CONTEXT: Distressing symptoms interfere with the quality of life in patients with lung cancer. Algorithm-based clinical decision support (CDS) to improve evidence-based management of isolated symptoms seems promising, but no reports yet address multiple symptoms. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the feasibility of CDS for a Symptom Assessment and Management Intervention targeting common symptoms in patients with lung cancer (SAMI-L) in ambulatory oncology. The study objectives were to evaluate completion and delivery rates of the SAMI-L report and clinician adherence to the algorithm-based recommendations. METHODS: Patients completed a web-based symptom assessment and SAMI-L created tailored recommendations for symptom management. Completion of assessments and delivery of reports were recorded. Medical record review assessed clinician adherence to recommendations. Feasibility was defined as 75% or higher report completion and delivery rates and 80% or higher clinician adherence to recommendations. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were used for data analyses. RESULTS: Symptom assessment completion was 84% (95% CI=81-87%). Delivery of completed reports was 90% (95% CI=86-93%). Depression (36%), pain (30%), and fatigue (18%) occurred most frequently, followed by anxiety (11%) and dyspnea (6%). On average, overall recommendation adherence was 57% (95% CI=52-62%) and was not dependent on the number of recommendations (P=0.45). Adherence was higher for anxiety (66%; 95% CI=55-77%), depression (64%; 95% CI=56-71%), pain (62%; 95% CI=52-72%), and dyspnea (51%; 95% CI=38-64%) than for fatigue (38%; 95% CI=28-47%). CONCLUSION: The CDS systems, such as SAMI-L, have the potential to fill a gap in promoting evidence-based care.
CONTEXT: Distressing symptoms interfere with the quality of life in patients with lung cancer. Algorithm-based clinical decision support (CDS) to improve evidence-based management of isolated symptoms seems promising, but no reports yet address multiple symptoms. OBJECTIVES: This study examined the feasibility of CDS for a Symptom Assessment and Management Intervention targeting common symptoms in patients with lung cancer (SAMI-L) in ambulatory oncology. The study objectives were to evaluate completion and delivery rates of the SAMI-L report and clinician adherence to the algorithm-based recommendations. METHODS:Patients completed a web-based symptom assessment and SAMI-L created tailored recommendations for symptom management. Completion of assessments and delivery of reports were recorded. Medical record review assessed clinician adherence to recommendations. Feasibility was defined as 75% or higher report completion and delivery rates and 80% or higher clinician adherence to recommendations. Descriptive statistics and generalized estimating equations were used for data analyses. RESULTS: Symptom assessment completion was 84% (95% CI=81-87%). Delivery of completed reports was 90% (95% CI=86-93%). Depression (36%), pain (30%), and fatigue (18%) occurred most frequently, followed by anxiety (11%) and dyspnea (6%). On average, overall recommendation adherence was 57% (95% CI=52-62%) and was not dependent on the number of recommendations (P=0.45). Adherence was higher for anxiety (66%; 95% CI=55-77%), depression (64%; 95% CI=56-71%), pain (62%; 95% CI=52-72%), and dyspnea (51%; 95% CI=38-64%) than for fatigue (38%; 95% CI=28-47%). CONCLUSION: The CDS systems, such as SAMI-L, have the potential to fill a gap in promoting evidence-based care.
Authors: S L Du Pen; A R Du Pen; N Polissar; J Hansberry; B M Kraybill; M Stillman; J Panke; R Everly; K Syrjala Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: V Mock; A Atkinson; A Barsevick; D Cella; B Cimprich; C Cleeland; J Donnelly; M A Eisenberger; C Escalante; P Hinds; P B Jacobsen; P Kaldor; S J Knight; A Peterman; B F Piper; H Rugo; P Sabbatini; C Stahl Journal: Oncology (Williston Park) Date: 2000-11 Impact factor: 2.990
Authors: Steven D Passik; Kenneth L Kirsh; Dale Theobald; Kathleen Donaghy; Elizabeth Holtsclaw; Sarah Edgerton; William Dugan Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: E P Wright; P J Selby; M Crawford; A Gillibrand; C Johnston; T J Perren; R Rush; A Smith; G Velikova; K Watson; A Gould; A Cull Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-01-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: M H Trivedi; J K Kern; A Marcee; B Grannemann; B Kleiber; T Bettinger; K Z Altshuler; A McClelland Journal: Methods Inf Med Date: 2002 Impact factor: 2.176
Authors: Marie Flannery; Karen F Stein; David W Dougherty; Supriya Mohile; Joseph Guido; Nancy Wells Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2018-09-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Melissa Beauchemin; Meghan T Murray; Lillian Sung; Dawn L Hershman; Chunhua Weng; Rebecca Schnall Journal: Int J Med Inform Date: 2019-08-12 Impact factor: 4.046
Authors: Mary Ersek; Moni Blazej Neradilek; Keela Herr; Anita Jablonski; Nayak Polissar; Anna Du Pen Journal: J Am Med Dir Assoc Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 4.669
Authors: Jafar Al-Mondhiry; Sarah D'Ambruoso; Christopher Pietras; Thomas Strouse; Dikla Benzeevi; Armen C Arevian; Kenneth B Wells Journal: JMIR Form Res Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Mary E Cooley; Emanuele Mazzola; Niya Xiong; Fangxin Hong; David F Lobach; Ilana M Braun; Barbara Halpenny; Michael S Rabin; Ellis Johns; Kathleen Finn; Donna Berry; Ruth McCorkle; Janet L Abrahm Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2021-12-16 Impact factor: 5.576