veterans is a priority of the US Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Research and Development.¹ For nearly a century, VA researchers have been conducting high quality studies. To continue this trajectory, it is imperative to attract, train, and retain exceptional investigators while nurturing their development throughout their careers.²

Mentorship is defined as guidance provided by an experienced and trusted party to another (usually junior) individual with the intent of helping the person succeed. It benefits the mentee, mentor, and their institutions.³ Mentorship is crucial for personal and professional development as well as productivity, which may help reduce clinician burnout.^4-7 Conversely, a lack of mentorship could have negative effects on work satisfaction and stagnate career progression.⁸

Mentorship is vital for developing and advancing a VA investigator’s research agenda. Funding, grant writing, and research design were among the most discussed topics in a large comprehensive mentorship program for academic faculty.⁹ However, there are several known barriers to effective research mentorship; among them include a lack of resources, time constraints, and competing clinical priorities.^10,11

Finding time for effective one-on-one research mentoring is difficult within the time constraints of clinical duties; a group mentorship model may help overcome this barrier. Group mentorship can aid in personal and professional development because no single mentor can effectively meet every mentoring need of an individual.¹² Group mentorship also allows for the exchange of ideas among individuals with different backgrounds and the ability to utilize the strengths of each member of the group. For example, a member may have methodological expertise, while another may be skilled in grantsmanship. A team of mentors may be more beneficial for both the mentors (eg, establish a more manageable workload) and the mentee (eg, gains a broader perspective of expertise) when compared to having a single mentor.³

Peer mentorship within the group setting may also yield additional benefits. For example, having a supportive peer group may help reduce stress levels and burnout, while also improving overall well-being.^3,13 Formal mentorship programs do not frequently discuss concerns such as work-life balance, so including peers as mentors may help fill this void.⁹ Peer mentorship has also been found to be beneficial in providing mentees with pooled resources and shared learning.^12,13 This article describes the components, benefits, impacts, and challenges of a group research mentorship program for VA clinicians interested in conducting VA-relevant research.

Program Description

The VA Clinical Research Mentorship Program was initiated at the VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System (VAAAHS) in October 2015 by the Chief of Medicine to assist VA clinician investigators with developing and submitting VA clinical science and health services research grant applications. The program offers group and one-on-one consultation services through the expertise of 2 experienced investigators/faculty mentors who also serve as program directors, each of whom devote about 3 to 5 hours per month to activities associated with the mentorship program (eg, attending the meeting, reviewing materials sent by mentees, and one-on-one discussions with mentees).

The program also fostered peer-led mentorship. This encourages all attendees to provide feedback during group sessions and communication by mentees outside the group sessions. An experienced project manager serves as program coordinator and contributes about 4 hours per month for activities such as attending, scheduling, and sending reminders for each meeting, distributing handouts, reviewing materials, and answering mentee’s questions via email. A statistician and additional research staff (ie, an epidemiologist and research assistant) do not attend the recurring meetings, but are available for offline consultation as needed. The program runs on a 12-month cycle with regular meetings occurring twice monthly during the 9-month academic period. Resources to support the program, primarily program director(s) and project coordinator effort, are provided by the Chief of Medicine and through the VAAAHS affiliated VA Health Systems Research (formerly Health Services Research & Development) Center of Innovation.

Invitations for new mentees are sent annually. Mentees expressing interest in the program outside of its annual recruitment period are evaluated for inclusion on a rolling basis. Recruitment begins with the program coordinator sending email notifications to all VAAAHS Medicine Service faculty, section chiefs, and division chiefs at the VAAAHS academic affiliate. Recipients are encouraged to distribute the announcement to eligible applicants and refer them to the application materials for entry consideration into the program. The application consists of the applicant’s curriculum vitae and a 1-page summary that includes a description of their research area of interest, how it is relevant to the VA, in addition to an idea for a research study, its potential significance, and proposed methodology. Applicant materials are reviewed by the program coordinator and program directors. The applicants are evaluated using a simple scoring approach that focuses on the applicant’s research area and agenda, past research training, past research productivity, potential for obtaining VA funding, and whether they have sufficient research time.

