Home
This site is intended for healthcare professionals

ALK Ready: Clinical Readiness & Support: Module 3 Effective patient and care team communication

Share

Description

Funding Disclosure

This educational activity is supported by an independent educational grant from Pfizer. Pfizer was not involved in the development of content or selection of faculty for this educational activity.

This is Module 3 of a Three-part expert roundtable discussion. Module 1 and Module 2 are accessible here.

Activity Description

In the final module, Dr Urs Weber and Dr Kyle Concannon will explore practical strategies for engaging patients and care partners as active participants in symptom monitoring and treatment decision-making. The session will examine accessible communication tools, structured reporting pathways, and multidisciplinary workflows that support timely recognition and management of adverse events. Faculty will also discuss the importance of regularly reassessing patient preferences and incorporating shared decision-making into ongoing treatment planning to ensure therapy remains aligned with individual goals and quality-of-life priorities.

Prefer to read instead? Read our Key Clinical Summary here

Target Audience

This activity has been designed to meet the educational needs of Multidisciplinary team members involved in ALK-positive NSCLC care

Faculty Disclosure Statement / Conflict of Interest

Disclosures are made in accordance with ACCME standards to ensure transparency and objectivity in continuing education.

Faculty

Kyle Concannon, MD

Dr. Concannon is Assistant Professor of Medical Oncology at the University of Colorado. His laboratory research focuses on overcoming treatment resistance in oncogene-driven lung cancers. Dr. Concannon collaborates with multidisciplinary teams to provide individualized care aimed at improving survival and quality of life. He also actively supports the cancer community as a co-host of the Cracking Cancer podcast

Kyle Concannon, MD, has disclosed financial interests or relationships within the past 24 months with the following ineligible companies:

Consultant for AstraZeneca and Boehringer Ingelheim

Kyle Concannon, MD, does not intend to reference any unlabeled or unapproved uses of products during the presentation

Urs Weber, MD

Dr. Weber is an Assistant Professor of Thoracic Oncology at the Medical University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus. He earned his MD from the Yale University School of Medicine and holds board certifications in Internal Medicine and Medical Oncology. His clinical and research work focuses on thoracic oncology, with a specialization in cancer therapeutics and patient outcomes.

Urs Weber, MD, has disclosed financial interests or relationships within the past 24 months with the following ineligible companies:

Consultant for Boehringer Ingelheim, BlossomHill, EMD Serono and Johnson & Johnson

Urs Weber, MD, does not intend to reference any unlabeled or unapproved uses of products during the presentation

Staff

CCI staff, MedAll staff, and all planners and reviewers have no relevant financial relationships with ineligible companies to disclose.

Accreditation

This continuing education activity will be provided by Current Concepts Institute (CCI) and MedAll. Physicians, Nurse Practitioners, and Physician Assistants will be eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 Credit™; Nurses for ANCC Contact Hours. A statement of participation is available for other healthcare professionals.

Physicians

AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ are available for this activity.

This activity has been planned and implemented in accordance with the accreditation requirements and policies of the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education (ACCME) through the joint providership of Current Concepts Institute and MedAll Education. Current Concepts Institute is accredited by the ACCME to provide continuing medical education for physicians.

Current Concepts Institute designates this online activity a maximum of 0.25 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

Other Professionals

All other health care professionals completing this continuing education activity will be issued a statement of participation indicating the number of hours of continuing education credit. This may be used for professional education CE credit. Please consult your accrediting organization or licensing board for their acceptance of this CE activity.

Participation Costs

There is no cost to participate in this program.

Requirements for Completion

In order to receive credit for this activity, participants must review the content and complete the post-test and evaluation form. Statements of credit are awarded upon successful completion of the post-test and evaluation form.

Launch and Expiration Date: 6 August 2026 – 30 January 2028

Estimated time to complete this activity: 15 minutes

System Requirements

Mobile device (e.g., large-format smart phone; laptop or tablet computer) or desktop computer with a video display of at least 1024 × 768 pixels at 24-bit color depth, capable of connecting to the Internet at broadband or faster speeds, with a current version Internet browser and popular document viewing software (e.g., Microsoft Office, PDF viewer, image viewer) installed. Support for streaming or downloadable audio-visual materials (e.g., streaming MP4, MP3 audio) in hardware and software may be required to view, review, or participate in portions of the program.

Unapproved and/or off-label use disclosure

Current Concepts Institute/MedAll requires CE faculty to disclose to the participants:

1. When products or procedures being discussed are off-label, unlabelled, experimental, and/or investigational (not US Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approved); and

2. Any limitations on the information presented, such as data that are preliminary or that represent ongoing research, interim analyses, and/or unsupported opinion.

Disclaimer

This activity is intended for educational purposes only and does not establish a standard of care or replace clinical judgment. Any therapeutic or diagnostic strategies discussed must be evaluated in the context of each patient’s clinical circumstances, risks, and current evidence.

Learners should consult authoritative clinical guidelines and approved product information when considering treatment decisions.

All materials are used with permission. The views expressed are those of the faculty and do not necessarily reflect those of the accredited providers, MedAll, or any supporters.

Content is accurate as of the date of release.

Similar communities

View all

Similar events and on demand videos

Computer generated transcript

Warning!
The following transcript was generated automatically from the content and has not been checked or corrected manually.

