Search

Responding to calls for additional research that identifies effective distress screening (DS) processes, including referral practices subsequent to screening and receipt of recommended care, we engaged in qualitative research as part of a larger (mixed methods) study of distress screening. This qualitative inquiry of oncology professionals across different facilities in the United States examined routine DS implementation, facilitators and challenges staff encounter with DS processes, and staff members' perceived value of DS. We conducted key informant interviews and focus groups with staff in 4 Commission on Cancer (CoC)-accredited oncology facilities (a total of 18 participants) to understand implementation of routine DS within oncology care. We used a rigorous data analysis design, including inductive and deductive approaches. Respondents believe DS enhances patient care and described ways to improve DS processes, including administering DS at multiple points throughout oncology care, using patient-administrated DS methods, and enhancing electronic health records infrastructure to better collect, record, and retrieve DS data. Respondents also identified the need for additional psychosocial staff at their facilities to provide timely psychosocial care. Results reinforce the value of DS in cancer care, including the importance of follow-up to screening with psychosocial oncology providers. Understanding and resolving the barriers and facilitators to implementing DS are important to ensure appropriate psychosocial care for people with cancer. Insights from oncology staff may be used to enhance the quality of DS and subsequent psychosocial care, which is an essential component of oncology care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Few studies have examined the practices of U.S. oncology social workers since the implementation of distress screening. This study presents data about oncology social work practice behaviors, including participation in distress screening and interdisciplinary team integration. Using a cross-sectional survey design, Association of Oncology Social Work (AOSW) members were invited to complete the anonymous web-based survey between June and September 2019. AOSW members (N = 1116) were invited through email and listserv posts to participate in the survey with 533 (47.8%) responding. A quantitative on-line survey was used to investigate demographics, distress screening roles and other practice behaviors. Descriptive analyses were conducted on the data. Respondents engaged in a range of practice behaviors consistent with the Standards and Scope of Practice published by AOSW, primarily engaging in patient-focused work. They reported viewing their role as integrated with the interdisciplinary team. Respondents were highly involved in distress screening processes, primarily receiving referrals from distress screening but also collecting/reviewing screening results and referring patients to other providers based on those results. Knowledge about the ways that oncology social workers enact their role across settings and locations could be useful to those developing effective and integrated psychosocial oncology programs, especially distress screening protocols. Specific knowledge about the practice behaviors of oncology social workers in the U.S. may also help to delineate the role from the work of other interdisciplinary oncology team members. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Oncology Nursing Journal is the property of Pappin Communications and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Effective deployment of limited spiritual care resources requires valid and reliable methods of screening that can be used by nonchaplain health care professionals to identify and refer patients with potential religious/spiritual (R/S) need. Research regarding the validity of existing approaches to R/S screening is limited. In a sample of 1,399 hematopoietic stem cell transplant survivors, we tested the validity of the Rush Protocol and two alternative versions of it. The negative religious coping subscale of the Brief RCOPE provided the reference standard. Based on the Protocol, 21.9% of the survivors were identified as having potential R/S struggle. The sensitivity of the Protocol was low (42.1%) and the specificity was marginally acceptable (81.3%). The sensitivity and specificity of the two alternative versions were similar to those for the unmodified Protocol. Further research with the Rush Protocol, and other models, should be pursued to develop the best evidence-based approaches to R/S screening. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Brief tools are needed to screen oncology outpatients for depressive symptoms.Methods: Patients starting radiotherapy for the first diagnosis of any tumor completed distress screening tools, including the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9), the 2-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (NCCN-DT), and the Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL) (25-item version). Patients exceeding validated cutoff scores and a systematic sample of patients whose screening was negative completed the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID) mood disorder modules via telephone.Results: Four hundred sixty-three patients from 35 community-based radiation oncology sites and 2 academic radiation oncology sites were recruited. Sixty-six percent of the 455 eligible patients (n = 299) were women, and the eligible patients had breast (45%), gastrointestinal (11%), lung (10%), gynecologic (6%), or other cancers (27%). Seventy-five (16.5%) exceeded screening cutoffs for depressive symptoms. Forty-two of these patients completed the SCID. Another 37 patients whose screening was negative completed the SCID. Among the 79 patients completing the SCID, 8 (10.1%) met the criteria for major depression, 2 (2.5%) met the criteria for dysthymia, and 6 (7.6%) met the criteria for an adjustment disorder. The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders with a cutoff score of ≥3 (receiver operating characteristic area under the curve [AUC], 0.83) and was comparable to the PHQ-9 ( > 9; AUC = 0.85). The NCCN-DT did not detect depression (AUC = 0.59).Conclusions: The PHQ-2 demonstrated good psychometric properties for screening for mood disorders, which were equivalent to the PHQ-9 and superior to the NCCN-DT. These findings support using the PHQ-2 to identify patients in need of further assessment for depression, which has a low prevalence but is a clinically significant comorbidity. These findings could inform the implementation of distress screening accreditation standards. Cancer 2017;123:485-493. © 2016 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The 2008 Institute of Medicine's Report, Cancer Care for the Whole Patient (IOM, 2008), recommends screening cancer patients for distress. Cancer programs throughout the United States are struggling to achieve this standard. The IOM report indicates that only 14% of 1000 randomly selected American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) members and eight of 15 National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) centers reported screening for distress in at least some of their patients [ J Natl Compr Cancer Netw 2007;5:99-103]. Without adequate screening, distress often goes unnoticed by cancer professionals and there is little information about the prevalence of distress. The main objective of this article is to present data from 1281 distress screenings completed by patients treated within a community cancer center. Specifically, this article reports the intensity of distress, frequency of problem endorsement, and requests for specific psychosocial providers by cancer patients. Method: Medical and radiation oncology patients completed a distress screener before their first physician appointment. The screening instrument included the Distress Thermometer, a symptom checklist, and a list of psychosocial providers that the patient could request to meet. Results: Thirty-two percent of this sample rated distress above the threshold level. Worry was the most common problem endorsed followed by financial issues. Emotional concerns were endorsed by 59% of the sample. The cancer dietitian was the psychosocial professional most frequently requested by patients. Conclusion: Distress screening can be accomplished within a community cancer center but the provision of psychosocial services is difficult given the high volume of need. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study conducted to know the relationship between the number of support service referrals before and after the implementation of the distress thermometer (DT). It is stated that January 2009 to December 2013, the electronic medical record (EMR) of patients with a cancer diagnosis who pursued care with radiation and/or medical oncology at an urban safety net hospital in the Northeastern U.S. were reviewed for the study.

