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]

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

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 199-199
Author(s):  
Christine B. Weldon ◽  
James I. Gerhart ◽  
Frank J. Penedo ◽  
Mary Pasquinelli ◽  
Joanna Martin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Age Related ◽  
Distress Score ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Chi Squared

199 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]

Results of implementing a novel supportive oncology screening tool for comprehensive evaluation of distress and other supportive care needs.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (31_suppl) ◽  
pp. 61-61
Author(s):  
Paramjeet Khosla ◽  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
James Gerhart ◽  
Urjeet Patel ◽  
Shelly S. Lo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Supportive Oncology

61 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool adapted from NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, with validated sub-tools: PHQ-4 for anxiety and depression and PROMIS short forms for pain, fatigue and physical function. Novel treatment/care and other concerns were included. The screening tool was implemented at 4 cancer centers (2 academic, 1 public & 1 safety-net). End points included correlation of PHQ-4 score with other supportive oncology needs. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact test were used. Results: 2805 patients were screened. Average scores were: PHQ4 – Anxiety and Depression 1.8 (mild > 3), Pain 4.5 (mild > 4), Fatigue 8.8 (mild > 6), Physical Function 20.2 (mild < 20), see table for additional items. Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: greater pain, fatigue, , nutritional and specific treatment/care concerns, and lower physical function (p<.0001). (See Table). Conclusions: Patients with higher anxiety and depression also have many other supportive oncology concerns. Our results support the use of a comprehensive tool capturing a spectrum of each patient’s unique concerns. This may enable earlier interventions and personalized delivery of supportive care. [Table: see text]

Results of implementing a novel supportive oncology screening tool for comprehensive evaluation of distress and other supportive care needs.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21644-e21644
Author(s):  
Julia Rachel Trosman ◽  
James Gerhart ◽  
Urjeet Patel ◽  
Paramjeet Khosla ◽  
Patricia A. Robinson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Physical Function ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Care Needs ◽  
Supportive Oncology

e21644 Background: The Institute of Medicine (IOM) 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) Standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric screening tool adapted from NCCN Distress Problem List, IOM report and CoC standards, with validated sub-tools: PHQ-4 for anxiety and depression and PROMIS short forms for pain, fatigue and physical function. Novel treatment/care and other concerns were included. The screening tool was implemented at 4 cancer centers (2 academic, 1 public & 1 safety-net). End points included correlation of PHQ-4 score with other supportive oncology needs. Descriptive statistics, Fisher’s exact test were used. Results: 2805 patients were screened. Average scores were: PHQ4 – Anxiety and Depression 1.8 (mild > 3), Pain 4.5 (mild > 4), Fatigue 8.8 (mild > 6), Physical Function 20.2 (mild < 20), see table for additional items. Higher scores on the PHQ-4 were significantly associated with each of the following: greater pain, fatigue, nutritional and specific treatment/care concerns, and lower physical function (p<.0001). Conclusions: Patients with higher anxiety and depression also have many other supportive oncology concerns. Our results support the use of a comprehensive tool capturing a spectrum of each patient’s unique concerns. This may enable earlier interventions and personalized delivery of supportive care. [Table: see text]

Implementing and analyzing a distress screening tool (DST) in a community oncology setting: Breaking down barriers to comprehensive medical and psychosocial (PS) care—The Kaiser Permanente Lone Tree, CO (KP-LT) experience.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21553-e21553
Author(s):  
Scott Arthur Kono ◽  
Jammie Reichel ◽  
Alex R. Menter ◽  
Stephen Armond Mayer ◽  
Lillian Klancar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Optimal Care ◽  
Kaiser Permanente ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Large Scale Screening

