Markus K Schuler1, Freya Trautmann2,3, Mirko Radloff1, Roman Schmädig1, Leopold Hentschel4, Maria Eberlein-Gonska5, Thomas Petzold2,5, Heike Vetter6, Sebastian Oberlack6, Gerhard Ehninger1, Jochen Schmitt2. 1. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 2. Center for Evidence Based Healthcare (ZEGV), Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 3. National Center for Tumor Diseases (NCT), Partner Site Dresden and German Cancer Research Center (DKFZ), Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 4. Department of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. Leopold.Hentschel@uniklinikum-dresden.de. 5. Department of Quality and Medical Risk Management, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany. 6. Department of Medical Information Technology, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus Dresden, Technical University Dresden, Fetscherstraße 74, 01307, Dresden, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Cancer patients suffer from a variety of symptoms, but little is known about changes during hospitalization and symptom burden at discharge. We implemented an electronic quality of life (QoL) assessment used by the nursing team in routine inpatient care. Feasibility, acceptance, and the course of QoL were investigated. METHODS: A self-administered electronic questionnaire based on the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 was applied in clinical routine. Cancer patients were approached by the nursing staff to complete the QoL assessment twice, at admission and at the day of discharge. Both the feedback of the nursing staff as well as characteristics of participants were used to evaluate the electronic assessment. RESULTS: Out of 210 patients from an oncologic ward, 85 patients (40 %) were invited to participate, 95 % of whom (n = 81) agreed to participate. Participation rate depended on the day of admission, the presence of the coordinating nurse, the overall morbidity assessed by patient clinical complexity level, and the patient age. Forty-six patients (56 %) asked for assistance in completing the questionnaire. Patients older than 53 years and male patients were more likely to need assistance. Twenty-two percent of the nursing staff (n = 5) use the information assessed for individual patient care. Fifty-two percent (n = 12) rated the additional workload as very little or little and 68 % (n = 15) agreed that handling for the patient was easy. Global QoL improved during the stay. Most severe symptoms at admission included fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that it is feasible to implement and use an electronic QoL assessment by the nursing staff in routine inpatient cancer care. Obstacles and worries of staff members have to be considered when further developing this program.
PURPOSE:Cancerpatients suffer from a variety of symptoms, but little is known about changes during hospitalization and symptom burden at discharge. We implemented an electronic quality of life (QoL) assessment used by the nursing team in routine inpatient care. Feasibility, acceptance, and the course of QoL were investigated. METHODS: A self-administered electronic questionnaire based on the EQ-5D and the EORTC QLQ-C30 was applied in clinical routine. Cancerpatients were approached by the nursing staff to complete the QoL assessment twice, at admission and at the day of discharge. Both the feedback of the nursing staff as well as characteristics of participants were used to evaluate the electronic assessment. RESULTS: Out of 210 patients from an oncologic ward, 85 patients (40 %) were invited to participate, 95 % of whom (n = 81) agreed to participate. Participation rate depended on the day of admission, the presence of the coordinating nurse, the overall morbidity assessed by patient clinical complexity level, and the patient age. Forty-six patients (56 %) asked for assistance in completing the questionnaire. Patients older than 53 years and male patients were more likely to need assistance. Twenty-two percent of the nursing staff (n = 5) use the information assessed for individual patient care. Fifty-two percent (n = 12) rated the additional workload as very little or little and 68 % (n = 15) agreed that handling for the patient was easy. Global QoL improved during the stay. Most severe symptoms at admission included fatigue, pain, appetite loss, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study indicate that it is feasible to implement and use an electronic QoL assessment by the nursing staff in routine inpatient cancer care. Obstacles and worries of staff members have to be considered when further developing this program.
Entities:
Keywords:
Electronic assessment; Oncology nursing; Patient care; Quality of life
Authors: K Cocks; M T King; G Velikova; G de Castro; M Martyn St-James; P M Fayers; J M Brown Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2012-03-12 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: Chantal Quinten; John Maringwa; Carolyn C Gotay; Francesca Martinelli; Corneel Coens; Bryce B Reeve; Henning Flechtner; Eva Greimel; Madeleine King; David Osoba; Charles Cleeland; Jolie Ringash; Joseph Schmucker-Von Koch; Martin J B Taphoorn; Joachim Weis; Andrew Bottomley Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michelle van Ryn; Sean M Phelan; Neeraj K Arora; David A Haggstrom; George L Jackson; S Yousuf Zafar; Joan M Griffin; Leah L Zullig; Dawn Provenzale; Mark W Yeazel; Rahul M Jindal; Steven B Clauser Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-02-03 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Markus Schuler; Jan Schildmann; Freya Trautmann; Leopold Hentschel; Beate Hornemann; Anke Rentsch; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2017-03-29 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Leopold Hentschel; Stephan Richter; Hans-Georg Kopp; Bernd Kasper; Annegret Kunitz; Viktor Grünwald; Torsten Kessler; Jens Marcus Chemnitz; Uwe Pelzer; Ulrich Schuler; Janet Freitag; Andrea Schilling; Beate Hornemann; Karin Arndt; Martin Bornhäuser; Markus Kajo Schuler Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-08-27 Impact factor: 2.692