Elizabeth A Fradgley1,2,3, Emma Byrnes4, Kristen McCarter5,6, Nicole Rankin7,8, Ben Britton6,9, Kerrie Clover10,11, Gregory Carter11, Douglas Bellamy12, Chris L Paul5,6. 1. University of Newcastle Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research, Innovation and Translation, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. Elizabeth.fradgley@newcastle.edu.au. 2. University of Newcastle Priority Research Centre for Health Behaviour, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. Elizabeth.fradgley@newcastle.edu.au. 3. School of Medicine & Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. Elizabeth.fradgley@newcastle.edu.au. 4. Hunter New England Population Health, Longworth Ave., Wallsend, New South Wales, Australia. 5. University of Newcastle Priority Research Centre for Cancer Research, Innovation and Translation, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. 6. School of Medicine & Public Health, University Drive, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia. 7. Cancer Council New South Wales, 153 Dowling St., Woolloomooloo, New South Wales, Australia. 8. School of Psychology, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. 9. School of Medicine & Public Health, Locked bag 1 , Hunter Regional Mail Centre, New South Wales, Australia. 10. Psycho-Oncology Service, Calvary Mater Newcastle, Locked Bag 10, Hunter Regional Mail Centre, New South Wales, Australia. 11. University of Newcastle Priority Research Centre for Brain and Mental Health Research, Locked Bag 7, Hunter Regional Mail Centre, New South Wales, Australia. 12. Walcha Multipurpose Service, 11S Middle Street, Walcha, New South Wales, Australia.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown how many distressed patients receive the additional supportive care recommended by Australian evidence-based distress management guidelines. The study identifies the (1) distress screening practices of Australian cancer services; (2) barriers to improving practices; and (3) implementation strategies which are acceptable to service representatives interested in improving screening practices. METHOD: Clinic leads from 220 cancer services were asked to nominate an individual involved in daily patient care to complete a cross-sectional survey on behalf of the service. Questions related to service characteristics; screening and management processes; and implementation barriers. Respondents indicated which implementation strategies were suitable for their health service. RESULTS: A total of 122 representatives participated from 83 services (51%). The majority of respondents were specialist nurses or unit managers (60%). Approximately 38% of representatives' services never or rarely screen; 52% who screen do so for all patients; 55% use clinical interviewing only; and 34% follow referral protocols. The most common perceived barriers were resources to action screening results (74%); lack of time (67%); and lack of staff training (66%). Approximately 65% of representatives were interested in improving practices. Of the 8 implementation strategies, workshops (85%) and educational materials (69%) were commonly selected. Over half (59%) indicated a multicomponent implementation program was preferable. CONCLUSIONS: Although critical gaps across all guideline components were reported, there is a broad support for screening and willingness to improve. Potential improvements include additional services to manage problems identified by screening, more staff time for screening, additional staff training, and use of patient-report measures.
BACKGROUND: It is unknown how many distressed patients receive the additional supportive care recommended by Australian evidence-based distress management guidelines. The study identifies the (1) distress screening practices of Australian cancer services; (2) barriers to improving practices; and (3) implementation strategies which are acceptable to service representatives interested in improving screening practices. METHOD: Clinic leads from 220 cancer services were asked to nominate an individual involved in daily patient care to complete a cross-sectional survey on behalf of the service. Questions related to service characteristics; screening and management processes; and implementation barriers. Respondents indicated which implementation strategies were suitable for their health service. RESULTS: A total of 122 representatives participated from 83 services (51%). The majority of respondents were specialist nurses or unit managers (60%). Approximately 38% of representatives' services never or rarely screen; 52% who screen do so for all patients; 55% use clinical interviewing only; and 34% follow referral protocols. The most common perceived barriers were resources to action screening results (74%); lack of time (67%); and lack of staff training (66%). Approximately 65% of representatives were interested in improving practices. Of the 8 implementation strategies, workshops (85%) and educational materials (69%) were commonly selected. Over half (59%) indicated a multicomponent implementation program was preferable. CONCLUSIONS: Although critical gaps across all guideline components were reported, there is a broad support for screening and willingness to improve. Potential improvements include additional services to manage problems identified by screening, more staff time for screening, additional staff training, and use of patient-report measures.
Authors: Erin E Hahn; Corrine E Munoz-Plaza; Dana Pounds; Lindsay Joe Lyons; Janet S Lee; Ernest Shen; Benjamin D Hong; Shannon La Cava; Farah M Brasfield; Lara N Durna; Karen W Kwan; David B Beard; Alexander Ferreira; Aswini Padmanabhan; Michael K Gould Journal: JAMA Date: 2022-01-04 Impact factor: 157.335
Authors: Pandora Patterson; Fiona E J McDonald; Kimberley R Allison; Helen Bibby; Michael Osborn; Karen Matthews; Ursula M Sansom-Daly; Kate Thompson; Meg Plaster; Antoinette Anazodo Journal: Front Psychol Date: 2022-05-06
Authors: Kristen McCarter; Melissa A Carlson; Amanda L Baker; Chris L Paul; James Lynam; Lana N Johnston; Elizabeth A Fradgley Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2021-11-25 Impact factor: 3.603