Background: Implicit bias negatively influences decisions and communication in oncology care, and may also lead to disparities in cancer treatment and outcomes. The School of Medicine (SOM) at Wayne State University (WSU), based in the diverse yet segregated city of Detroit, Michigan, has faced the consequences of bias. Fortunately, within SOM/WSU, expertise on the problem of and solutions to implicit bias have flourished. We leveraged that expertise to design and implement a comprehensive and longitudinal implicit bias curriculum for SOM members and healthcare providers, including hematology/oncology faculty, providers, and trainees. We designed the curriculum to satisfy State of Michigan implicit bias training requirements for all healthcare providers. To date, we have implemented two modules. Prior to the second module, we received IRB-approval to recruit curriculum participants as study participants and tested effectiveness. Methods: The curriculum is comprised of 1½ hour modules offered every three months. Topics include how implicit bias influences clinical communication with a focus on the oncology care context, how structural racism influences health policy, among others. To evaluate, we utilize Kirkpatrick’s Four-Level Training Evaluation Model, to assess outcomes at 4 levels: 1. reaction, 2. learning, 3. behavior change and 4. long-term results. After obtaining passive consent from participants, we gathered effectiveness data at Levels 1 and 2. Results: We implemented two modules (How Patient and Physician Race-Based Attitudes Influence Clinical Communication & Structural Racism 101: Basic Training for Doctors) in 2021 via Zoom. More than 160 people attended each module with many participants representing oncology-focused hospitals and academic departments. All participants received a certificate of participation as a part of the state requirements for implicit bias training, and CME credit. For Session 2 we asked participants to respond to a survey before (n = 106) and after (n = 35) the session assessing Levels 1 and 2. Participant evaluations (Level 1) were very positive, with many participants noting that they plan to put what they have learned into practice immediately. A common critique was the desire for more topics and more time to discuss. Findings show increased knowledge (Level 2) of structural racism (pre: 92% vs. post: 97%); spatial racism (pre: 87% vs. post: 91%); and how racism influences health policy (pre: 80% vs post: 86%). Conclusions: We successfully implemented a longitudinal implicit bias curriculum for SOM members and healthcare providers. Next steps include continuing to implement and assess the curriculum, and collecting data at Levels 3 and 4. This type of curriculum could be an important tool to decrease bias in cancer care and improve cancer care equity.