Background: Guidelines recommend systematic evaluation of distress screening and referral for cancer patients. Implementation remains a notable gap for cancer centers serving disadvantaged communities. We present the implementation of a distress screening program within a Veterans Affairs hospital oncology clinic, serving a majority African American (AA) male population of low socioeconomic status (SES)., Methods: The Coleman Foundation funded this program supporting a palliative care physician and psychologist to implement screening in a phased approach as follows: (1) Organizing key stakeholders, (2) educating clinical staff, (3) delivering distress screening, (4) generating documentation, and (5) implementing clinical action and referral pathways. We utilized validated measures in the "Patient Screening Questions for Supportive Care" screening tool., Results: This program was unsuccessful in screening all veterans with cancer; however, we were able to implement 3 years of longitudinal screening. In distress screens from the initial program period (n = 253), patients were primarily males (95.6%) of older age (m = 70, standard deviation = 9.45), AA (76.4%), with various cancers of advanced disease (69%). Males reported moderate psychosocial distress and elevated financial needs. For males with elevated psychosocial distress (n = 63, PHQ-4 ≥3), 36% were previously connected with psychosocial services. Following screening, engagement increased as the majority (77%) established psychosocial care., Conclusions: This screening program had mixed success. Centralized program staff and available supportive care referrals were critical for program implementation. Screening may have increased engagement in social work/mental health services for males of low SES. Screening programs should be tailored to the needs of underserved communities with accessible housing/food subsidies., (Published 2020. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.)

Objective: We replicated a 1994 study that surveyed the state of supportive care services due to changes in the field and the increased need for such services. We provide an updated assessment, comparing the changes that have occurred and describing the current status of supportive care services in comprehensive cancer settings., Method: We used Coluzzi and colleague's 60-question survey from their 1995 Journal of Clinical Oncology article to frame the 98-question survey employed in the current study. Medical and palliative care directors for the 2011 National Cancer Institute (NCI) comprehensive cancer centers were surveyed regarding their supportive care services and their subjective review of the overall effectiveness of the services provided., Results: We achieved a 76% response rate (n = 31). The data revealed increases in the number of cancer beds in the hospitals, the degree of integration of supportive care services, the availability of complementary services, and the number of pain and palliative care services offered. There was also an overall shift toward centers becoming more patient centered, as 65% reported now having a patient and family advisory council. Our findings revealed a growing trend to offer distress screening for both outpatients and inpatients. Medical and palliative care directors' evaluations of the supportive care services they offered also significantly improved. However, the results revealed an ongoing gap in services for end-of-life care and timely referrals for hospice services., Significance of Results: Overall, both the quantity and quality of supportive care services in the surveyed NCI-designated cancer centers has improved.

In 2015, the American College of Surgeons (ACoS) Commission on Cancer will require cancer centers to implement screening programs for psychosocial distress as a new criterion for accreditation. A joint task force from the American Psychosocial Oncology Society, the Association of Oncology Social Work, and the Oncology Nursing Society developed consensus-based recommendations to guide the implementation of this requirement. In this review, the authors provide recommendations regarding each of the 6 components necessary to meet the ACoS standard: 1) inclusion of psychosocial representation on the cancer committee, 2) timing of screening, 3) method/mode of screening, 4) tools for screening, 5) assessment and referral, and 6) documentation., (© 2014 American Cancer Society.)