Advocate Health Care, Oak Brook, IL
Amy Scheu, Lauren Allison Wiebe, Shelly S. Lo, Catherine Deamant, Betty Roggenkamp, Urjeet Patel, Pam Khosla, Patricia A. Robinson, Frank J. Penedo, James Gerhart, William Dale, Ana Gordon, Rajul Kothari, Rosa Berardi, Julia Rachel Trosman, Christine B. Weldon, Teresa Lillis
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.
Question | Patient %, n = 29 | Assessor %, n = 77 | Referral provider %, n = 26 |
---|---|---|---|
Right questions / uncovered relevant issues for a specific patient | 86 | 84 | 96 |
Partial relevance: some questions not important / not relevant to a specific patient | 48 | 34 | 9 |
I have training or resources to address patient needs | NA | 90 | 88 |
Disclaimer
This material on this page is ©2024 American Society of Clinical Oncology, all rights reserved. Licensing available upon request. For more information, please contact licensing@asco.org
Abstract Disclosures
2017 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: Christine B. Weldon
2016 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Christine B. Weldon
2022 ASCO Annual Meeting
First Author: Valerie Pracilio Csik
2024 ASCO Quality Care Symposium
First Author: Priyal Agarwal