I'd now like to welcome Dr. Kincannon, who will talk to us more about activating early reporting and communication between members of the care team. Thank you, Doctor Weber. And as Doctor Weber mentioned, my name is Doctor Kyle Cuncannon, and I'll be talking about in this section, activating early reporting and care team communication. Clinician perspective, establishing clear reporting thresholds. We want to define immediate call now, red flags on every patient card, new or worsening confusion or behavioral changes, seizure or loss of consciousness, jaundice, fever with abdominal pain would be examples. Define graded call soon items. This could be progressive neuropathy, affecting activities of daily living, persistent vomiting or diarrhea, new palpitations or syncope. And then document thresholds in the chart, give patient card and preferred language, and confirm via a teach pack. Clinician perspective here, the multidisciplinary communication pathway. We have the patient and care provider, sorry, the patient and care partner, nurse triage scripted with brief assessments, oncology clinician deciding whether the whole dose change or if an urgent visit is required, and then we have rapid specialty consults. These could be neurology, hematology, cardiology, ophthalmology, pharmacy, social work, as indicated. Clinician perspective, practical tools to reduce reactive management. We want to provide the patient and care partner with a bilingual one-page escalation card. Use a printed nurse triage script, scheduled proactive calls, for example, on day 3 of week 2, and electronic health record alerts for abnormal test results. Use Teachback to confirm understanding and record the caregiver contract and preferred language. Routine pharmacy med review at initiation on any new symptom call to identify drug-drug interactions. For the patient care partner perspective, how to report changes, scripts, and safety steps. Teach the care partner a simple color script. This is Maria's husband. Today she did X, an example, and now Y or symptom is occurring. Nurse will ask onset, level of alertness, breathing, and medication changes. Explain to care partner immediate safety steps at home, for example, stop driving until cleared, secure hazardous appliances, ensure medication and easy use organizer, and keep emergency contact list visible. Next polling question, for a patient with limited internet access, which combination best supports early reporting? A relying on family to call if hospitalized, B bilingual printed escalation card and scheduled nurse phone check-ins, C, enrollment in electronic PRO portal, or D, waiting for next clinical visit to report symptoms. Thank you all for your responses. Here the correct answer is B, bilingual printed escalation card and scheduled nurse phone check-ins. For our next section here, facilitating preference informed decision making over time, we'll proceed here. The clinician perspective, revisit benefit risk framing over time. Reframe outcomes relative to the patient goals at each visit. Benefits can include tumor control, CNS protection, symptom relief with the risks of cognitive adverse events, hepatotoxicity, neuropathy, or a quality of life impact. Use simple language, expected benefit magnitude, likely timelines, most relevant risks, and then compare options. Continue, reduce, rechallenge or switch against the patient's priorities. Document the rationale and patient preference in the chart to guide future decisions. Clinician perspective here, Process for adapting recommendations as care evolves. Steps at decision points, toxicity progression or life changes. You want to reassess patient priorities and function, present options with pros, cons tailored to those priorities, use a brief decision aid or visual risk benefit table, agree on a time-limited plan and monitoring schedule, and then document the shared decision and contingency plans. Polling question, which single question best elicits a patient's current treatment priority? A, do you prefer pills or infusions? B. What matters most to you now, Staying mentally sharp, avoiding hospital stays, or living as long as possible? C. Can you afford your medications? Or D, do you have a care partner at home? Thank you all for your responses. The correct answer was B. What matters most to you now? Staying mentally sharp, avoiding hospital stays, or living as long as possible. No patient care partner perspectives, eliciting and documenting changing values and tolerance for risk. Ask open concrete questions over time. For example, what is most important to you now? Would you trade some length of response for fewer cognitive side effects? We want to use simple scales, prioritize cognition versus tumor control, encourage patient care partner to flag changes in tolerance, they have increased fatigue, caregiver burden, that might shift choices. Reconfirm decisions after acute events, such as a hospitalization or family changes. Another polling question, if Maria's cognitive symptoms improve, but neuropathy worsens and limits work, what is the most preference informed next step? Is it automatically continue current dose because cancer response matters most? Stop treatment permanently. reassess patient priorities and consider dose reduction or switching agent based on what the patient values most. Or D, refer to palliative care. Thank you all for your responses. The correct answer here is C, reassess patient priorities and consider dose reduction or switching agent based on what the patient values most. All right, how can care teams best equip care partners to objectively track and report subtle personality, word finding, or mood changes that patients may not recognize themselves? Um, so I think the The first point here is to set expectations, right, make patients and their caregivers aware that there are neurocognitive side effects and that we want them to be on the lookout for those things. I think, you know, Especially with sort of more, you know, say minor side effects. You know, they might not be on the forefront of patients' or caregivers' minds unless we prompt them. So I think, you know, setting that expectation up front to be on the lookout for these things and then kind of prompting during future interactions is, is really helpful, you know, if you ever Other thing that can be, I think that we've talked about that can be helpful is kind of having a symptom diary, you know, where patients kind of record or caregivers record symptoms on a on a day to day basis, you know, when you're only seeing somebody every few weeks, maybe even every few months, you know, it's hard to remember everything that's been going on, especially if it, you know, Isn't majorly affecting your day to day life and so I think encouraging patients and caregivers to kind of keep a diary of those things can be very helpful. Where can we find standardized tools for monitoring patient collateral symptoms and educate families to the management of symptoms. Looks like we got Kyle back, so I'll let you take that one. Yeah, I think, uh, great question. Sorry for being cut off here, the internet cut off briefly. Um, yeah, you know, a lot of the tools that I lean on were actually provided by our nursing staff. So I think the intake forms and the standardized, um, patient assessment forms that we have in many clinics, um, these are treatment assessments and symptom assessments that are not specific necessarily to one. Particular type of medicine, but that can be applied across the whole clinic panel. So these things that are standardized and they may need to be adapted for a given treatment, for example, if someone's on a 3rd-generation inhibitor, having a symptom assessment before every clinic visit that focuses on neurocognitive challenges or other things they may be experiencing is, I think, uh, an important way to do that. So, making Not only sure that it's standardized with your visits, so it's happening at a regular cadence, but also