Program eligibility initially required being a physician with ≥ 1/8 VA appointment from the Medicine Service. However, clinicians with clinical appointments from other VA services are also accepted for participation as needed. Applicants must have previous research experience and have a career goal to obtain external funding for conducting and publishing original research. Those who have previously served as a principal investigator on a funded VA grant proposal are not eligible as new applicants but can remain in the program as peer mentors. The number of annual applicants varies and ranges from 1 to 11; on average, about 90% of applicants receive invitations to join the program.

Sessions

The program holds recurring meetings twice monthly for 1 hour during the 9-month academic year. However, program directors are available year-round, and mentees are encouraged to communicate questions or concerns via email during nonacademic months. Prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, all meetings were held in-person. However, the group pivoted to virtual meetings and continues to utilize this format. The dedicated program coordinator is responsible for coordinating meetings and distributing meeting materials.

Each session is informal, flexible, and supportive. Attendance is not enforced, and mentees are allowed to join meetings as their schedules permit; however, program directors and program coordinator attend each meeting. In advance of each session, the program coordinator sends out a call for agenda items to all active members invited to discuss any research related items. Each mentee presents their ideas to lead the discussion for their portion of the meeting with no defined format required.

A variety of topics are covered including, but not limited to: (1) grant-specific concerns (eg, questions related to specific aim pages, grantsmanship, postsubmission comments from reviewers, or postaward logistics); (2) research procedures (eg, questions related to methodological practices or institutional review board concerns); (3) manuscript or presentation preparation; and (4) careerrelated issues. The program coordinator distributes handouts prior to meetings and mentees may record their presentations. These handouts may include, but are not limited to, specific aims pages, analytical plans, grant solicitations, and PowerPoint presentations. If a resource that can benefit the entire group is mentioned during the meeting, the program coordinator is responsible for distribution.

The program follows a group facilitated discussion format. Program directors facilitate each meeting, but input is encouraged from all attendees. This model allows for mentees to learn from the faculty mentors as well as peer mentees in a simultaneous and efficient fashion. Group discussions foster collective problem solving, peer support, and resource sharing that would not be possible through individualized mentorship. Participants have access to varied expertise during each session which reduces the need to seek specialized help elsewhere. Participants are also encouraged to contact the program directors or research staff for consultation as needed. Some one-on-one consultations have transitioned to a more sustained and ongoing mentorship relationship between a program director and mentee, but most are often brief email exchanges or a single meeting.

Participants

Since its inception in 2015, 35 clinicians have enrolled in the program. The mentees are equally distributed by sex and practice in a variety of disciplines including gastroenterology, hematology/oncology, cardiology, and general medicine (Table 1). Mentees have submitted 33 grant proposals addressing a variety of health care issues to a diverse group of federal and nonfederal funding agencies (Table 2). As of May 15, 2024, 19 (58%) of the submitted applications have been funded.

Many factors contribute to a successfully funded grant application, and several mentees report that participating in the mentorship program was helpful. For example, a mentee became the first lead investigator for a VA Cooperative Studies Program funded at VAAAHS. The VA Cooperative Studies Program, a division of the Office of Research and Development, plans and conducts large multicenter clinical trials and epidemiological studies within the VA via a vast network of clinician investigators, statisticians, and other key research experts.¹⁴

Several program mentees have also received VA Clinical Science Research and Development Career Development Awards. The VA Career Development program supports investigators during their early research careers with a goal of retaining talented researchers committed to improving the health and care of veterans.¹⁵

Survey Responses

Mentee productivity and updates are tracked through direct mentee input, as requested by the program coordinator. Since 2022, participants could complete an end-of-year survey based on an assessment tool used in a VAAAHS nonresearch mentorship program.¹⁶ The survey, distributed to mentees and program directors, requests feedback on logistics (eg, if the meeting was a good use of time and barriers to attendance); perceptions of effectiveness (eg, ability to discuss agenda items, helpfulness with setting and reaching research goals, and quality of mentors’ feedback); and the impact of the mentoring program on work satisfaction and clinician burnout. Respondents are also encouraged to leave open-ended qualitative feedback.

