Anna Götz1,2, A Kröner3, J Jenewein3, R Spirig4,5. 1. Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistr. 100, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. Anna.goetz@usz.ch. 2. PhD Program, Department of Nursing Science, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. Anna.goetz@usz.ch. 3. Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistr. 100, 8001, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. PhD Program, Department of Nursing Science, University Witten/Herdecke, Witten, Germany. 5. Institute of Nursing Science, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Identifying and assessing psychosocial distress with an appropriate screening instrument is essential when caring for cancer patients. Since 2012, the distress thermometer (DT) has been used by nurses for all cancer inpatients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich. We wanted to identify nurses' adherence to the screening protocol, differences between screened and not screened patients and the relationship between screening rate and productivity. METHODS: This retrospective descriptive study used screening and referral data as well as socioeconomic and disease-related data of inpatients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich. This was collected from the electronic patient documentation system. Additionally, data showing the productivity of all wards was used. All data were analyzed descriptive. RESULTS: Since 2012, 40.6% (4541) of the 11,184 patients have been screened. The screening rate was initially significantly lower but settled at 40% after 2 years. There was a higher screening rate among Swiss, married, male, and emergency patients and patients with hematology diseases, brain tumors, or head and neck cancer (p < 0.001). Every fourth patient with a moderate to severe distress level requested referral to a psychosocial service. Significantly more screened patients were referred to the social service (44.7%) than to the psycho-oncology service (9.4%). Only 22.9% of all referrals were made on the day of screening or a day later. There were only two wards of 15 with a significant relationship between productivity and screening rate. CONCLUSIONS: Screening is useful in recognizing distress among patients, but screening practice needs to be reconsidered.
PURPOSE: Identifying and assessing psychosocial distress with an appropriate screening instrument is essential when caring for cancerpatients. Since 2012, the distress thermometer (DT) has been used by nurses for all cancer inpatients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich. We wanted to identify nurses' adherence to the screening protocol, differences between screened and not screened patients and the relationship between screening rate and productivity. METHODS: This retrospective descriptive study used screening and referral data as well as socioeconomic and disease-related data of inpatients at the Comprehensive Cancer Center Zurich. This was collected from the electronic patient documentation system. Additionally, data showing the productivity of all wards was used. All data were analyzed descriptive. RESULTS: Since 2012, 40.6% (4541) of the 11,184 patients have been screened. The screening rate was initially significantly lower but settled at 40% after 2 years. There was a higher screening rate among Swiss, married, male, and emergency patients and patients with hematology diseases, brain tumors, or head and neck cancer (p < 0.001). Every fourth patient with a moderate to severe distress level requested referral to a psychosocial service. Significantly more screened patients were referred to the social service (44.7%) than to the psycho-oncology service (9.4%). Only 22.9% of all referrals were made on the day of screening or a day later. There were only two wards of 15 with a significant relationship between productivity and screening rate. CONCLUSIONS: Screening is useful in recognizing distress among patients, but screening practice needs to be reconsidered.
Entities:
Keywords:
Distress screening; Distress thermometer; Psychosocial support
Authors: Moritz Philipp Günther; Johannes Kirchebner; Jan Ben Schulze; Roland von Känel; Sebastian Euler Journal: Eur J Cancer Care (Engl) Date: 2022-02-09 Impact factor: 2.328
Authors: Kristine A Donovan; Luigi Grassi; Teresa L Deshields; Cheyenne Corbett; Michelle B Riba Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Magda A Oliveira; Marina P Guerra; Leonor Lencastre; Sónia Castro; Susana Moutinho; Crystal L Park Journal: Int J Clin Health Psychol Date: 2021-07-24
Authors: Afaf Girgis; Ivana Durcinoska; Anthony Arnold; Joseph Descallar; Nasreen Kaadan; Eng-Siew Koh; Andrew Miller; Weng Ng; Martin Carolan; Stephen A Della-Fiorentina; Sandra Avery; Geoff P Delaney Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-29 Impact factor: 5.428