e21553 Background: PS distress (D) in cancer patients is an underestimated barrier to optimal care. The NCCN recommends D screening and intervention for D scores (DS) ≥4. KP is an ideal environment for large-scale screening. We sought to identify barriers in DST compliance, find a successful standardized workflow (SWF), and understand sources of D to elevate the standard of PS care. Methods: The DST was administered by the physician at completion of initial encounter to all new patients. Compliance recorded before and after implementing a SWF in 2/2016. Our DST utilizes 4 Major Categories of Distress (MCD) [Practical (P), Social (S), Health (H), Emotional (E)] to identify specific areas of D, and stratify DS by diagnosis [Benign (BH)-, Malignant- (MH) Hematology, Solid Tumor (ST)]. Clinic outreached any patient with a 4+ DS. DST was modified (mDST) 9/2016 to provide a DS for each MCD rather than 1 overall DS to improve practicality. Results: 936 DSTs completed from 6/2015-1/2017 (304/632 were mDST). DST compliance increased from 51% to 78% after the SWF. 289/632 (46%) scored 4+ (avg. DS 6.15). 153/304 (54%) mDSTs scored 4+ in ³ 1category. The avg. DS was 3.9 (n=936). Avg. DS for: BH= 3.67 (50% scored 4+, avg. 6.0), MH=3.79 (49% score 4+, avg. 6.14), and ST=4.02 (54% score 4+, avg. 6.18). The 3 most common concerns in each MCD are reported in Table 1. Most frequent outreach requests: Dietitian (n=88, 9%), LCSW (n=70, 7%), and Financial Counselor (n=50, 5%). Conclusions: Sources of D are a patient reported metric, not provider-assumed. DST use is feasible and essential to comprehensive cancer care. A SWF is crucial for success and led to a 27% increase in compliance. 4+ DS is frequent and was higher than expected in BH. Identifying specific stressors allows early intervention and improved resource utilization. [Table: see text]

Distress screening through PROMIS at an academic cancer center and network site: Implementation of a hybrid model.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2021-2021
Author(s):  
Mohana Roy ◽  
Joel W. Neal ◽  
Kelly Bugos ◽  
Christopher Sharp ◽  
Patricia Falconer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Supportive Care ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Supportive Services ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Positive Screen ◽  
Network Site ◽  
Care Services ◽  
Patient Reported

2021 Background: The NCCN guidelines recommend routine distress screening of patients with cancer, but the implementation of such programs is inconsistent. Up to one in three such patients experience distress, however fewer than half of them are identified and referred for supportive services. Methods: We implemented a hybrid (electronic and paper) distress screening tool, using a modified version of the PROMIS-Global Health questionnaire. Patients received either an electronic or in-clinic paper questionnaire to assess overall health and distress at the Stanford Cancer Center and its associated integrated network site. Iterative changes were made including integration with the electronic health record (EHR) to trigger questionnaires for appointments every 60 days. A consensus “positive screen” threshold was defined, with data collected on responses and subsequent referrals placed to a supportive care services platform. Results: Between June 2015 and December 2017, 53,954 unique questionnaires representing 12,744 distinct patients were collected, with an average completion rate of 58%. Approximately 30% of the questionnaires were completed prior to the visit electronically through a patient portal. The number of patients meeting the positive screen threshold remained ~ 40% throughout this period. Following assessment by the clinical team, there were 3763 referrals to cancer supportive services. Among the six most common referral categories, those with a positive screen were more likely to have a referral placed (OR 6.4, 95% CI 5.8-6.9 p- < 0.0001), with a sensitivity of 80% and a specificity of 61%. However, 89% of responses with a positive screen did not have a referral to supportive care services. Conclusions: The hybrid electronic and paper use of a commonly available patient reported outcome tool, as a high throughput distress screening tool, is feasible at a multi-site academic cancer center. Our positive screen rate for referrals was sensitive and consistent, but with a low positive predictive value. This screening also resulted in variable clinical response and overall increased clinical burden. Future directions for our group have included refining the threshold for a positive screen and implementation of a real-time response system, especially to address acute concerns.

scholarly journals Healthcare Provider Perspectives on Bipolar I Disorder Screening and the Rapid Mood Screener (RMS), a Pragmatic, New Tool

CNS Spectrums ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-183
Author(s):  
Michael E. Thase ◽  
Stephen M. Stahl ◽  
Roger S. McIntyre ◽  
Tina Matthews-Hayes ◽  
Mehul Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Nurse Practitioners ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Bipolar I Disorder ◽  
Provider Perspectives ◽  
Patient Reported