To date the survey has elicited 19 responses. Seventeen (89%) indicated that they agree or strongly agree the meetings were an effective use of their time and 11 (58%) indicated that they were able to discuss all or most of the items they wanted to during the meeting. Sixteen respondents (84%) agreed the program helped them set and achieve their research goals and 14 respondents (74%) agreed the feedback they received during the meeting was specific, actionable, and focused on how to improve their research agenda. Seventeen respondents (89%) agreed the program increased their work satisfaction, while 13 respondents (68%) felt the program reduced levels of clinician burnout.

As attendance was not mandatory, the survey asked participants how often they attended meetings during the past year. Responses were mixed: 4 (21%) respondents attended regularly (12 to 16 times per year) and 8 (42%) attended most sessions (8 to 11 times per year). Noted barriers to attendance included conflicts with patient care activities and conflicts with other high priority meetings.

Mentees also provided qualitive feedback regarding the program. They highlighted the supportive environment, valuable expertise of the mentors, and usefulness of obtaining tailored feedback from the group. “This group is an amazing resource to anyone developing a research career,” a mentee noted, adding that the program directors “fostered an incredibly supportive group where research ideas and methodology can be explored in a nonthreatening and creative environment.”

Conclusions

This mentorship program aims to help aspiring VA clinician investigators develop and submit competitive research grant applications. The addition of the program to the existing robust research environments at VAAAHS and its academic affiliate appears to have contributed to this success, with 58% of applications submitted by program mentees receiving funding.

In addition to funding success, we also found that most participants have a favorable impression of the program. Of the participants who responded to the program evaluation survey, nearly all indicated the program was an effective use of their time. The program also appeared to increase work satisfaction and reduce levels of clinician burnout. Barriers to attendance were also noted, with the most frequent being scheduling conflicts.

This program’s format includes facilitated group discussion as well as peer mentorship. This collaborative structure allows for an efficient and rich learning experience. Feedback from multiple perspectives encourages natural networking and relationship building. Incorporating the collective wisdom of the faculty mentors and peer mentees is beneficial; it not only empowers the mentees but also enriches the experience for the mentors. This program can serve as a model for other VA facilities—or non-VA academic medical centers—to enhance their research programs.

Background

Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.

Methods

All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).

Discussion

Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).

Background

Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.

Methods

All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).

Discussion

Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).

Background

Many Veterans with cancer experience substantial side effects related to their chemotherapy treatments resulting in impaired quality of life. Prompt management of such symptoms can improve adherence to therapy and potentially clinical outcomes. Previous studies in cancer patients have shown that mobile apps can improve symptom management and quality of life, though there are limited studies using oncology-focused apps in the VA population. The VA Annie App is an optimal platform for Veterans since it relies primarily on SMS-based texting and not on internet capabilities. This would address several well-known barriers to Veterans’ care access (limited internet connectivity, transportation) and enhance symptom reporting between infrequent provider visits. Providers can securely collect app responses within the VA system and there is already considerable VA developer experience with designing complex protocols. The OCTAGON project (Optimizing Cancer Care with Telehealth Assessment for Goal-Oriented Needs) will have the following goals: 1) To develop Annie App protocols to assist in management of cancer and/or chemotherapy-related symptoms (OCTAGON intervention), 2) To examine initial acceptability, feasibility, and Veteran-reported outcomes, 3) To explore short term effects on the utilization of VA encounters.

