Chiang Anne C, Buia Amport Stephanie, Corjulo Diane, Harvey Katherine L, McCorkle Ruth
Smilow Cancer Hospital, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT
Smilow Cancer Hospital, Yale Cancer Center, New Haven, CT.
J Oncol Pract. 2015 May;11(3):219-22. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2015.003954. Epub 2015 Apr 14.
Assessment of distress and well-being of patients with cancer is not always documented or addressed in a clinical visit, reflecting a need for improved psychosocial screening.
A multidisciplinary team completed process mapping for emotional distress assessment in two clinics. Barriers were identified through cause-and-effect analysis, and an intervention was chosen. Patient-reported outcomes were collected over 6 months using the validated National Comprehensive Cancer Network Emotional Distress Thermometer (EDT) paper tool. The American Society of Clinical Oncology Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) measures were compared before and after intervention.
During 6 months, a total of 864 tools were collected from 1,344 patients in two ambulatory clinics (64%). Electronic medical record documentation of distress increased from 19.2% to 34% during the 6 months before and after intervention. QOPI measures showed an increase in emotional well-being documentation. Of 29 new and 835 return patients, 62% indicated mild distress (EDT, 0 to 3), 18% moderate (EDT, 4 to 6), and 11% severe (EDT, 7 to 10). The average distress score of new patients was significantly higher than that of return patients (5.39 [n = 26] v 2.52 [n = 754]; P < .001). The top problems for patients with moderate and severe distress were worry, fatigue, pain, and nervousness; depression and sadness were particularly noted in patients reporting severe distress. Eleven percent of patients were referred to the social worker on site.
A pilot intervention collecting Patient-reported outcomes in two ambulatory clinics led to increase in psychosocial distress screening followed by sustained improvement, indicated by both process and QOPI measures.
对癌症患者的痛苦和幸福感的评估在临床就诊时并不总是有记录或得到处理,这反映出需要改进心理社会筛查。
一个多学科团队完成了两家诊所情绪困扰评估的流程映射。通过因果分析确定障碍,并选择了一种干预措施。使用经过验证的美国国立综合癌症网络情绪困扰温度计(EDT)纸质工具,在6个月内收集患者报告的结果。比较干预前后美国临床肿瘤学会肿瘤学质量实践倡议(QOPI)的指标。
在6个月期间,从两家门诊诊所的1344名患者中总共收集了864份工具(64%)。干预前后6个月内,电子病历中痛苦记录从19.2%增加到34%。QOPI指标显示情绪幸福感记录有所增加。在29名新患者和835名复诊患者中,62%表示轻度痛苦(EDT为0至3),18%为中度(EDT为4至6),11%为重度(EDT为7至10)。新患者的平均痛苦得分显著高于复诊患者(5.39 [n = 26]对2.52 [n = 754];P <.001)。中度和重度痛苦患者面临的首要问题是担忧、疲劳、疼痛和紧张;在报告重度痛苦的患者中,抑郁和悲伤尤为明显。11%的患者被转介给现场的社会工作者。
在两家门诊诊所进行的一项收集患者报告结果的试点干预导致心理社会痛苦筛查增加,随后持续改善,这在流程和QOPI指标中均有体现。