AbstractIntroductionAlthough mania is the hallmark symptom of bipolar I disorder (BD-I), most patients initially present for treatment with depressive symptoms. Misdiagnosis of BD-I as major depressive disorder (MDD) is common, potentially resulting in poor outcomes and inappropriate antidepressant monotherapy treatment. Screening patients with depressive symptoms is a practical strategy to help healthcare providers (HCPs) identify when additional assessment for BD-I is warranted. The new 6-item Rapid Mood Screener (RMS) is a pragmatic patient-reported BD-I screening tool that relies on easily understood terminology to screen for manic symptoms and other BD-I features in <2 minutes. The RMS was validated in an observational study in patients with clinically confirmed BD-I (n=67) or MDD (n=72). When 4 or more items were endorsed (“yes”), the sensitivity of the RMS for identifying patients with BP-I was 0.88 and specificity was 0.80; positive and negative predictive values were 0.80 and 0.88, respectively. To more thoroughly understand screening tool use among HCPs, a 10-minute survey was conducted.MethodsA nationwide sample of HCPs (N=200) was selected using multiple HCP panels; HCPs were asked to describe their opinions/current use of screening tools, assess the RMS, and evaluate the RMS versus the widely recognized Mood Disorder Questionnaire (MDQ). Results were reported by grouped specialties (primary care physicians, general nurse practitioners [NPs]/physician assistants [PAs], psychiatrists, and psychiatric NPs/PAs). Included HCPs were in practice <30 years, spent at least 75% of their time in clinical practice, saw at least 10 patients with depression per month, and diagnosed MDD or BD in at least 1 patient per month. Findings were reported using descriptive statistics; statistical significance was reported at the 95% confidence interval.ResultsAmong HCPs, 82% used a tool to screen for MDD, while 32% used a tool for BD. Screening tool attributes considered to be of the greatest value included sensitivity (68%), easy to answer questions (66%), specificity (65%), confidence in results (64%), and practicality (62%). Of HCPs familiar with screening tools, 70% thought the RMS was at least somewhat better than other screening tools. Most HCPs were aware of the MDQ (85%), but only 29% reported current use. Most HCPs (81%) preferred the RMS to the MDQ, and the RMS significantly outperformed the MDQ across valued attributes; 76% reported that they were likely to use the RMS to screen new patients with depressive symptoms. A total of 84% said the RMS would have a positive impact on their practice, with 46% saying they would screen more patients for bipolar disorder.DiscussionThe RMS was viewed positively by HCPs who participated in a brief survey. A large percentage of respondents preferred the RMS over the MDQ and indicated that they would use it in their practice. Collectively, responses indicated that the RMS is likely to have a positive impact on screening behavior.FundingAbbVie Inc.

scholarly journals Perioperative Nutritional Screening Tools Are Not Associated with Poor Outcomes After Musculoskeletal Trauma

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. 1136-1136
Author(s):  
Aspen Miller ◽  
John Davison ◽  
Nathan Hendrickson ◽  
Erin Wilson ◽  
Natalie Glass ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Screening Method ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Nutritional Deficiencies ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Complication Rates ◽  
Nutritional Screening ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Poor Outcomes ◽  
Musculoskeletal Trauma

Abstract Objectives Malnutrition is predictive of poor outcomes after trauma. Side effects of both pain and narcotics often limit postoperative dietary intake increasing nutritional deficiencies and limiting wound healing. The purpose of this study was to compare the predictive ability of a dietician nutritional evaluation and a patient reported nutritional screening tool for post-operative complications after musculoskeletal trauma. Methods Adults with operative pelvis or long bone fractures were prospectively enrolled in a single-blinded RCT and included in this analysis. Subjects were evaluated with the Patient Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA) survey at baseline. Dietician Nutritional Assessment Screening (NAS) was performed for patients ≥65 years with low Albumin or Vitamin D, or admitted to the ICU. Complication analysis included subjects having minimum 6-month follow-up and/or ≥1 complication within six months. Spearman's Correlation was used to evaluate agreement between screening methods. Comparison using X analysis was done of complications between pre-operative assignment of malnutrition for each screening tool. Results Agreement of NAS and self-reported PG-SGA for 265 subjects demonstrated a weak correlation of rho = 0.23, P = 0.0002. Neither screening method had significant correlation for rates of non-union, mortality, medical, or surgical complications between designations of malnutrition (all P &gt; .05). Among study subjects, incidence of those having a medical or surgical complication not screened by a dietician was 31.3% and 37.7% respectively. Conclusions Results indicate inconsistency in methods for assigning malnutrition in trauma population. Additionally, designation of malnutrition by either method was not associated with post-operative complication rates. The high incidence of those with a complication who were not evaluated by a dietician during initial hospitalization (1/3rd) support the need to develop better methods for screening malnutrition after trauma. Funding Sources American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, Board of Specialty Societies Quality and Patient Safety Action Fund.