Methods

All patients who are primarily being managed at the VA Ann Arbor for their cancer therapy and are receiving one of the following therapies are considered eligible: EGFR inhibitors (lung cancer), antiandrogen therapies (prostate cancer), BTK inhibitors (lymphoma).

Discussion

Drug-specific protocols will be developed in conjunction with clinical pharmacists with experience in outpatient oral chemotherapy toxicity monitoring. Questions will have either a Yes/No, or numerical response. Interventions will be administered weekly for the first 3 months after enrollment, then decrease to monthly for a total of 6 months on protocol. Patients will be directed to contact their providers with any significant changes in tolerability. Planned data collected will include intervention question responses, adverse events, demographics, diagnosis, disease response, hospitalizations, treatment dose reductions or interruptions, provider and staff utilization. Survey responses to assess treatment acceptability (Treatment Acceptability/Adherence Scale), usability (System Usability Scale), general health (PROMIS-GH), and patient satisfaction will also be collected. Funding: VA Telehealth Research and Innovation for Veterans with Cancer (THRIVE).

Background

From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.

Methods

DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).

Conclusions

DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.

Background

From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.

Methods

DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).

Conclusions

DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.

Background

From 2000-2022 there were over 200 new drug and over 500 indication approvals specific to oncology. The rate of approvals has increased exponentially, making it difficult to maintain an up-to-date, standardized practice. Nationally, Veterans Affairs (VA) formulary decisions can take time given a lengthy approval process. Locally, the need was identified to incorporate new drugs and data into practice more rapidly. When bringing requests to the facility Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committee, it was recognized that the membership consisting of non-oncology practitioners did not allow for meaningful discussion of utilization. In 2017, a dedicated oncology drug review committee (DRC) comprised of oncology practitioners and a facility formulary representative was created as a P&T workgroup. Purpose: Evaluate and describe the utility of forming a local oncology DRC to incorporate new drugs and data into practice.

Methods

DRC minutes from December 2017 to May 2023 were reviewed. Discussion items were categorized into type of review. Date of local review was compared to national formulary criteria for use publication dates, and date of FDA approval for new drugs or publication date for new data, where applicable. Items were excluded if crucial information was missing from minutes. Descriptive statistics were used.

Results

Over 65 months, 38 meetings were held. Thirty total members include: pharmacists, physicians, fellows, and advanced practice providers. Items reviewed included: 36 new drugs (ND), 36 new indications/data (NI), 14 institutional preferences, 10 new dosage form/biosimilars, 4 drug shortages and 2 others. The median time from ND approval to discussion was 3 months (n= 36, IQR 3-6) and NI from publication was 3 months (n=30, IQR 1-8). Nearly all (34/36, 94%) ND were reviewed prior to national review. Local review was a median of 7 months before national, with 11 drugs currently having no published national criteria for use (n=25, IQR 2-12).

Conclusions

DRC formation has enabled faster incorporation of new drugs/indications into practice. It has also created an appropriate forum for in-depth utilization discussions, pharmacoeconomic stewardship, and sharing of formulary and medication related information. VA Health Systems could consider implementing similar committees to review and implement up-to-date oncology practices.

Background

In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.

Methods

By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.

Discussion

We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.

Methods

By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.

Discussion

We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

In December of 2023, the Survivorship Coordinator at VA Connecticut spearheaded a multidisciplinary collaboration to offer PHASER testing to all patients newly diagnosed with a GI malignancy and/ or patients with a known GI malignancy and a new recurrence that might necessitate chemotherapy. The PHASER panel includes two genes that are involved in the metabolism of two commonly used chemotherapy drugs in this patient population.

Methods

By identifying patients who may have impaired metabolism prior to starting treatment, the doses of the appropriate drugs, 5FU and irinotecan, can be adjusted if appropriate, leading to less toxicity for patients while on treatment and fewer lingering side-effects from treatment. We are tracking all of the patients who are being tested and will report quarterly to the Cancer Committee on any findings with a specific focus on whether any dose-adjustments were made to Veteran’s chemotherapy regimens as the result of this testing.

