Quality Of Symptom Management Research Articles

Symptoms experienced after transcatheter arterial chemoembolization in patients with primary liver cancer: A network analysis

ObjectiveThis study aimed to establish a symptom network for patients with primary liver cancer posttranscatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE), identifying core and bridge symptoms. The goal is to provide a foundation for precise and comprehensive nursing interventions. MethodsA total of 1207 post-TACE patients were included using a consecutive sampling method. Data collection involved a general information questionnaire, the Anderson Symptom Assessment Scale, and a primary liver cancer–specific symptom module. The symptom network was constructed using the R language. ResultsIn the overall network, distress exhibited the highest strength (rs = 1.31) and betweenness (rb = 62). Fatigue had the greatest closeness (rc = 0.0043), while nausea and vomiting (r = 0.76 ± 0.02) had the highest marginal weights. Nausea had the highest bridge strength (rbs = 5.263). In the first-time TACE-treated symptom network, sadness (rbs = 5.673) showed the highest bridge strength, whereas in the non-first-time symptom network, fever (rbs = 3.061) had the highest bridge strength. ConclusionsDistress serves as a core symptom, and nausea acts as a bridge symptom after TACE treatment in liver cancer patients. Interventions targeting bridge symptoms should be tailored based on the number of treatments, enhancing the quality of symptom management.

Adaptation and Piloting for Hospice Social Workers of Aliviado Dementia Care, a Dementia Symptom Management Program.

Forty-five percent of hospice patients currently have a primary or secondary diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease or related disorders. However, few programs have focused specifically on assisting hospices in providing evidence-based symptom management to persons living with dementia (PLWD). To adapt and pilot the training component of Aliviado Dementia Care, a dementia symptom management quality improvement program originally developed for home healthcare, for use by social workers as part of the hospice interdisciplinary team. A prospective pre-post design was utilized, measuring knowledge, confidence, and attitudes at baseline, and immediately and 1-month post-training. Analysis was performed using paired t-tests and repeated measures ANOVA. Hospice social workers currently practicing in the United States with at least 1 year of experience. The Dementia Symptom Knowledge Assessment and a post-training continuing education evaluation form. Forty-six subjects were enrolled, of whom 26 completed the first post-test and 23 both post-tests. There was a poor baseline level of knowledge and confidence in caring for PLWD. Significant improvements occurred following training, particularly in implementing non-pharmacologic interventions for behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia (BPSD) (16.64% increase, p < .0001) and confidence in managing behavioral symptoms (16.86%, p = .01) and depression (25.18%, p < .0001). Changes were maintained over time. All respondents were either very satisfied or satisfied with the quality and content of the program. The training modules of Aliviado Dementia Care were successfully tailored for use by hospice social workers, showing significant improvement in knowledge and confidence in caring for behavioral symptoms in PLWD. Future work will examine whether the larger program, including this training, can subsequently improve patient outcomes in hospice.

A person-centered e-proms multi-faceted intervention to improve patient experience and health outcomes: A multi-site implementation study in diverse ambulatory oncology practices.