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.

A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 72-72
Author(s):  
Amy Scheu ◽  
Lauren Allison Wiebe ◽  
Shelly S. Lo ◽  
Catherine Deamant ◽  
Betty Roggenkamp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Screening Tool ◽  
Safety Net ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Distress Screening ◽  
Chicago Area ◽  
Oncology Care ◽  
Screening Questions ◽  
Supportive Oncology ◽  
The Right ◽  
Patient Centric

72 Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress Problem List, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing each patient’s screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (referral providers) were surveyed after each use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 29 patients, 81 assessors and 26 referral providers (SW, chaplain, subspecialist). The majority of patients (22/29, 75%) completed the screening in < 10 minutes without assistance and will complete at every visit. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent < 5 minutes reviewing screening results. The majority of patients, assessors, and referral providers reported that the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, discovered unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variations in supportive oncology screening may decline, thus improving access to supportive oncology care with implications for national dissemination. [Table: see text]

Feasibility and acceptability of implementing an electronic patient reported outcome (e-PRO) dysphagia screening tool for routine multidisciplinary care.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (4_suppl) ◽  
pp. 155-155
Author(s):  
Kishan Shani ◽  
Michael Borean ◽  
Judy Chen ◽  
Yuchen Li ◽  
M. Catherine Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Esophageal Cancer ◽  
Head And Neck ◽  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Multidisciplinary Care ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Screening Questions ◽  
Screening Question

155 Background: In Ontario, Canada, longitudinal patient self-reporting of 9 common cancer symptoms and a global health scale (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, ESAS) is mandated and used clinically as a screening tool for multidisciplinary precision care (chemo/rads/surg). However, a common GI symptom, dysphagia, is not assessed in the same setting. Methods: Mostly gastro-esophageal cancer outpatients (some head and neck and lung cancer patients undergoing radiation were also included for generalizability) received one of two versions (V1, V2) of the dysphagia screening tool based on PRO-CTCAE-derived language. The tool included two screening questions, which when answered affirmatively, led to more comprehensive dysphagia/odynophagia questioning. The survey was introduced on iPads with V1. An assessment of acceptability through patient survey was additionally included in V2, and the duration of survey completion was recorded. Exploratory in-depth interviews were conducted with oncologists to assess usability in the clinic setting. Results: Of 101 approached and eligible, 79 consented, and 66 completed the survey. Median completion time was 2.12 ± 0.80 min. 95% were happy to complete survey on a touchscreen tablet, 88% did not find completion of survey time-consuming, and 91% found completion of survey useful in order to tell the clinician how they feel physically and emotionally. The prevalence of dysphagia based on screening question #1 (“difficulty upon swallowing?”) was 38% (25/66), while for screening question #2 (“pain upon swallowing?”) prevalence was 18% (12/66). Five interviewed physicians found the survey to be clinically informative, not burdensome in terms of time consumption, and felt it would be a valuable addition to outpatient clinics. One recurring suggestion was to combine the two screening questions into one. Results were similar across GI, head and neck, and lung cancer sites. Conclusions: The e-PRO dysphagia screening tool is acceptable and feasible for patients, and useful for clinicians. Next, a modified one-question dysphagia tool will be assessed in the multidisciplinary care of gastro-esophageal cancer patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document