Psychosocial distress screening implementation in cancer care: an analysis of adherence, responsiveness, and acceptability

The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has mandated implementation of a systematic protocol for psychosocial distress screening and referral as a condition for cancer center accreditation beginning in 2015. Compliance with standards requires evidence that distress screening protocols...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of clinical oncology 2015-04, Vol.33 (10), p.1165-1170
Hauptverfasser: Zebrack, Brad, Kayser, Karen, Sundstrom, Laura, Savas, Sue Ann, Henrickson, Chris, Acquati, Chiara, Tamas, Rebecca L
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1170
container_issue 10
container_start_page 1165
container_title Journal of clinical oncology
container_volume 33
creator Zebrack, Brad
Kayser, Karen
Sundstrom, Laura
Savas, Sue Ann
Henrickson, Chris
Acquati, Chiara
Tamas, Rebecca L
description The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has mandated implementation of a systematic protocol for psychosocial distress screening and referral as a condition for cancer center accreditation beginning in 2015. Compliance with standards requires evidence that distress screening protocols are carried out as intended and result in appropriate referral and follow-up when indicated. The purpose of this study was to examine the fidelity of distress screening protocols at two tertiary cancer treatment centers. A retrospective review and analysis of electronic medical records over a 12-week period examined clinic adherence to a prescribed distress screening protocol and responsiveness to patients whose scores on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) indicated clinically significant levels of distress requiring subsequent psychosocial contact. A weekly online survey assessed clinician perspectives on the acceptability of the protocol. Across clinics, rates of adherence to the distress screening protocol ranged from 47% to 73% of eligible patients. For patients indicating clinically significant distress (DT score ≥ 4), documentation of psychosocial contact or referral occurred, on average, 50% to 63% of the time, and was more likely to occur at one of two participating institutions when DT scores were high (DT score of 8 to 10). Clinician assessments of the protocol's utility in addressing patient concerns and responding to patient needs were generally positive. Systematic tracking of distress screening protocols is needed to demonstrate compliance with new standards of care and to demonstrate how well institutions are responding to their clinical obligation to address cancer patients' emotional and psychosocial needs.
doi_str_mv 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.4020
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1668238062</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>1668238062</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-a1eba09f12d6c93e6337e01da303763ef52ce2d84f457787df65ee0c65cb57193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNo9kE1LxDAQhoMouq7ePUmOHuyaj6bpepPFTwQ9KHgL2XTqRtq0ZrpC_fVmcRUG5jDP-8I8hJxwNuOCsYuHxdNMMJ7PlJ7lTLAdMuFK6ExrpXbJhGkpMl7KtwNyiPjBEllKtU8OhNJc5kJPyPczjm7VYee8bWjlcYiASNFFgODDO_Vt30ALYbCD7wL1gTobHMS0IlxSG9LYZkSPtKuprVYQId3Paerpu4D-C0JqPE9YRa1z0A926Rs_jEdkr7YNwvF2T8nrzfXL4i57fLq9X1w9Zk7mfMgsh6Vl85qLqnBzCYWUGhivrGRSFxJqJRyIqszrXGld6qouFABzhXLL9OZcTsnZb28fu8814GBajw6axgbo1mh4UZRClqwQCWW_qIsdYoTa9NG3No6GM7MxbpJxszFulDYb4ylyum1fL1uo_gN_iuUPWZJ-Yw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1668238062</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Psychosocial distress screening implementation in cancer care: an analysis of adherence, responsiveness, and acceptability</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Society of Clinical Oncology Online Journals</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Zebrack, Brad ; Kayser, Karen ; Sundstrom, Laura ; Savas, Sue Ann ; Henrickson, Chris ; Acquati, Chiara ; Tamas, Rebecca L</creator><creatorcontrib>Zebrack, Brad ; Kayser, Karen ; Sundstrom, Laura ; Savas, Sue Ann ; Henrickson, Chris ; Acquati, Chiara ; Tamas, Rebecca L</creatorcontrib><description>The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has mandated implementation of a systematic protocol for psychosocial distress screening and referral as a condition for cancer center accreditation beginning in 2015. Compliance with standards requires evidence that distress screening protocols are carried out as intended and result in appropriate referral and follow-up when indicated. The purpose of this study was to examine the fidelity of distress screening protocols at two tertiary cancer treatment centers. A retrospective review and analysis of electronic medical records over a 12-week period examined clinic adherence to a prescribed distress screening protocol and responsiveness to patients whose scores on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) indicated clinically significant levels of distress requiring subsequent psychosocial contact. A weekly online survey assessed clinician perspectives on the acceptability of the protocol. Across clinics, rates of adherence to the distress screening protocol ranged from 47% to 73% of eligible patients. For patients indicating clinically significant distress (DT score ≥ 4), documentation of psychosocial contact or referral occurred, on average, 50% to 63% of the time, and was more likely to occur at one of two participating institutions when DT scores were high (DT score of 8 to 10). Clinician assessments of the protocol's utility in addressing patient concerns and responding to patient needs were generally positive. Systematic tracking of distress screening protocols is needed to demonstrate compliance with new standards of care and to demonstrate how well institutions are responding to their clinical obligation to address cancer patients' emotional and psychosocial needs.