Distress management in a community oncology center.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 107-107
Author(s):  
Lori Watts ◽  
Nicolas Camilo ◽  
Nicole Thurston ◽  
Michele Betts ◽  
Dan Sayam Zuckerman
Keyword(s):  
Social Workers ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Medical Provider ◽  
Care Clinic

107 Background: NCCN and the Institute of Medicine recommend distress screening for all cancer patients. Surveys have found that 20% to 47% of newly diagnosed and recurrent cancer patients experience significant levels of distress. Less than half of distressed patients with cancer are actually identified and referred for psychosocial help. The development of screening tools, processes, appropriate timing, and systems for follow up on concerns is an ongoing challenge for many cancer programs. Mountain States Tumor Institute p,iloted a distress screen process as part of our work with NCCCP. Methods: From October 24, 2011, to April 30, 2012, 133 patients completed distress screens. Most frequently reported concerns included fatigue (50%), sleep changes (32%), and anxiety/worry (31%). 51% of patients reported three or more concerns. 90% of all patients reporting anxiety also reported fatigue or sleep problems. All patients who reported concerns were offered social work and other supports. Screens were reviewed by social workers and discussed at weekly multidisciplinary psychosocial care rounds by social workers, psychiatrist, nurse practitioners, and chaplains. A variety of interventions were used to respond to distress including symptom management, education and referrals to on-site social workers, chaplains, supportive care clinic, integrative medicine and psychiatry. Results: A task was created in Mosaiq Electronic Medical Record to cue Health Information Specialists to schedule patients for distress screening as close as possible to 45 days from first chemotherapy treatment. Patients completed screens before seeing their medical provider. The majority of patients screened received one or more interventions in follow-up. Conclusions: EMRs can be effective tools to cue scheduled screening of patient distress. The use of multidisciplinary psychosocial care rounds can effectively help clinics plan interventions to alleviate patient distress. The use of rounds can ensure staff from different disciplines are not duplicating efforts and can help determine appropriate timing of various psychosocial interventions. Project funded with Federal funds from the NCI, Contract No HHSN261200800001E.

Impact of palliative care clinic (PCC) referrals on pain control in genitourinary (GU) cancer patients: Retrospective analysis at Roswell Park Cancer Institute (RPCI).

2014 ◽  
Vol 32 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 57-57
Author(s):  
Neha Gupta ◽  
Shipra Gandhi ◽  
Sidra Anwar ◽  
Katy Wang ◽  
Yashodhara Satchidanand
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Pain Score ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Pain Control ◽  
Medical Oncology ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Care Clinic

57 Background: Many cancer patients (pts) with GU cancer suffer from uncontrolled pain, and may benefit from more focused palliative care. We assessed the frequency and impact of specialist PCC referrals on pain management of our GU Medical oncology clinic (GUMOC) pts. Methods: 239 consecutive pts were collected from a retrospective review of GUMOC records from 12/1/2013 to 2/28/2014. This group of pts was used to assess the frequency of PCC referral. Pts were divided into two arms- Arm A= GUMOC pts referred to PCC; Arm B: GUMOC pts not referred to PCC. To be able to detect a 15% between the two arms at 95% significance, 37 additional pts (who were already being seen at GUMOC) were collected from retrospective review of PCC records over 9/1/2013 to 2/28/2014. Total 276 pts were divided into Arm A (n=49), Arm B (n=227 pts). Data for baseline pain score and 4-week follow up pain scores were collected. A palliative care screening tool (retrieved from Center to Advance Palliative care [CAPC] website) was used to assign palliative care screening score (PCSS) to all study pts. Chi square test and T-test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Out of the 239 initially collected GUMOC pts, 5% were referred to PCC. 10% (n=24) had PCSS score of ≥ 4, and 33% pts with PCSS ≥ 4 were referred to PCC. Arm A had worse baseline symptoms, ECOG status and more advanced cancer stage. 4-week pain score follow up revealed significant improvement in Arm A -2.74 vs. Arm B -0.13 (p<0.01). Conclusions: GU cancer pts who are referred to PCC from medical oncology clinic have significant decrease in pain symptoms. Frequency of PCC consultation is still low in comprehensive cancer institutes, and not in congruence with the available palliative care screening tools criteria suggested by CAPC. Standardized tools should be developed to guide PCC referrals, and routine use of these tools will significantly help in pain control by seeking specialist palliative care.