Discussion

We have developed a systematic process centered around GI tumor boards to ensure that testing is done at least two weeks prior to planned chemotherapy start-date to ensure adequate time for testing results to be received. We have developed a systematic process whereby primary care providers and pharmacists are alerted to the PHASER results and patients’ non-oncology medications are reviewed for any recommended adjustments. We will have 9 months of data to report on at AVAHO as well as lessons learned from this new quality improvement process. Despite access to pharmacogenomic testing at VA, there can be variations between VA sites in terms of uptake of this new testing. VA Connecticut’s PHASER testing initiative for patients with GI malignancies is a model that can be replicated throughout the VA. This initiative is part of a broader focus at VA Connecticut on “pre-habilitation” and pre-treatment testing that is designed to reduce toxicity of treatment and improve quality of life for cancer survivors.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively

Results

The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively

Results

The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.

Background

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer related deaths in the United States. The impact of treatment delay proves difficult to quantify, but increased time to treatment and subsequent progression can limit a patient’s chance for curative intent therapy. Reducing time to treatment aims to improve patient outcome and experience. This study aims to identify the median timeframes that occur in the diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer patients within a single Veteran Affair (VA) Medical Center.

Methods

A retrospective chart review was conducted on 123 new primary lung cancer cases detected by imaging between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 within a single VA medical center. Exclusions were preexisting lung cancer or other malignancy. The following data was collected: time to PET scan, referrals, and treatment initiation. KruskalWallis test and Mann-Whitney U test was employed to assess differences in treatment times based on treatment modality and disease stage, respectively

Results

The median time from first abnormal image to PET scan was 26 days. The median time from initial abnormal scan to treatment was 91 days. Treatment initiation was significantly shorter in late-state disease (IV, extensive stage) at 57 days compared to early-stage disease (I-III, limited stage) at 98.5 days (p= 0.00008). There was a difference in the median time from abnormal scan to treatment initiation based on treatment modality: chemotherapy, radiation therapy, and surgical intervention occurred at 60 days, 86 days, and 98 days, respectively (p= 0.005).

Conclusions

At our institution, patients with latestage lung cancer initiate therapy significantly faster than those diagnosed with early-stage cancer. We feel this is largely due to complex, multidisciplinary coordination of early-stage disease, in contrast to those diagnosed at later stage disease who are treated in a palliative, systemic fashion. This study was instrumental at identifying key areas along the process that can be improved upon. Based on this data, changes will be implemented and studied in effort to shorten time to treatment.

Background

Despite the benefit of cancer clinical trials (CTs) in increasing medical knowledge and broadening treatment options, VA oncologists face challenges referring or enrolling Veterans in CTs including identifying appropriate CTs and navigating the referral process especially for non-VA CTs. To address these challenges, the VA National Oncology Program (NOP) provided guidance regarding community care referral for CT participation and established the Cancer Clinical Trial Nurse Navigation (CTN) service.

Methods

Referrals to CTN occur via Precision Oncology consult or email to CancerClinicalTrialsNavigation@va.gov. The CT nurse navigator educates Veterans about CTs, identifies CTs for Veterans based on disease and geographic area, provides written summaries to Veterans and VA oncologists, and facilitates communication between clinical and research teams. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of Veterans referred to CTN and results of the CTN searches. A semi-structured survey was used to assess satisfaction from 50 VA oncologists who had used the CTN service.

Results

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 72 Veterans were referred to CTN. Patient characteristics include male (94%), non-rural (65%), median age 66.5 (range 27-80), self-reported race as White (74%) and Black (22%), cancer type as solid tumor (73%) and blood cancer (27%). The median number of CTs found for each Veteran was two (range 0 - 12). No referred Veterans enrolled in CTs, with the most common causes being CT ineligibility and desire to receive standard therapy in the VA. Twenty oncologists were educated about NOP CT guidance. The response rate to the feedback survey was modest (34%) but 94% of survey respondents rated their overall satisfaction as highly satisfied or satisfied.