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0732-183X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1527-7755</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2014.57.4020</identifier><identifier>PMID: 25713427</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Adolescent ; Adult ; Aged ; Chi-Square Distribution ; Female ; Guideline Adherence - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Humans ; Male ; Mass Screening - methods ; Middle Aged ; Neoplasms - complications ; Neoplasms - psychology ; Neoplasms - therapy ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Psychophysiologic Disorders - complications ; Psychophysiologic Disorders - diagnosis ; Referral and Consultation - statistics &amp; numerical data ; Reproducibility of Results ; Retrospective Studies ; Surveys and Questionnaires ; Young Adult</subject><ispartof>Journal of clinical oncology, 2015-04, Vol.33 (10), p.1165-1170</ispartof><rights>2015 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-a1eba09f12d6c93e6337e01da303763ef52ce2d84f457787df65ee0c65cb57193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-a1eba09f12d6c93e6337e01da303763ef52ce2d84f457787df65ee0c65cb57193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3715,27903,27904</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25713427$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Zebrack, Brad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kayser, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sundstrom, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savas, Sue Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henrickson, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acquati, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamas, Rebecca L</creatorcontrib><title>Psychosocial distress screening implementation in cancer care: an analysis of adherence, responsiveness, and acceptability</title><title>Journal of clinical oncology</title><addtitle>J Clin Oncol</addtitle><description>The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has mandated implementation of a systematic protocol for psychosocial distress screening and referral as a condition for cancer center accreditation beginning in 2015. Compliance with standards requires evidence that distress screening protocols are carried out as intended and result in appropriate referral and follow-up when indicated. The purpose of this study was to examine the fidelity of distress screening protocols at two tertiary cancer treatment centers. A retrospective review and analysis of electronic medical records over a 12-week period examined clinic adherence to a prescribed distress screening protocol and responsiveness to patients whose scores on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) indicated clinically significant levels of distress requiring subsequent psychosocial contact. A weekly online survey assessed clinician perspectives on the acceptability of the protocol. Across clinics, rates of adherence to the distress screening protocol ranged from 47% to 73% of eligible patients. For patients indicating clinically significant distress (DT score ≥ 4), documentation of psychosocial contact or referral occurred, on average, 50% to 63% of the time, and was more likely to occur at one of two participating institutions when DT scores were high (DT score of 8 to 10). Clinician assessments of the protocol's utility in addressing patient concerns and responding to patient needs were generally positive. Systematic tracking of distress screening protocols is needed to demonstrate compliance with new standards of care and to demonstrate how well institutions are responding to their clinical obligation to address cancer patients' emotional and psychosocial needs.</description><subject>Adolescent</subject><subject>Adult</subject><subject>Aged</subject><subject>Chi-Square Distribution</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Guideline Adherence - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Middle Aged</subject><subject>Neoplasms - complications</subject><subject>Neoplasms - psychology</subject><subject>Neoplasms - therapy</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Psychophysiologic Disorders - complications</subject><subject>Psychophysiologic Disorders - diagnosis</subject><subject>Referral and Consultation - statistics &amp; numerical data</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Retrospective Studies</subject><subject>Surveys and Questionnaires</subject><subject>Young Adult</subject><issn>0732-183X</issn><issn>1527-7755</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNo9kE1LxDAQhoMouq7ePUmOHuyaj6bpepPFTwQ9KHgL2XTqRtq0ZrpC_fVmcRUG5jDP-8I8hJxwNuOCsYuHxdNMMJ7PlJ7lTLAdMuFK6ExrpXbJhGkpMl7KtwNyiPjBEllKtU8OhNJc5kJPyPczjm7VYee8bWjlcYiASNFFgODDO_Vt30ALYbCD7wL1gTobHMS0IlxSG9LYZkSPtKuprVYQId3Paerpu4D-C0JqPE9YRa1z0A926Rs_jEdkr7YNwvF2T8nrzfXL4i57fLq9X1w9Zk7mfMgsh6Vl85qLqnBzCYWUGhivrGRSFxJqJRyIqszrXGld6qouFABzhXLL9OZcTsnZb28fu8814GBajw6axgbo1mh4UZRClqwQCWW_qIsdYoTa9NG3No6GM7MxbpJxszFulDYb4ylyum1fL1uo_gN_iuUPWZJ-Yw</recordid><startdate>20150401</startdate><enddate>20150401</enddate><creator>Zebrack, Brad</creator><creator>Kayser, Karen</creator><creator>Sundstrom, Laura</creator><creator>Savas, Sue Ann</creator><creator>Henrickson, Chris</creator><creator>Acquati, Chiara</creator><creator>Tamas, Rebecca L</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20150401</creationdate><title>Psychosocial distress screening implementation in cancer care: an analysis of adherence, responsiveness, and acceptability</title><author>Zebrack, Brad ; Kayser, Karen ; Sundstrom, Laura ; Savas, Sue Ann ; Henrickson, Chris ; Acquati, Chiara ; Tamas, Rebecca L</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c341t-a1eba09f12d6c93e6337e01da303763ef52ce2d84f457787df65ee0c65cb57193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adolescent</topic><topic>Adult</topic><topic>Aged</topic><topic>Chi-Square Distribution</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Guideline Adherence - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Middle Aged</topic><topic>Neoplasms - complications</topic><topic>Neoplasms - psychology</topic><topic>Neoplasms - therapy</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Psychophysiologic Disorders - complications</topic><topic>Psychophysiologic Disorders - diagnosis</topic><topic>Referral and Consultation - statistics &amp; numerical data</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Retrospective Studies</topic><topic>Surveys and Questionnaires</topic><topic>Young Adult</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Zebrack, Brad</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kayser, Karen</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Sundstrom, Laura</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Savas, Sue Ann</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Henrickson, Chris</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Acquati, Chiara</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Tamas, Rebecca L</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of clinical oncology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Zebrack, Brad</au><au>Kayser, Karen</au><au>Sundstrom, Laura</au><au>Savas, Sue Ann</au><au>Henrickson, Chris</au><au>Acquati, Chiara</au><au>Tamas, Rebecca L</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Psychosocial distress screening implementation in cancer care: an analysis of adherence, responsiveness, and acceptability</atitle><jtitle>Journal of clinical oncology</jtitle><addtitle>J Clin Oncol</addtitle><date>2015-04-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>33</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>1165</spage><epage>1170</epage><pages>1165-1170</pages><issn>0732-183X</issn><eissn>1527-7755</eissn><abstract>The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer has mandated implementation of a systematic protocol for psychosocial distress screening and referral as a condition for cancer center accreditation beginning in 2015. Compliance with standards requires evidence that distress screening protocols are carried out as intended and result in appropriate referral and follow-up when indicated. The purpose of this study was to examine the fidelity of distress screening protocols at two tertiary cancer treatment centers. A retrospective review and analysis of electronic medical records over a 12-week period examined clinic adherence to a prescribed distress screening protocol and responsiveness to patients whose scores on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Distress Thermometer (DT) indicated clinically significant levels of distress requiring subsequent psychosocial contact. A weekly online survey assessed clinician perspectives on the acceptability of the protocol. Across clinics, rates of adherence to the distress screening protocol ranged from 47% to 73% of eligible patients. For patients indicating clinically significant distress (DT score ≥ 4), documentation of psychosocial contact or referral occurred, on average, 50% to 63% of the time, and was more likely to occur at one of two participating institutions when DT scores were high (DT score of 8 to 10). Clinician assessments of the protocol's utility in addressing patient concerns and responding to patient needs were generally positive. Systematic tracking of distress screening protocols is needed to demonstrate compliance with new standards of care and to demonstrate how well institutions are responding to their clinical obligation to address cancer patients' emotional and psychosocial needs.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>25713427</pmid><doi>10.1200/JCO.2014.57.4020</doi><tpages>6</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0732-183X
ispartof Journal of clinical oncology, 2015-04, Vol.33 (10), p.1165-1170
issn 0732-183X
1527-7755
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1668238062
source MEDLINE; American Society of Clinical Oncology Online Journals; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Adolescent
Adult
Aged
Chi-Square Distribution
Female
Guideline Adherence - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Male
Mass Screening - methods
Middle Aged
Neoplasms - complications
Neoplasms - psychology
Neoplasms - therapy
Patient Acceptance of Health Care - statistics & numerical data
Psychophysiologic Disorders - complications
Psychophysiologic Disorders - diagnosis
Referral and Consultation - statistics & numerical data
Reproducibility of Results
Retrospective Studies
Surveys and Questionnaires
Young Adult
title Psychosocial distress screening implementation in cancer care: an analysis of adherence, responsiveness, and acceptability
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-23T19%3A31%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Psychosocial%20distress%20screening%20implementation%20in%20cancer%20care:%20an%20analysis%20of%20adherence,%20responsiveness,%20and%20acceptability&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20clinical%20oncology&rft.au=Zebrack,%20Brad&rft.date=2015-04-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1165&rft.epage=1170&rft.pages=1165-1170&rft.issn=0732-183X&rft.eissn=1527-7755&rft_id=info:doi/10.1200/JCO.2014.57.4020&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1668238062%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1668238062&rft_id=info:pmid/25713427&rfr_iscdi=true