Grigorios Kotronoulas1, Constantina Papadopoulou2, Lorna MacNicol3, Mhairi Simpson4, Roma Maguire5. 1. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. Electronic address: grigorios.kotronoulas@strath.ac.uk. 2. School of Health, Nursing and Midwifery, University of the West of Scotland, Paisley, UK. Electronic address: Constantina.papadopoulou@uws.co.uk. 3. Wishaw General Hospital, NHS Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire, UK. Electronic address: Lorna.MacNicol@lanarkshire.scot.nhs.uk. 4. Wishaw General Hospital, NHS Lanarkshire, Lanarkshire, UK. Electronic address: Mhairi.Simpson@lanarkshire.scot.nhs.uk. 5. Department of Computer and Information Sciences, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK. Electronic address: roma.maguire@strath.ac.uk.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Logistical issues pertinent to the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by colorectal cancer nurse specialists (CNS) to identify the needs of people with colorectal cancer (CRC) in acute care remain unknown. We explored the feasibility and acceptability of PROMs-driven, CNS-led consultations to enhance delivery of supportive care to people with CRC completing adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and focus groups with patients and CNS (Phase 1) were followed by a repeated-measures, exploratory study (Phase 2), whereby pre-consultation PROM data were collected during three consecutive, monthly consultations, and used by the CNS to enable delivery of personalised supportive care. RESULTS: Based on Phase 1 data, the Supportive Care Needs Survey was selected for use in Phase 2. Fourteen patients were recruited (recruitment rate: 56%); thirteen (93%) completed all study assessments. Forty in-clinic patient-clinician consultations took place. At baseline, 219 unmet needs were reported in total, with a notable 21% (T2) and 32% (T3) over-time reduction. Physical/daily living and psychological domain scores declined from T1 to T3, yet not statistically significantly. In exit interviews, patients described how using the PROM helped them shortlist and prioritise their needs. CNS stressed how the PROM helped them tease out more issues with patients than they would normally. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led, PROMs-driven needs assessments with patients with CRC appear to be feasible and acceptable in clinical practice, possibly associated with a sizeable reduction in the frequency of unmet needs, and smaller decreases in physical/daily living and psychosocial needs in the immediate post-chemotherapy period.
PURPOSE: Logistical issues pertinent to the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by colorectal cancer nurse specialists (CNS) to identify the needs of people with colorectal cancer (CRC) in acute care remain unknown. We explored the feasibility and acceptability of PROMs-driven, CNS-led consultations to enhance delivery of supportive care to people with CRC completing adjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: A systematic literature review and focus groups with patients and CNS (Phase 1) were followed by a repeated-measures, exploratory study (Phase 2), whereby pre-consultation PROM data were collected during three consecutive, monthly consultations, and used by the CNS to enable delivery of personalised supportive care. RESULTS: Based on Phase 1 data, the Supportive Care Needs Survey was selected for use in Phase 2. Fourteen patients were recruited (recruitment rate: 56%); thirteen (93%) completed all study assessments. Forty in-clinic patient-clinician consultations took place. At baseline, 219 unmet needs were reported in total, with a notable 21% (T2) and 32% (T3) over-time reduction. Physical/daily living and psychological domain scores declined from T1 to T3, yet not statistically significantly. In exit interviews, patients described how using the PROM helped them shortlist and prioritise their needs. CNS stressed how the PROM helped them tease out more issues with patients than they would normally. CONCLUSIONS: Nurse-led, PROMs-driven needs assessments with patients with CRC appear to be feasible and acceptable in clinical practice, possibly associated with a sizeable reduction in the frequency of unmet needs, and smaller decreases in physical/daily living and psychosocial needs in the immediate post-chemotherapy period.
Authors: Judith Lacey; Anna J Lomax; Catriona McNeil; Michael Marthick; David Levy; Steven Kao; Theresa Nielsen; Haryana M Dhillon Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-11-03 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Natasha A Roberts; Monika Janda; Angela M Stover; Kimberly E Alexander; David Wyld; Alison Mudge Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-10-21 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jacob Rosenberg; Birthe Thing Oggesen; Marie Louise Sjødin Hamberg; Anne Kjaergaard Danielsen Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-04-21 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Bróna Nic Giolla Easpaig; Yvonne Tran; Mia Bierbaum; Gaston Arnolda; Geoff P Delaney; Winston Liauw; Robyn L Ward; Ian Olver; David Currow; Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Jeffrey Braithwaite Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2020-02-10 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Angela M Stover; Rachel Kurtzman; Jennifer Walker Bissram; Jennifer Jansen; Philip Carr; Thomas Atkinson; C Tyler Ellis; Ashley T Freeman; Kea Turner; Ethan M Basch Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-07-20 Impact factor: 6.575