Conclusions

The CTN assists Veterans and VA oncologists in connecting with CTs. The high satisfaction rate and ability to reach a racially and geographically diverse Veteran population are measures of early program success. By lowering the barriers for VA oncologists to consider CTs for their patients, the CTN expects increased and earlier referrals of Veterans, which may improve CT eligibility and participation. Future efforts to provide disease-directed education about CTs to Veterans and VA oncologists is intended to encourage early consideration of CTs.

Background

Despite the benefit of cancer clinical trials (CTs) in increasing medical knowledge and broadening treatment options, VA oncologists face challenges referring or enrolling Veterans in CTs including identifying appropriate CTs and navigating the referral process especially for non-VA CTs. To address these challenges, the VA National Oncology Program (NOP) provided guidance regarding community care referral for CT participation and established the Cancer Clinical Trial Nurse Navigation (CTN) service.

Methods

Referrals to CTN occur via Precision Oncology consult or email to CancerClinicalTrialsNavigation@va.gov. The CT nurse navigator educates Veterans about CTs, identifies CTs for Veterans based on disease and geographic area, provides written summaries to Veterans and VA oncologists, and facilitates communication between clinical and research teams. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of Veterans referred to CTN and results of the CTN searches. A semi-structured survey was used to assess satisfaction from 50 VA oncologists who had used the CTN service.

Results

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 72 Veterans were referred to CTN. Patient characteristics include male (94%), non-rural (65%), median age 66.5 (range 27-80), self-reported race as White (74%) and Black (22%), cancer type as solid tumor (73%) and blood cancer (27%). The median number of CTs found for each Veteran was two (range 0 - 12). No referred Veterans enrolled in CTs, with the most common causes being CT ineligibility and desire to receive standard therapy in the VA. Twenty oncologists were educated about NOP CT guidance. The response rate to the feedback survey was modest (34%) but 94% of survey respondents rated their overall satisfaction as highly satisfied or satisfied.

Conclusions

The CTN assists Veterans and VA oncologists in connecting with CTs. The high satisfaction rate and ability to reach a racially and geographically diverse Veteran population are measures of early program success. By lowering the barriers for VA oncologists to consider CTs for their patients, the CTN expects increased and earlier referrals of Veterans, which may improve CT eligibility and participation. Future efforts to provide disease-directed education about CTs to Veterans and VA oncologists is intended to encourage early consideration of CTs.

Background

Despite the benefit of cancer clinical trials (CTs) in increasing medical knowledge and broadening treatment options, VA oncologists face challenges referring or enrolling Veterans in CTs including identifying appropriate CTs and navigating the referral process especially for non-VA CTs. To address these challenges, the VA National Oncology Program (NOP) provided guidance regarding community care referral for CT participation and established the Cancer Clinical Trial Nurse Navigation (CTN) service.

Methods

Referrals to CTN occur via Precision Oncology consult or email to CancerClinicalTrialsNavigation@va.gov. The CT nurse navigator educates Veterans about CTs, identifies CTs for Veterans based on disease and geographic area, provides written summaries to Veterans and VA oncologists, and facilitates communication between clinical and research teams. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize characteristics of Veterans referred to CTN and results of the CTN searches. A semi-structured survey was used to assess satisfaction from 50 VA oncologists who had used the CTN service.

Results

Between June 2023 and May 2024, 72 Veterans were referred to CTN. Patient characteristics include male (94%), non-rural (65%), median age 66.5 (range 27-80), self-reported race as White (74%) and Black (22%), cancer type as solid tumor (73%) and blood cancer (27%). The median number of CTs found for each Veteran was two (range 0 - 12). No referred Veterans enrolled in CTs, with the most common causes being CT ineligibility and desire to receive standard therapy in the VA. Twenty oncologists were educated about NOP CT guidance. The response rate to the feedback survey was modest (34%) but 94% of survey respondents rated their overall satisfaction as highly satisfied or satisfied.