182 Background: The Improving Patient Experience and Health Outcomes Collaborative (iPEHOC) aims to improve health outcomes through uptake of electronic patient reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) in oncology practices in Ontario and Quebec. Building on screening with the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), e-PROMs were triggered based on cut scores to focus multidimensional assessment and management of pain (BPI), fatigue (CFS), anxiety (GAD-7) and depression (PHQ-9). Methods: Multifaceted implementation strategies and practice change coaching facilitated the use of e-PROMs to improve symptom outcomes. A mixed-method, pre-post quasi-experimental design assessed process and impact of the intervention on symptom screening rates, symptom burden, patient experience and activation, clinician satisfaction, team collaboration and health care use. Mann-Whitney U statistics examined significance of change from baseline to the 8-month post comparison. Qualitative data explored uptake of e-PROMs in practice. Results: Over the implementation period 10,248 ESAS screens were completed in iPEHOC clinics; 17.5% triggered an additional e-PROM. A slight improvement was noted in person-centeredness of communication (mean change of 1.43 to 1.37; four-point scale of 1 = very satisfied, 4 = very dissatisfied) and in team collaboration. A significant increase in patient activation levels (p = 0.045) was related to decreased emergency department visits (2% pre/post change, p = 0.81) and hospitalization within 30 days of an e-PROMs completion (2.2% change, p = 0.034) in Ontario. Patients and clinicians perceived e-PROMs as valuable to focus communication in the clinic visit and for shared treatment planning. Focus group data suggests that patients use e-PROMs as a ‘self-check-in’, to communicate their symptoms and normalize disclosure of depression in clinical care. Conclusions: Uptake of e-PROMs in diverse settings is complex and demanding. Improving symptom management quality requires PROM data to be fed-back for ‘real-time’ use in the clinical encounter and practice change facilitation for meaningful use in routine care.

The development and acceptability of symptom management quality improvement reports based on patient-reported data: an overview of methods used in PROSSES.

Patient experiences with symptom care need to be assessed and documented to ensure successful management of cancer-related symptoms. This paper details one method for creating symptom management quality improvement (SMQI) reports, including case-mix adjustment of patient-reported measures. Qualitative data regarding the acceptability of these reports at participating cancer centers (CCs) are also provided. Data were collected from 2226 patients treated at 16 CCs via mailed/Web questionnaires. Twelve items assessing patient perceptions of symptom management-pain, fatigue, emotional distress-served as key quality indicators. Medico-demographic variables suitable for case-mix adjustment were selected using an index score combining predictive power and heterogeneity across CCs. SMQI reports were designed with staff feedback and produced for each CC, providing crude and adjusted CC-specific rates, along with study-wide rates for comparison purposes. Cancer type and participant educational level were selected for case-mix adjustment based upon high index scores. The Kendall rank correlation coefficient showed that case-mix adjustments changed the ranking of CCs on the key quality indicators (% Δ rank range: 5-22%). The key quality indicators varied across CCs (all p<0.02). SMQI reports were well received by CC staff, who described plans to share them with key personnel (e.g., cancer committee, navigator). This paper provides one method for creating hospital-level SMQI reports, including case-mix adjustment. Variation between CCs on key quality indicators, even after adjustment, suggested room for improvement. SMQI reports based on patient-reported data can inform and motivate efforts to improve care through professional/patient education and applying standards of care.

Listening to parents: The role of symptom perception in pediatric palliative home care.

This study analyzes symptom perception by parents and healthcare professionals and the quality of symptom management in a pediatric palliative home care setting and identifies which factors contribute to a high quality of palliative and end-of-life care for children. In this retrospective, cross-sectional study, parents were surveyed at the earliest three months after their child's death. All children were cared for by a specialized home pediatric palliative care team that provides a 24/7 medical on-call service. Questionnaires assessed symptom prevalence and intensity during the child's last month of life as perceived by parents, symptom perception, and treatment by medical staff. The responses were correlated with essential palliative care outcome measures (e.g., satisfaction with the care provided, quality-of-life of affected children and parents, and peacefulness of the dying phase). Thirty-eight parent dyads participated (return rate 84%; 35% oncological disorders). According to parental report, dyspnea (61%) and pain (58%) were the dominant symptoms with an overall high symptom load (83%). Pain, agitation, and seizures could be treated more successfully than other symptoms. Successful symptom perception was achieved in most cases and predicted the quality of symptom treatment (R 2, 0.612). Concordant assessment of symptom severity between parents and healthcare professionals (HCPs) improved the satisfaction with the care provided (p = 0.037) as well as the parental quality-of-life (p = 0.041). Even in cases with unsuccessful symptom control, parents were very satisfied with the SHPPC team's care (median 10; numeric rating scale 0-10) and rated the child's death as highly peaceful (median 9). Significance of the results: The quality and the concordance of symptom perception between parents and HCPs essentially influence parental quality-of-life as well as parental satisfaction and constitute a predictive factor for the quality of symptom treatment and palliative care.

