BACKGROUND: A comprehensive whole-person approach might improve processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of NEST13+ (Needs of a social nature; Existential concerns; Symptoms; and Therapeutic interaction), a screening and assessment tool, to identify social, emotional, physical, and care-system needs and to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients in tertiary care. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: A controlled trial involving 451 patients hospitalized for cancer care at a comprehensive cancer center. INTERVENTION: Patients responded to 13 screening questions regarding possible care needs. When an individual response exceeded threshold levels, additional in-depth questions for the relevant need were asked. For patients in the intervention arm, clinical recommendations for each dimension of need were generated based on a previously developed NEST-response-driven menu, and were reported to the clinical team. MEASUREMENTS: Documented needs, clinician response, patient perception of goals alignment, and overall quality of palliative care. RESULTS: Using the NEST13+ tool in the clinical setting facilitated greater documentation of illness-related needs than routine clinical assessment. Improvement in secondary outcomes was attenuated: changes in the clinician response were modest; changes in outcomes were not significant. CONCLUSION: The NEST13+ tool facilitated identification of a wider range of important needs than traditional evaluation, while care outcomes were not improved. Traditional evaluation may need improvement. Future trials of the NEST13+ should focus on more intensive clinician-directed interventions.
BACKGROUND: A comprehensive whole-person approach might improve processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess the ability of NEST13+ (Needs of a social nature; Existential concerns; Symptoms; and Therapeutic interaction), a screening and assessment tool, to identify social, emotional, physical, and care-system needs and to improve clinical outcomes for cancerpatients in tertiary care. DESIGN, SETTING, PATIENTS: A controlled trial involving 451 patients hospitalized for cancer care at a comprehensive cancer center. INTERVENTION: Patients responded to 13 screening questions regarding possible care needs. When an individual response exceeded threshold levels, additional in-depth questions for the relevant need were asked. For patients in the intervention arm, clinical recommendations for each dimension of need were generated based on a previously developed NEST-response-driven menu, and were reported to the clinical team. MEASUREMENTS: Documented needs, clinician response, patient perception of goals alignment, and overall quality of palliative care. RESULTS: Using the NEST13+ tool in the clinical setting facilitated greater documentation of illness-related needs than routine clinical assessment. Improvement in secondary outcomes was attenuated: changes in the clinician response were modest; changes in outcomes were not significant. CONCLUSION: The NEST13+ tool facilitated identification of a wider range of important needs than traditional evaluation, while care outcomes were not improved. Traditional evaluation may need improvement. Future trials of the NEST13+ should focus on more intensive clinician-directed interventions.
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Derek M Jones; Wen Reagan; Mary D Key; Vinca Chow; Jessica McFarlin; David Casarett; Claire J Creutzfeldt; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2018-01
Authors: Corita R Grudzen; Lynne D Richardson; Matthew Morrison; Elizabeth Cho; R Sean Morrison Journal: Acad Emerg Med Date: 2010-11 Impact factor: 3.451
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Isaretta L Riley; Deepshikha C Ashana; Krista Haines; Maren K Olsen; Jessie Gu; Elias H Pratt; Mashael Al-Hegelan; Robert W Harrison; Colleen Naglee; Allie Frear; Hongqiu Yang; Kimberly S Johnson; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2021-02-13 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Sarah K Andersen; Grace Vincent; Rachel A Butler; Elke H P Brown; Dave Maloney; Sana Khalid; Rae Oanesa; James Yun; Carrie Pidro; Valerie N Davis; Judith Resick; Aaron Richardson; Kimberly Rak; Jackie Barnes; Karl B Bezak; Andrew Thurston; Eva Reitschuler-Cross; Linda A King; Ian Barbash; Ali Al-Khafaji; Emily Brant; Jonathan Bishop; Jennifer McComb; Chung-Chou H Chang; Jennifer Seaman; Jennifer S Temel; Derek C Angus; Robert Arnold; Yael Schenker; Douglas B White Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2022-06 Impact factor: 5.576
Authors: Christopher E Cox; Maren K Olsen; David Casarett; Krista Haines; Mashael Al-Hegelan; Raquel R Bartz; Jason N Katz; Colleen Naglee; Deepshikha Ashana; Daniel Gilstrap; Jessie Gu; Alice Parish; Allie Frear; Deepthi Krishnamaneni; Andrew Corcoran; Sharron L Docherty Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2020-09-29 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Vivian E von Gruenigen; Helen Q Huang; David Cella; MichaelA Zevon; Jason A LaChance; Joan L Walker; Ritu Salani; Susan C Modesitt; Robert T Morris; William H Bradley; Matthew P Boente; Lari Wenzel Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2018-05-18 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Mariko Carey; Sylvie Lambert; Rochelle Smits; Chris Paul; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Tara Clinton-McHarg Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2011-11-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Xavier Busquet-Duran; Eva Maria Jiménez-Zafra; Josep Maria Manresa-Domínguez; Magda Tura-Poma; Olga Bosch-delaRosa; Anna Moragas-Roca; Maria Concepción Galera Padilla; Susana Martin Moreno; Emilio Martínez-Losada; Silvia Crespo-Ramírez; Ana Isabel López-Garcia; Pere Torán-Monserrat Journal: J Multidiscip Healthc Date: 2020-03-19
Authors: Xavier Busquet-Duran; Eva Maria Jiménez-Zafra; Magda Tura-Poma; Olga Bosch-de la Rosa; Anna Moragas-Roca; Susana Martin-Moreno; Emilio Martínez-Losada; Silvia Crespo-Ramírez; Lola Lestón-Lado; Núria Salamero-Tura; Joana Llobera-Estrany; Núria Oriol-Peregrina; Eduard Moreno-Gabriel; Josep Maria Manresa-Domínguez; Pere Torán-Monserrat Journal: Healthcare (Basel) Date: 2021-02-04