The Commission on Cancer Psychosocial Distress Screening Standard: The first year in review.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 198-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina S. Miller ◽  
Ryan M. McCabe ◽  
Allison Knutson
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Screening Process ◽  
Cancer Program

198 Background: In response to recommendations from the 2007 Institute of Medicine report, Cancer Care for the Whole Patient, the American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer developed a set of Continuum of Care standards, including a patient-centered standard regarding the delivery of psychosocial distress screening to all cancer patients. According to Cancer Program Standards 2012: Ensuring Patient-Centered Care, the accredited cancer program must implement a process to integrate and monitor on-site psychosocial distress screening and referral for the provision of psychosocial care. Patients experience psychological, social, financial, and behavioral issues that can interfere with their treatment plan and adversely affect outcomes. Screening processes result in the identification of distressed cancer patients and assessment and referral pathways to ensure appropriate psychosocial care provision can be obtained. The standard was established in 2012 with a 2015 implementation period allowing programs time to develop a screening, assessment, and referral process tailored to their patient population. Methods: Programs submit documentation to describe their process for delivery of care through an electronic activity report. Documentation of this standard includes the timing for delivery of the psychosocial distress screening tool; methodology; the specific tools selected with preference to validated and reliable screening tools; and a process for assessment, referral and documentation. This presentation will summarize the program submissions for 2015 and include an analysis of the details of the standard compliance as reported by accredited programs. Results: This analysis will include responses from all Commission on Cancer accredited programs reporting on this standard. The analysis will provide information about the trends in the timing, methods, and tools used by programs implementing a psychosocial distress screening process. Conclusions: This analysis will inform future decisions about standardization of a screening process and the feasibility of pooling data across centers.

Using electronic medical record system to improve compliance with national guidelines for comprehensive distress screening in cancer patients.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 309-309
Author(s):  
Chintan Pandya ◽  
Sandra Sabatka ◽  
Michelle Kettinger ◽  
Alexander Alongi ◽  
Lauren M. Hamel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Work ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Medical Record ◽  
Electronic Medical Record ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Structured Data ◽  
National Guidelines ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Oncology Care

309 Background: Psychosocial distress screening (DS) and management is associated with improved quality of life and outcomes in cancer patients and is required for accreditation by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Comprehensive distress screening (CDS) consists of routine distress screening, evaluation, referral to appropriate psychosocial services, and follow-up to ensure adequate care. Electronic medical record (EMR) systems can be leveraged to facilitate and document CDS as part of clinical care and to evaluate the CDS process as a quality standard. The aim of this study is to develop and implement an EMR-based tool to document and evaluate the CDS process as part of routine oncology care. Methods: An EMR-based tool with structured data fields is developed for social workers to document risk factors for distress, assessment, management plan including psychosocial service referrals, and time spent delivering care following DS using the NCCN distress thermometer (DT). Evaluation of CDS process is done in cancer patients who have documented psychosocial care in the EMR-system from 1/2017-5/2018. Results: During the study period, 1327 cancer patients underwent 2480 distress screening evaluations. The average distress score was 3.2 (median = 2) on the DT scale of 0-10, with 855 (64%), 326 (25%), and 146 (11%) patients reporting on average mild (0-3), moderate (4-6), and severe (7-10) distress respectively. 400/1327 (30%) patients accounted for 1177 documented social work contact/visits, of which financial (40%) and emotional (15%) were the most common concerns. 89% (1047) of the visits had follow-up plans and 77% of encounters resulted in referrals, of which financial support (26%) and pharmacy assistance (22%) were the most common referral services. The average time spent on each psychosocial care visit was reported to be 21 minutes. Conclusions: EMR-based forms with structured data fields can be used to document and promote improved adherence to national guidelines for CDS as part of routine oncology care by facilitating data collection. Such tools can be leveraged to capture relevant data on impact of CDS on social work resource utilization.

