Electronic capture of cancer-related distress in a community oncology program.

Abstract

1577 Background: Cancer related distress can be seen in as many as one in two patients. Many organizations such as the Commission on Cancer require distress screening. National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) distress thermometer is a common tool used for screening. We studied feasibility of embedding the NCCN thermometer into oncology electronic health record (EHR) for routine patient care. We concurrently studied feasibility of using a mobile health tool for serial evaluation of cancer related distress. Methods: A flowsheet containing NCCN distress thermometer questions was created in Epic EHR (Epic Systems, Verona, WI). Oncology nurses used the flowsheet for routine patient assessment. Patients with distress level ≥ 4 answered additional questions. Ancillary care providers such as palliative care nurses or social workers addressed the identified needs by providing appropriate ‘services’. A field to capture these interventions was created. We also adapted our previously reported web based mobile tool [1] for monitoring cancer distress. Patients rated their distress on a 1-10 scale and highlighted the distress domain (physical, emotional, practical, family). Distress level ≥ 4 generated a color-coded flag for provider review and intervention. Data from both electronic tools was periodically analyzed to inform patient care and quality improvement. Results: Between January and December 2021, Epic EHR based distress flowsheet collected 28,594 distinct responses in 911 patients. 57.4%, 14.9%, 14.1%, 9.4% and 2.3% of the responses were in the physical, emotional, practical, familial and spiritual domains respectively. ‘Other’ responses were 1.4%. Cumulative frequency of non-physical problems was 42.5%. 1819 ‘services’ were provided with 357 emotional, 351 work, 351 housing, 350 transportation and 350 financial need-based interventions. Of 1231 patients who used the distress scale and provided additional comments, 315 (25.5%) had distress levels ≥ 4. The mobile tool captured 849 unique patient responses to the distress question between April 2020 and February 2022. Distress level ≥ 4 was flagged by 281 unique patients (33.09%). Average distress level was 2.7. Emotional domain problems generated the greatest distress level followed by family, physical and practical problems in decreasing order. Conclusions: We demonstrate feasibility of electronic capture of cancer related distress to facilitate holistic patient care in a community-based oncology program. EHR based and mobile tool distress evaluations generated concordant results. Distress caused by emotional, practical and familial domain problems was nearly as frequent and often more severe than distress caused by physical problems, underscoring the need for comprehensive cancer care.