The impact of virtual live education on the competence and knowledge of gynecologists caring for ovarian cancer patients.

person Vanessa Carranza Creative Educational Concepts, Lexington, KY info_outline Vanessa Carranza, Bryan Carson Taylor, Susan H. Gitzinger, Joan B. Fowler, Jessica Hall

Authors person Vanessa Carranza Creative Educational Concepts, Lexington, KY info_outline Vanessa Carranza, Bryan Carson Taylor, Susan H. Gitzinger, Joan B. Fowler, Jessica Hall Organizations Creative Educational Concepts, Lexington, KY, Creative Educational Concepts, Inc., Lexington, KY, CECI, Lexington, KY Abstract Disclosures Research Funding Other Background: About 35% of ovarian cancer patients in the US have geographic-related disparities in their access to gynecologic oncologists. This disparity becomes more apparent as advances in the treatment of ovarian cancer continues to improve, particularly in regard to maintenance therapy (e.g., PARP inhibitors). Thus, it is critical for gynecologists who are most likely to see these patients over the span of their lives, have an intimate understanding of the management of these patients. Methods: CEC Oncology developed an educational initiative presented at four American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists District Meetings, targeting obstetricians, gynecologists, and other health professionals. Education focused on PARP inhibitors in ovarian cancer, identification of those eligible for genetic testing and counseling, and strategies to improve patient outcomes. Evaluations were collected from attendees attending the District Meetings to assess impact on practice, increased competency, and intent to make a change in practice. This was objectively assessed by analyzing pre-test, post-test, and follow-up survey data (sent 4-6 weeks post-activity). Chi-square analysis was conducted with a priori significance set at 0.05. Results: A total of 183 clinicians were educated, practicing in academic settings (44%), community hospital settings (24%), private practice (25%), and government (7%). Attendees were asked case questions at baseline, immediately after the activity, and 4-6 weeks after the activity to assess knowledge about the DNA damage response pathway, genetic testing guidelines, and management of therapy toxicities. Knowledge increased from pre- to post-test and from pre-test to follow-up for all topics, with the greatest increase in the management of adverse events (41% increase from pre- to post-test; 50% increase from pre-test to follow-up; P < 0.01). Additionally, there was a 22% and 24% increase in confidence in identifying patients eligible for germline genetic testing and in recognizing toxicities with PARP inhibitors from pre-test to six-week follow-up, respectively. 60% of participants stated that there was a lack of patient education regarding the importance of genetic testing and counseling. At follow-up, 100% stated that they had educated patients on genetic testing and counseling, highlighting the value of educating gynecologists on this topic. Conclusions: Attendees of this educational initiative were eager to take back the knowledge learned to their clinical practices. While there was a measurable increase in knowledge with regard to different ovarian cancer related topics, educational gaps remain. Collectively, this particular audience stated that they care for > 1,000 ovarian cancer patients, elucidating the need for OB/GYNs to feel more comfortable regarding PARP inhibitor toxicities, as they become more prevalent in practice.