Psychosocial distress screening in cancer care.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 187-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Mullai
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Trigger Point ◽  
Emotional Experience ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Specific Area ◽  
Psychosocial Distress ◽  
Medical Visit ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Distress Level

187 Background: Distress is a multifactorial, emotional experience that may interfere with patients’ ability to cope with cancer and its treatment. Recognizing and managing distress may benefit patients. The Commission on Cancer requires implementation of Standard 3.2, Psychosocial Distress Screening in 2015 and integrating distress intervention in cancer care. This study evaluates patients’ perception on benefits in this regard. Methods: Patients were screened at least once at a pivotal medical visit using a questionnaire that included various aspects of stress. NCCN’s Psychosocial Distress Screening Tool was used to measure seriousness of distress. Patients marked their distress level on a scale of 1 to 10. A threshold of 5 was set as a trigger point to start addressing distress. Results: Answers from 311 cancer patients (male 61%; female 39%) were evaluated since January 2015. A majority of patients had breast cancer (29%), followed by lung (18%), GI (18%), and hematological (12%) malignancies. The mean distress score was 3.72 (male 3.14; female 3.97). 131 patients had a score above five. Age group, 40-49 years had a higher distress (4.79) compared to others. Esophageal cancer (1%) had the highest mean score 7.33 followed by head & neck cancer (4%) with 5.67. In most patients, anxiety about cancer and its treatment was the cause of distress. However, they did not want any additional psychosocial intervention except for talking to their oncologist and primary physician. The distress of some patients was family related and they were unsure of the help needed. Two patients refused screening stating the questions were intrusive. Conclusions: Coordinated psychosocial care may benefit cancer patients with significant distress. NCCN tool helps to assess the severity of patients’ distress and to determine the need for intervention. The results (mean score of 3.72) suggest most cancer patients need no major intervention or special psychosocial counseling other than discussing with their physician and family, which is done routinely in most oncology practices. However, when stress is expressed, this tool does help the treating physicians to determine the specific area and degree of stress, to focus on the type of help needed for the patient, and to channel resources appropriately.

Mobile health tool for monitoring cancer treatment complications.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 297-297
Author(s):  
Amit Sanyal ◽  
James M. Heun ◽  
Clemens walter Janssen ◽  
Jessica Sweeney
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Treatment ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Cost Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Distress Screening

297 Background: Side effects after cancer treatment are ubiquitous, seen in up to 98.3% of patients in one Phase III lymphoma trial. Additionally, cancer patients are at a greater risk of mortality from infections such as coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), prompting recommendations for routine screening. Current care delivery model, reliant on self- triaging of symptoms by patients results in delayed management and avoidable emergency room visits and hospitalizations. Technology based symptom monitoring allows early identification of complications, reduces symptom burden, cost of care and enables early detection of relapse. We studied utility of a mobile-health tool for toxicity monitoring and COVID-19 screening. Methods: We developed an application that periodically delivers disease specific toxicity questionnaires to patients following cancer treatment. Based on NCI- PRO-CTCAE form builder, the questions are delivered through SMS or e-mail. Responses crossing pre-specified thresholds are flagged for manual care team follow-up. Patient and staff experience as well as medical interventions are captured. Results: Currently, 68 patients with different malignancies are enrolled. Median age 60 years (range 24-85), 35 males, 31 females. 72.35% patients rated user experience at 4 or higher (1-5 scale, 5 highest). Aggregate provider rating was 3.25 (1-5 scale, 5 highest). Of 639 captured responses, 157 reported fatigue, 145 no symptoms, 57 nausea/vomiting or diarrhea, 52 numbness/tingling and 48 shortness of breath. 76 responses were flagged for nurse follow-up calls. These resulted in 72 successful outpatient symptom management, 2 hospitalizations for neutropenic fever, 1 MRI diagnosis of radiation necrosis and 1 diagnosis of lymphoma progression. 92% of patients received a follow up within one business day. Median time between response recorded and follow up completed was 55 minutes. Of 1299 responses recorded by COVID-19 screening, 1175 reported no symptoms. All positive responses (47 cough, 52 diarrhea, 5 fever and 20 dyspnea) were false positives. Study is ongoing with recent implementation of a distress screening and survivorship modules. Conclusions: Electronic capture of symptoms using connected technology is feasible and can be used to screen cancer patients for treatment related complications as well as pandemic related illnesses.