Integration of system-level patient-reported outcome measurement into everyday clinical care: Lessons learned from the cancer care Ontario experience.

159 Background: The goal of the collaborative is to improve the quality and consistency of physical and emotional symptom management across the cancer journey. Objectives are to promote the adoption of electronic symptom assessment using a standardized tool and to increase the clinical use of evidence based guidelines to effectively manage patient identified symptoms. Methods: The actions taken for this initiative are (a) manage cancer symptoms through a patient reported measurement tool; (b) improve the quality of symptom management through the uptake of symptom management guides and algorithms for care; and (c) drive improvement through the adoption of an electronic symptom assessment platform. The following aims were established for this work: (1) aim for symptom screening and assessment (70% of ambulatory cancer clinic patients are screened for symptom severity using ESAS at least once/month); (2) aim for symptom management (evidence from chart audits show intervention as per evidence based guidelines for patients reported symptom scores); (3) aim for patient satisfaction (90% of target population indicates that their health care team took their scores into consideration when developing a care plan); and (4)aim for evidence of use (90% of patients state that their doctor or nurse spoke with them about their symptom screen). Results: 60% of cancer patients are screened each month representing over 28,000 people. Six of fourteen cancer regions are above the provincial target of 70%, with some close to 90%. 92% of patients felt ESAS was important to complete to help health care providers know how they are feeling. Conclusions: Cancer Care Ontario has been able to drive improvements in symptom management through the implementation of system wide electronic symptom assessment. For other jurisdictions interested in adopting this approach, the following areas are critical for success: a) leadership at all levels of the system; b) clinical tools at the point of care; c) engagement of patients in the design of care; d) communications support to spread information to all stakeholders; and e) using to data to drive performance improvement and accountability.

Population-based standardized symptom screening: Cancer Care Ontario’s Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and performance status initiatives.

56 Background: The goal of the collaborative is to improve the quality and consistency of physical and emotional symptom management across the cancer journey. Objectives are: (a) promote the adoption of electronic symptom assessment using a standardized tool and (b) increase the clinical use of evidence based guidelines to effectively manage patient identified symptoms. Methods: The actions taken for this initiative are to manage cancer symptoms through a patient reported measurement tool; improve the quality of symptom management through the uptake of symptom management guides and algorithms for care; and drive improvement through the adoption of an electronic symptom assessment platform The following aims were established for this work: (1) Aim for symptom screening and assessment (70% of ambulatory cancer clinic patients are screened for symptom severity using ESAS at least once/month) (2) aim for symptom management (evidence from chart audits show intervention as per evidence based guidelines for patients reported symptom scores) (3) aim for patient satisfaction (90% of target population indicates that their health care team took their scores into consideration when developing a care plan) and (4) aim for evidence of use (90% of patients state that their doctor or nurse spoke with them about their symptom screen). Results: 60% of cancer patients are screened each month representing over 28,000 people. Six of fourteen cancer regions are above the provincial target of 70%, with some close to 90%. 92% of patients felt ESAS was important to complete to help health care providers know how they are feeling. Conclusions: Cancer Care Ontario has been able to drive improvements in symptom management through the implementation of system wide electronic symptom assessment. For other jurisdictions interested in adopting this approach, the following areas are critical for success. (a.) Leadership at all levels of the system; (b.) clinical tools at the point of care; (c) engagement of patients in the design of care; (d) communications support to spread information to all stakeholders; and (e) using to data to drive performance improvement and accountability.

Developing symptom management quality improvement reports with data from a registry-based patient reported outcomes (PRO) collection method.

