# Clinician Education and Workflow Tools to Improve Access to Recurrent and Metastatic Cervical Cancer Treatment

## TL;DR

This study shows that combining clinician education with practical tools can improve access to cervical cancer treatment by reducing delays and enhancing care coordination.

## Contribution

A multidisciplinary initiative combining education and workflow tools to improve cervical cancer care access is described and evaluated.

## Key findings

- Clinicians showed increased knowledge and confidence after the program, with scores ranging from 3.7 to 4.0 out of 5.0.
- Participants reported changes in practice, such as earlier specialist referrals and more frequent discussion of clinical trials.
- Educational materials received 1,869 views and remained publicly accessible, indicating reach and ongoing utility.

## Abstract

Background: Patients with recurrent or metastatic cervical cancer often face delays in treatment due to complex prior authorization (PA) processes and uneven access to specialty care. Educational interventions targeting clinicians and care teams may help streamline workflows and improve access to timely, evidence-based treatment.

Objective: To describe the design, implementation, and outcomes of a multidisciplinary quality-improvement initiative aimed at improving provider knowledge, administrative efficiency, and access to cervical cancer care.

Methods: The King County Medical Society (KCMS) launched the Cervical Cancer Education and Equity Initiative. The project combined clinician education with practical workflow tools, including a freely available Prior Authorization Toolkit. Activities included 21 short educational videos, a comprehensive slide-based educational module, monthly newsletters, social-media dissemination, and a centralized web hub integrating resources on immunotherapy, targeted therapy, and biomarker-driven care. Eighty-three clinicians completed the baseline survey (N=83), and 30 clinicians completed the follow-up survey, 30/83 (36.1%). Post-intervention surveys assessed clinician knowledge, confidence, and perceived impact on practice.

Results: Across knowledge/confidence items, 26/30 (86.7%) respondents completed each rating question; mean post-program scores ranged from 3.7 to 4.0 out of 5.0. For post-intervention practice change items, respondents reported earlier referral to specialists, 11/25 (44.0%); more frequent discussion of clinical trial options, 6/25 (24.0%); and increased attention to transportation, financial, or social-support barriers when planning care, 10/25 (40.0%). Respondents reported considering social determinants of health more often after the program, 17/25 (68.0%); 4/25 (16.0%) reported no change, and 4/25 (16.0%) indicated the item was not applicable to their role. A total of 1,869 views were recorded across 21 on-demand educational videos during the program period. All educational materials remained publicly accessible.

Conclusions: Targeted, workflow-aligned education paired with practical administrative tools may reduce barriers to cervical cancer treatment. This initiative demonstrates a replicable model for improving access to advanced oncology care through clinician education and systems-focused interventions.