Conclusions

The CTN assists Veterans and VA oncologists in connecting with CTs. The high satisfaction rate and ability to reach a racially and geographically diverse Veteran population are measures of early program success. By lowering the barriers for VA oncologists to consider CTs for their patients, the CTN expects increased and earlier referrals of Veterans, which may improve CT eligibility and participation. Future efforts to provide disease-directed education about CTs to Veterans and VA oncologists is intended to encourage early consideration of CTs.

Background

Oral anti-cancer therapies have quickly moved to the forefront of cancer treatment for several oncologic disease states. While these treatments have led to improvements in prognosis and ease of administration, many of these agents carry the risk of serious short- and long-term toxicities affecting the cardiovascular system. This prompted the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) to release special guidance focused on cardiovascular monitoring strategies for anti-cancer agents. The primary objective of this retrospective review was to evaluate compliance with cardiovascular monitoring based on JAHA cardio-oncologic guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess disparities in cardiovascular monitoring based on markers of equity such as race/ ethnicity, rurality, socioeconomic status and gender.

Methods

Patients who initiated pazopanib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, axitinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, ponatinib or everolimus between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 at a VHA VISN 12 site with oncology services were followed forward until treatment discontinuation or 12 months of therapy had been completed. Data was acquired utilizing the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The following cardiovascular monitoring markers were recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12 after initiation anti-cancer therapy: blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, ECG and echocardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used to examine all continuous variables, while frequencies were used to examine categorical variables. Univariate statistics were performed on all items respectively.

Results

A total of 219 patients were identified initiating pre-specified oral anti-cancer therapies during the study time period. Of these, a total of n=145 met study inclusion criteria. 97% were male (n=141), 80% (n=116) had a racial background of white, 36% (n=52) live in rural or highly rural locations and 23% (n=34) lived in a high poverty area. Based on the primary endpoint, the mean compliance with recommended cardiovascular monitoring was 44.95% [IQR 12]. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular monitoring based on equity.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of cardiovascular monitoring markers recommended by JAHA guidance is low. We plan to evaluate methods to increase these measures, utilizing clinical pharmacy provider support throughout VISN 12.

Background

Oral anti-cancer therapies have quickly moved to the forefront of cancer treatment for several oncologic disease states. While these treatments have led to improvements in prognosis and ease of administration, many of these agents carry the risk of serious short- and long-term toxicities affecting the cardiovascular system. This prompted the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) to release special guidance focused on cardiovascular monitoring strategies for anti-cancer agents. The primary objective of this retrospective review was to evaluate compliance with cardiovascular monitoring based on JAHA cardio-oncologic guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess disparities in cardiovascular monitoring based on markers of equity such as race/ ethnicity, rurality, socioeconomic status and gender.

Methods

Patients who initiated pazopanib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, axitinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, ponatinib or everolimus between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 at a VHA VISN 12 site with oncology services were followed forward until treatment discontinuation or 12 months of therapy had been completed. Data was acquired utilizing the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The following cardiovascular monitoring markers were recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12 after initiation anti-cancer therapy: blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, ECG and echocardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used to examine all continuous variables, while frequencies were used to examine categorical variables. Univariate statistics were performed on all items respectively.

Results

A total of 219 patients were identified initiating pre-specified oral anti-cancer therapies during the study time period. Of these, a total of n=145 met study inclusion criteria. 97% were male (n=141), 80% (n=116) had a racial background of white, 36% (n=52) live in rural or highly rural locations and 23% (n=34) lived in a high poverty area. Based on the primary endpoint, the mean compliance with recommended cardiovascular monitoring was 44.95% [IQR 12]. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular monitoring based on equity.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of cardiovascular monitoring markers recommended by JAHA guidance is low. We plan to evaluate methods to increase these measures, utilizing clinical pharmacy provider support throughout VISN 12.

