Madeline Li1,2, Caroline Sanders3, Chieh-Hsin Lee3, Bryan Gascon3, Alyssa Macedo3, Sean Molloy4, Stephane Laframboise5, Yvonne W Leung3,6,7. 1. Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 16th Floor, Room 749, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. madeline.li@uhn.ca. 2. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. madeline.li@uhn.ca. 3. Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 16th Floor, Room 749, 610 University Avenue, Toronto, ON, M5G 2M9, Canada. 4. Quality, Patient Safety & Enterprise Risk, St. Joseph's Health Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 5. Department of Gynecologic Oncology, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada. 6. Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada. 7. de Souza Institute, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study seeks to determine whether specific screening for constipation will increase the frequency of clinician response within the context of an established symptom screening program. METHODS: A "constipation" item was added to routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) screening in gynecologic oncology clinics during a 7-week trial period, without additional constipation-specific training. Chart audits were then conducted to determine documentation of assessment and intervention for constipation in three groups of patients, those who completed (1) ESAS (n = 477), (2) ESAS-C with constipation (n = 435), and (3) no ESAS (n = 511). RESULTS: Among patients who were screened for constipation, 17% reported moderate to severe symptoms. Greater constipation severity increased the likelihood of documented assessment (Z = 2.37, p = .018) and intervention (Z = 1.99, p = .048). Overall rates of documented assessment were 36%, with the highest assessment rate in the no ESAS group (χ2 = 9.505, p = .006), a group with the highest proportion of late-stage disease. No difference in the rate of assessment was found between the ESAS and ESAS-C groups. Overall rates for documentation of intervention were low, and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Specific screening for constipation within an established screening program did not increase the documentation rate for constipation assessment or intervention. The inclusion of specific symptoms in multi-symptom screening initiatives should be carefully evaluated in terms of added value versus patient burden. Care pathways should include guidance on triaging results from multi-symptom screening, and clinicians should pay particular attention to patients who are missed from screening altogether, as they may be the most symptomatic group.
PURPOSE: This study seeks to determine whether specific screening for constipation will increase the frequency of clinician response within the context of an established symptom screening program. METHODS: A "constipation" item was added to routine Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) screening in gynecologic oncology clinics during a 7-week trial period, without additional constipation-specific training. Chart audits were then conducted to determine documentation of assessment and intervention for constipation in three groups of patients, those who completed (1) ESAS (n = 477), (2) ESAS-C with constipation (n = 435), and (3) no ESAS (n = 511). RESULTS: Among patients who were screened for constipation, 17% reported moderate to severe symptoms. Greater constipation severity increased the likelihood of documented assessment (Z = 2.37, p = .018) and intervention (Z = 1.99, p = .048). Overall rates of documented assessment were 36%, with the highest assessment rate in the no ESAS group (χ2 = 9.505, p = .006), a group with the highest proportion of late-stage disease. No difference in the rate of assessment was found between the ESAS and ESAS-C groups. Overall rates for documentation of intervention were low, and did not differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Specific screening for constipation within an established screening program did not increase the documentation rate for constipation assessment or intervention. The inclusion of specific symptoms in multi-symptom screening initiatives should be carefully evaluated in terms of added value versus patient burden. Care pathways should include guidance on triaging results from multi-symptom screening, and clinicians should pay particular attention to patients who are missed from screening altogether, as they may be the most symptomatic group.
Authors: Charles S Cleeland; Xin Shelley Wang; Qiuling Shi; Tito R Mendoza; Sherry L Wright; Madonna D Berry; Donna Malveaux; Pankil K Shah; Ibrahima Gning; Wayne L Hofstetter; Joe B Putnam; Ara A Vaporciyan Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-31 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Zeeshan Butt; Lynne I Wagner; Jennifer L Beaumont; Judith A Paice; Amy H Peterman; Dan Shevrin; Jamie H Von Roenn; George Carro; Joshua L Straus; J Cameron Muir; David Cella Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2007-10-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Timothy J Brown; Neil Keshvani; Arjun Gupta; Hui Yang; Deepak Agrawal; Tri C Le; David E Gerber; Carlos A Alvarez Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-03-02 Impact factor: 3.603