180 Background: Symptom management is critical to quality cancer care, affecting treatment completion, functioning and quality of life. We describe the use of the Commission on Cancer’s Rapid Quality Reporting System (RQRS) to ascertain cases for PRO collection, identify key PRO quality indicators, and provide actionable symptom management quality improvement (QI) reports to community cancer centers (CCC). Methods: The Patient Reported Outcomes Symptoms &amp; Side Effects Study used RQRS to sample patients (pt) 4-12 months from diagnosis with locoregional breast/colon from 17 National Cancer Institute Community Cancer Centers Program centers. Surveys were mailed with web option. Pts were asked if they talked to a health professional about pain (Talk about) and, separately, if the health professional gave advice about what to do if pain started, got worse, or came back (Advice). Similar questions were asked about fatigue and emotional distress (ED). QI reports were designed with CCC staff feedback and produced for each CCC providing crude and case-mix adjusted CCC-specific rates, and study-wide rates. Direct standardization methods were used to adjust CCC-specific rates for cancer type and education. Results: 2,487 eligible participants responded (RR=61%). This table shows overall study-wide estimates and the range of adjusted CCC-specific estimates for six key indicators. (See Table.) Conclusions: This pilot study shows the registry-based method for PRO collection was successful and has potential for wider dissemination. Study-wide, 20-45% of pts did not report discussing or getting advice about three common symptoms from their healthcare team. CCCs varied significantly on these indicators, suggesting room for improvement. Quality reports were well received by hospital staff, who report sharing them with clinicians, navigators and cancer committees. CCC-specific reports may promote efforts to improve care through professional/patient education and applying standards of care. [Table: see text]

Improving nurse practitioner documentation of QOPI symptom management and end-of-life care measures by using "Smart Text" in electronic health records.

328 Background: Nurse practitioners (NPs) play a significant role in symptom management, yet the literature is lacking in their role in implementation of quality measures for supportive care, symptom management, and end-of-life care. Previous research, however, has described the importance of oncology NPs in providing palliative care and symptom management. Evidence of ASCO’s Quality Oncology Practice Initiative (QOPI) measures for symptom management and end-of-life care have not been well documented in patient medical records. The objective of this project is to improve NP documentation of these quality measures by incorporating use of “Smart Text” with a new electronic medical record system. The research question is, “Do NPs caring for adult medical oncology patients in the ambulatory care setting demonstrate increased documentation of symptom management quality measures following an educational intervention (EI) as compared to pre-intervention chart audits?” Improved documentation of these measures can positively impact patient outcomes. Methods: This quantitative study utilizes pre- and post-EI chart audits. The pre-intervention chart audit will evaluate 100 charts of oncology patients seen by oncology NPs in an academic cancer center for documentation of symptom management and end-of-life care QOPI measures. Pre-chart analysis will be used to develop the EI. The EI will include development of specific “Smart Text” which include information specific to symptom management and end-of-life care QOPI measures. Following the EI, a post- chart audit will be completed to evaluate improvement in NP documentation of these measures. SPSS software will assist researchers in developing descriptive statistics, graphs and analyses to be used in interpretation of findings. The project has been approved and given exempt status by the institution’s IRB. Results: This study is in process and preliminary results are expected by the time of this meeting taking place. Conclusions: If this intervention proves to be successful, it has the potential to be incorporated by not only nurse practitioners, but by all clinicians in oncology settings across the country.