Background

Oral anti-cancer therapies have quickly moved to the forefront of cancer treatment for several oncologic disease states. While these treatments have led to improvements in prognosis and ease of administration, many of these agents carry the risk of serious short- and long-term toxicities affecting the cardiovascular system. This prompted the Journal of the American Heart Association (JAHA) to release special guidance focused on cardiovascular monitoring strategies for anti-cancer agents. The primary objective of this retrospective review was to evaluate compliance with cardiovascular monitoring based on JAHA cardio-oncologic guidelines. The secondary objective was to assess disparities in cardiovascular monitoring based on markers of equity such as race/ ethnicity, rurality, socioeconomic status and gender.

Methods

Patients who initiated pazopanib, cabozantinib, lenvatinib, axitinib, regorafenib, nilotinib, ibrutinib, sorafenib, sunitinib, ponatinib or everolimus between January 1, 2019 and December 31, 2022 at a VHA VISN 12 site with oncology services were followed forward until treatment discontinuation or 12 months of therapy had been completed. Data was acquired utilizing the VA Informatics and Computing Infrastructure (VINCI) and the Corporate Data Warehouse (CDW). The following cardiovascular monitoring markers were recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 9 and 12 after initiation anti-cancer therapy: blood pressure, blood glucose, cholesterol, ECG and echocardiogram. Descriptive statistics were used to examine all continuous variables, while frequencies were used to examine categorical variables. Univariate statistics were performed on all items respectively.

Results

A total of 219 patients were identified initiating pre-specified oral anti-cancer therapies during the study time period. Of these, a total of n=145 met study inclusion criteria. 97% were male (n=141), 80% (n=116) had a racial background of white, 36% (n=52) live in rural or highly rural locations and 23% (n=34) lived in a high poverty area. Based on the primary endpoint, the mean compliance with recommended cardiovascular monitoring was 44.95% [IQR 12]. There was no statistically significant difference in cardiovascular monitoring based on equity.

Conclusions

Overall uptake of cardiovascular monitoring markers recommended by JAHA guidance is low. We plan to evaluate methods to increase these measures, utilizing clinical pharmacy provider support throughout VISN 12.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.

Background

This program implements a prospective surveillance physical therapy program to prioritize the well-being and quality of life of individuals affected by cancer, particularly veterans, by overcoming barriers associated with the prospective surveillance model (PSM) and lessening negative treatment effects. Recent cancer care research emphasizes the significance of PSM and prehabilitation in improving outcomes and mitigating the adverse effects of cancer and its treatments. However, barriers hinder PSM implementation despite its established efficacy in managing cancer-related dysfunctions. Notably, current cancer treatment lacked physical therapy (PT) consultation for cancer rehabilitation.

Methods

A new care model was developed, incorporating PT consultation at cancer diagnosis for veterans with cancer. Comprehensive clinical education and necessary equipment were provided to PTs for high-quality treatment. A cancer rehabilitation guidebook was created and distributed to educate patients and cancer providers in VA hospital and community-based outpatient clinics. Veterans with cancer diagnoses have access to physical therapy services at any time during cancer treatment and survivorship. Data were collected and analyzed to identify trends in cancer rehab PT consults.

Results

The biggest barrier to PSM was a lack of knowledge about its efficacy and available services. Before FY23, no cancer rehab PT consults were conducted. FY23, 47 PT consults were conducted, increasing to 79 consults in FY24 through 05/31/24.

Conclusions

PT services are needed throughout the cancer journey for veterans, from diagnosis to treatment and survivorship. This project demonstrates the feasibility of developing a PSM with a cancer rehabilitation PT consult. Utilizing established surveillance intervals can minimize cancer-related sequelae. Other VA medical centers can adopt similar PSMs in PT to improve functional outcomes and minimize the negative impacts of cancer and its treatments.