A national approach to improving adolescent and young adult (AYA) oncology psychosocial care: The development of AYA-specific psychosocial assessment and care tools

2013 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 183-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Palmer ◽  
Pandora Patterson ◽  
Kate Thompson
Keyword(s):  
Young Adult ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Population Group ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Adolescent And Young Adult ◽  
Psychosocial Assessment ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Age Group

AbstractObjective:Age-based screening tools and assessment measures are crucial to the provision of best practice care for adolescent and young adult (AYA) cancer patients. Unfortunately, there are limited psychosocial tools developed for this age group and pediatric or adult measures are often distributed with the assumption that they are “close enough.” We describe a collaborative Australian project that strives to improve what currently exists for the psychosocial assessment of and planning for the 15–25-year-old age group.Method:Using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Distress Thermometer and the HEADSS Assessment as a foundation, the tools were developed in consultation with Australia's leading AYA clinicians, AYAs currently undergoing medical treatment, and a group of AYA survivors through a process of discussion groups and clinical interviews.Results:The result is the first available AYA-specific screening tool, care plan pro forma, and psychosocial assessment measure developed for use within the oncology sector. These new tools will assist clinicians working with this population group to support psychosocial coping during active treatment and promote healthy post-treatment survivorship.Significance of results:Over time, further validation procedures will add to the veracity of the measures. Until then, these measures represent the best available in Australia. They highlight a clinically recognized minimum standard of care that all young cancer patients, regardless of treatment location, have the right to receive.

Clinical perspective: Linking psychosocial care to the disease continuum in patients with multiple myeloma

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 829-838 ◽  
Author(s):  
James Zabora ◽  
Joanne Buzaglo ◽  
Vicki Kennedy ◽  
Tiffany Richards ◽  
Tara Schapmire ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Disease Process ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Model Of Care ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Multiple Myeloma Patient ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care Team ◽  
The Individual

AbstractObjective:A model of psychosocial care specific for patients with multiple myeloma and their caregivers has not yet been proposed. We sought to develop a model of care that considers the specific profile of this disease.Method:The authors, representing a multidisciplinary care team, met in December of 2012 to identify a model of psychosocial care for patients with multiple myeloma and their caregivers. This model was determined by consensus during the meeting and via total agreement following the meeting. The meeting was sponsored by Onyx Pharmaceuticals.Results:The need for targeted psychosocial care for the multiple myeloma patient and caregiver throughout the disease process is essential to ensure quality of life and optimal treatment outcomes. We propose herein the first known model of care for the treatment of multiple myeloma that engages both the patient and their caregivers.Significance of results:Innovative partnerships between psychosocial providers and other entities such as pharmaceutical companies can maximize resources for comprehensive program development. This manuscript proposes a model of care that promotes active engagement in therapies for multiple myeloma while engaging the individual patient and their family caregivers. This treatment approach must be evidence based in terms of distress screening tools, comprehensive psychosocial assessments, and, most importantly, in the interventions and measurements of response that clinicians apply to this population.

HSR19-098: Opportunities and Challenges of Managing Breakthrough Cancer Pain (BTCP): An Educational Exercise

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (3.5) ◽  
pp. HSR19-098
Author(s):  
Dean J. Mariano
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Negative Impact ◽  
Physician Assistants ◽  
Positive Outcome ◽  
Oncology Nurses ◽  
Breakthrough Cancer Pain ◽  
Post Test

Background: Cancer pain is one of the most feared symptoms of cancer and is usually moderate to severe in intensity, particularly in later stages. Opioids are the mainstay maintenance treatment of chronic cancer-related pain. However, between one third and two thirds of cancer patients treated with opioids still experience episodes of severe and debilitating pain known as breakthrough cancer pain (BTCP). Given the number of available treatment approaches for BTCP, healthcare professionals (HCPs) need guidance in selecting the treatment that best meets their patient’s needs and provide the best opportunity for a positive outcome. Aim: Describe the pathophysiology and characteristics of BTCP, its prevalence, and the negative impact on patients. Discuss the characteristics of ideal BTCP treatments and available options. Evaluate the concepts of dependence, addiction, and diversion; ways to minimize risk in cancer patients using opioids; and strategies to address issues. Apply shared decision-making resources to improve collaboration with clinician and patient for optimal BTCP management outcomes by providing best standard of care. Methods: 12 live expert faculty meetings held in oncology/hematology departments in community hospitals, regional cancer centers, and academic centers nationwide from November 17, 2017–June 01, 2018 (Table 1). Target audience of hematologists/oncologists, oncology nurses, physician assistants (PAs), nurse practitioners (NPs), palliative care physicians, pain management specialists, pharmacists, and other HCPs involved in the treatment of patients with BTCP. Results: Overall participation: 321 (anticipated 265; 186 CME completers); 193 oncology MDs; 61 oncology nurses/NP; 17 pharmacists; 22 PAs; 28 other HCPs interested in BTCP. Pre/post-test and 90-day follow-up surveys assessed. 0% commercial bias. Satisfaction of program rated 97%–100%; 96% intend to apply what they acquired to their practice; 97% have a strategy to combat BTCP; 99% are better able to describe BTCP and its negative impact on patients; 98% can better evaluate dependence, addiction, and diversion and to minimize risk of using opioids. +35% average pre- to post-test change with 4 of 5 questions achieving a P≤.0001 at 90-day follow-up. 72% of participants implemented practice changes by 90-day follow-up. Conclusion: Results suggest that participation in this activity is associated with increased competence and positive practice changes for BTCP.