Cancer Quality‐ASSIST supportive oncology quality indicator set

Although measuring the quality of symptom management and end-of-life care could help provide a basis for improving supportive care for advanced cancer, few quality indicators in this area have been rigorously developed or evaluated. The authors conducted a pilot evaluation of a comprehensive set of 92 supportive oncology quality indicators, Cancer Quality-ASSIST, including outpatient and hospital indicators for symptoms commonly related to cancer and its treatment and information and care planning. They operationalized the indicators and developed an electronic abstraction tool and extensive guidelines and training materials. Quality assurance nurses abstracted the medical records for 356 advanced cancer patients in 2 settings: a Veterans Administration hospital and an academic hospital and cancer center. The authors evaluated the indicators' feasibility, inter-rater reliability, and validity. The authors successfully evaluated 78 indicators across the domains; results were similar in the 2 settings. They could not feasibly evaluate 3 indicators because of low prevalence; 22 indicators had significant inter-rater reliability issues, 9 had significant validity issues, and 3 had both reliability and validity issues, leaving a set of 41 indicators most promising for further testing and use in this population, with an overall kappa score of 0.85 for specified care. Of 92 Cancer Quality-ASSIST quality indicators for symptoms, treatment toxicity, and information and care planning, 41 were sufficiently feasible, reliable, and valid to be used for patients with advanced cancer in these settings. This set of indicators shows promise for describing key supportive care processes in advanced cancer.

Update in Quality and How to Use New Resources for Quality Measurement in Palliative Care (521)

1.Discuss the current state of quality measurement for palliative care, including relevance to health policy and healthcare reform.2.Discuss the Cancer Quality-ASSIST measure set and how to apply it.3.Discuss the CMS (Center for Medicare Services) PCPI/PQRI (Physicians' Quality Reporting Initiative) measures relevant to palliative care and how to apply them. In order to justify resource allocation, address National Consensus Project standards, and guide quality improvement, palliative care programs must measure the quality of symptom management, communication, and care planning, both in the settings where we work and as provided by our own teams. However, to date, few resources have been available for validated, standardized, benchmarked quality measurement in these domains. Recently, a number of relevant quality indicators have been developed and tested, and national quality measurement programs have endorsed measures applicable to palliative care domains. This workshop, sponsored by the AAHPM Quality Task Force, will provide an overview of the current state of quality measurement for palliative care, focusing on health policy issues and medical record-based and reporting measures; describe the Cancer Quality-ASSIST measurement set and how to apply it; and discuss the Center for Medicare Services (CMS)/AMA PCPI/PQRI program indicators applicable to palliative care and experience with their implementation. The overview will describe current health policy initiatives, including the role of quality measurement in healthcare reform and nationally available programs and measures, such as the relevant ASCO (American Society for Clinical Oncology) QOPI measures and measures endorsed by the National Quality Forum. The section on Cancer Quality-ASSIST will describe the available domains of palliative care; discuss the development and testing of the indicator set across three clinical sites; and describe how to select and implement measures in the inpatient and/or outpatient setting. The section on the CMS/AMA PCPI/PQRI will describe the program, measures currently endorsed and appropriate for palliative care domains, practices' experience with implementing the measures, and inclusion of palliative care content in broader quality measurement areas, such as care transitions. Structure and Processes of Care

Gender differences in NSAID use among older adults with osteoarthritis.

Nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are the most commonly prescribed medications for the treatment of osteoarthritis (OA). Little is known about whether there are important gender differences in NSAID use among patients with OA. To examine gender differences in patterns of NSAID use among older adults (>or=65 y) with OA. Subjects (n = 11298) were members of a statewide prescription drug plan who responded to a health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) survey in 1997 and had a physician diagnosis of OA. Gender differences in patterns of NSAID use were examined over a 2-year period. Approximately one-third of the participants filled at least 1 NSAID prescription during the study. Women were significantly more likely to be prescribed an NSAID than men (37% vs. 30%), had a greater total days' supply of NSAIDs, and were more frequently prescribed NSAIDs with greater degrees of cyclooxygenase-2 selectivity. These gender differences persisted in statistical analyses controlling for demographic factors, HRQOL, and gastrointestinal (GI) risk factors. Results of this study showed significant gender differences in patterns of NSAID use, and these differences were independent of the risk for GI adverse effects and self-reported symptoms. Further research is needed to examine reasons for these gender variations, as well as their impact on the quality of symptom management.