Center for Business Models in Healthcare, Glencoe, IL
Christine B. Weldon, Nancy Vance, Amy Scheu, Lauren Allison Wiebe, Shelly S. Lo, Catherine Deamant, Betty Roggenkamp, Urjeet Patel, Paramjeet Khosla, Patricia A. Robinson, Frank J. Penedo, James Gerhart, Teresa Lillis, William Dale, Ana Gordon, Eileen Knightly, Rosa Berardi, Julia Rachel Trosman
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, 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 patients’ screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (providers) were surveyed after use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 175 patients, 81 assessors, and 26 referral providers (social workers, chaplains, subspecialists). The majority of patients (160/175, 91%) completed the screening in <10 minutes, across all patients the screening tool averaged 4 ½ minutes. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent <5 minutes reviewing screening results. Most patients, assessors, and providers reported 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, identified unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variability in supportive oncology screening practices may decline, thus improving patient care. The tool has implications for quality improvements and national dissemination.
Question | Patient %, n = 175 | Assessor %, n = 77 | Provider %, n = 26 |
---|---|---|---|
Right questions/ uncovered relevant issues for a specific patient | 87 | 84 | 96 |
Partial relevance: some questions not important/not relevant to a specific patient | 49 | 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
2016 Palliative and Supportive Care in Oncology Symposium
First Author: Amy Scheu
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