The psychosocial matrix: A community-derived evaluative tool for designing quality psychosocial cancer care.

2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (34_suppl) ◽  
pp. 250-250
Author(s):  
Laura Pence Forsythe ◽  
Julia Howe Rowland ◽  
Lynne Padgett ◽  
Karyl Blaseg ◽  
Scott Siegel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Survivors ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Psychosocial Care ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Future Aspirations ◽  
Essential Components

250 Background: Although the Institute of Medicine provided a vision for effective psychosocial care for cancer survivors, guidance regarding the essential components of comprehensive care or progressive steps for implementing each component is limited. This abstract presents a unique tool for self-assessing capacity to provide quality psychosocial care to cancer survivors and results of the first full-scale implementation of this tool. Methods: The psychosocial workgroup of the National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program (NCCCP) developed the Psychosocial Care Matrix Assessment Tool which covers 7 domains (e.g., distress screening, patient-provider communication, evaluation of psychosocial programs). All NCCCP sites (16 enrolled in 2007, 14 enrolled in 2010) completed the matrix in 2010 regarding their capacity for psychosocial care at entry into NCCCP (baseline), after two years of NCCCP participation (2007 sites only), and within the coming year (future aspirations). Results: At baseline, matrix responses reflected few or no systematic processes in place for most components of psychosocial care. However, reported capacity to deliver specific components improved at two years post-NCCCP entry for the 2007 sites and in all sites’ future aspirations. For example, about 80% of all sites reported no or inconsistent distress screening at baseline. After two years, 48% of the 2007 sites reported consistent screening with a standardized tool or consistent screening plus a comprehensive interview. Nearly all 2007 sites (89%) aspired to provide consistent screening plus comprehensive interview with 50% also hoping to add systematic follow-up screenings. The majority of 2010 sites (71%) aspired to provide consistent screening with a standardized tool. Conclusions: The psychosocial matrix tool was found to be useable and valuable. At the NCCCP sites, some aspects of psychosocial care (e.g., communicating the importance of psychosocial care) are more readily implemented than others (e.g., follow-up after a positive distress screen). With growing demand on cancer centers to meet new metrics of quality care, the psychosocial matrix can help identify and develop steps to address gap areas.

Correlates of distress for cancer patients: Results from multi-institution use of holistic patient-reported screening tool.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 11587-11587
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
James I. Gerhart ◽  
Frank J. Penedo ◽  
Paramjeet Khosla ◽  
Betty Roggenkamp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Distress Score ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Chi Squared

11587 Background: The Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action for cancer patients. NCCN and ASCO supportive care and age-related guidelines include patient reported concerns beyond distress. This study compares PHQ4 scores to other patient reported concerns. Methods: The Coleman Supportive Oncology Collaborative aggregated “best of” screening tools to assess patient reported needs and concerns aligned with CoC, NCCN and ASCO guidance. This supportive care screening tool was implemented at 8 sites from July 2015 thru July 2018. Analysis used chi squared test. Results: Most patients, 86% (10,635/12,295), reported one plus concerns and/or above threshold scores on PHQ4, PROMIS Pain, Fatigue or Physical Function. A chi squared comparison of patients with at least mild distress on PHQ4 to patients with no distress resulted in p values < .0001 for every screening category. Conclusions: Patients with a PHQ4 distress score of mild, moderate or severe also reported statistically significant levels of practical, family, physical, nutrition and treatment concerns. These patients also scored threshold levels for PROMIS Pain, Fatigue, and Physical Function. Screening only for distress without screening for other patient concerns may direct patients to services that do not address or focus on the underlying cause of the distress. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document