Patient-Reported Symptom Complexity and Acute Care Utilization Among Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Study Using a Novel Symptom Complexity Algorithm and Observational Data (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network
Background: The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) symptom complexity algorithm, derived from self-reported symptom scores using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and concerns indicated on the Canadian Problem Checklist, has not been validated extensively. Methods: This is a retrospective chart review study using data from the Alberta Cancer Registry and electronic medical records from Alberta Health Services. The sample includes patients with cancer who visited a cancer facility in Alberta, Canada, from February 2016 through November 2017 (n=1,466). Results: The effect size (d=1.2) indicates that the magnitude of difference in health status between the severe- and low-complexity groups is large. The symptom complexity algorithm effectively classified subgroups of patients with cancer with distinct health status. Using Karnofsky performance status, the algorithm shows a sensitivity of 70.3%, specificity of 84.1%, positive predictive value of 79.1%, negative predictive value of 76...
Symptom burden and performance status in a population-based cohort of ambulatory cancer patients
Cancer, 2010
BACKGROUND. For ambulatory cancer patients, Ontario has standardized symptom and performance status assessment population-wide, using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and Palliative Performance Scale (PPS). In a broad cross-section of cancer outpatients, the authors describe the ESAS and PPS scores and their relation to patient characteristics. METHODS. This is a descriptive study using administrative healthcare data. RESULTS. The cohort included 45,118 and 23,802 patients' first ESAS and PPS, respectively. Fatigue was most prevalent (75%), and nausea least prevalent (25%) in the cohort. More than half of patients reported pain or shortness of breath; about half of those reported moderate to severe scores. Seventy-eight percent had stable performance status scores. On multivariate analysis, worse ESAS outcomes were consistently seen for women, those with comorbidity, and those with shorter survivals from assessment. Lung cancer patients had the worst burden of symptoms. CONCLUSIONS. This is the first study to report ESAS and PPS scores in a large, geographically based cohort with a full scope of cancer diagnoses, including patients seen earlier in the cancer trajectory (ie, treated for cure). In this ambulatory cancer population, the high prevalence of numerous symptoms parallels those reported in palliative populations and represents a target for improved clinical care. Differences in outcomes for subgroups require further investigation. This research sets the groundwork for future research on patient and provider outcomes using linked administrative healthcare data.
BMJ Open, 2020
Introduction An electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) platform is needed for implementing evidence-based symptom management in outpatients with advanced cancer. We describe the overall protocol and the methodology for measuring symptom burden, to provide critical parameters needed to implement symptom management on the ePRO platform. Methods and analysis The study focusses on patients with advanced lung cancer, stomach cancer, oesophagus cancer, liver cancer, colorectal cancer or breast cancer. The primary outcome is the change of symptom burden. MD Anderson Symptom Inventory, and other PRO instruments (Insomnia Severity Index, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire and EuroQol-5 dimensions-5 levels version) were used. The secondary outcomes include feasibility of using ePRO, symptom-related quality of life, reasons for no improvement of symptoms, defining frequency of PRO assessments and cut-points, items for screening and management of como...
Current Oncology, 2021
In 2013, CancerCare Manitoba (CCMB) launched an urgent cancer care clinic (UCC) to meet the needs of individuals diagnosed with cancer experiencing acute complications of cancer or its treatment. This retrospective cohort study compared the characteristics of individuals diagnosed with cancer that visited the UCC to those who visited an emergency department (ED) and determined predictors of use. Multivariable logistic mixed models were run to predict an individual’s likelihood of visiting the UCC or an ED. Scaled Brier scores were calculated to determine how greatly each predictor impacted UCC or ED use. We found that UCC visits increased up to 4 months after eligibility to visit and then decreased. ED visits were highest immediately after eligibility and then decreased. The median number of hours between triage and discharge was 2 h for UCC visits and 9 h for ED visits. Chemotherapy had the strongest association with UCC visits, whereas ED visits prior to diagnosis had the stronges...
Journal of Cancer Policy, 2018
Background: A recent study reported that inclusion of a patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment for patients with advanced or metastatic disease leads to improved health-related quality of life, decrease in emergency room visits and hospitalization, and improvement in overall survival. Whether the implementation of such a tool would be cost-effective remains uncertain. Objectives and decision problem: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of a patientreported outcome tool for symptom monitoring in patients undergoing treatment for advanced or metastatic cancer in Alberta compared to standard of care symptom monitoring from the perspective of the public payer in Alberta. Methods: A Markov model incorporating two health states (alive and dead) was used to calculate the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of a web-based PRO tool for symptom monitoring compared to standard of care over a lifetime horizon. Clinical data was informed from the results of a North American randomized study of a similar web-based PRO tool for patients with metastatic cancer. Cost data was collected from provincial sources and prior Canadian publications. One-way sensitivity and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed to evaluate uncertainty in the model. A budget impact was performed to determine overall cost of implementation in the first three years. Results: In the base-case analysis, the PRO tool provided 2.
The Oncologist, 2017
Background. Distress screening is mandated by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer; however, there is limited literature on its impact in actual practice. We examined the impact of a pilot distress screening program on access to psychosocial care. Methods. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) screening was routinely conducted at our community-based medical oncology program. Patients who screened positive for severe distress were sent to a social worker for triage and referred to the appropriate services if indicated. We compared the proportion of patients who had ESAS completed, the proportion of patients who screened positive, and the number of patients who had social work assessment and palliative care consultation over the preimplementation (September 2015), training (October/November 2015), and postimplementation (December 2015) periods. Results. A total of 379, 328, and 465 cancer patients were included in the preimplementation, training, and postimplementation periods, respectively. The proportion of patients who completed ESAS increased over time (83% vs. 91% vs. 96%). Among the patients who had completed ESAS, between 11% and 13% were positive for severe distress, which remained stable over the three periods. We observed a significant increase in social work referrals for psychosocial assessment (21% vs. 71% vs. 79%). There was also a trend towards an increased number of palliative care referrals (12% vs. 20% vs. 28%). Conclusion. Our community-based cancer center implemented distress screening rapidly in a resource-limited setting, with a notable increase in symptom documentation and psychosocial referral. The Oncologist 2017;22:995-1001 Implications for Practice: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer mandates distress screening; however, there is limited literature on how this process should be implemented and its impact on clinical practice. We used the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System for routine symptom distress screening in a community-based medical oncology program that provides care for an underserved population. Comparing before and after program implementation, we found an increase in the number of documentations of symptom burden and an increase in psychosocial referrals. Findings from this study may inform the implementation of routine symptom distress screening in cancer patients.
Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 2013
Context. Longitudinal symptom monitoring is important in the setting of patients with advanced cancer. Scores over time may naturally fluctuate, although a patient may feel the same. Objectives. The purpose of this study was to determine the minimal levels of change required to be clinically relevant (minimal clinically important difference [MCID]) using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). Methods. Between 1999 and 2009, patients completed the ESAS before palliative radiotherapy and at follow-up. MCIDs were calculated using both the anchor-and distribution-based methods for improvement and deterioration; 95% confidence intervals for the differences in mean change scores between adjacent categories also were calculated. Results. A total of 276 patients completed the ESAS at baseline and during at least one follow-up visit. At the four-week follow-up, decrease of 1.2 and 1.1 units in pain and depression scales, respectively, constituted clinically relevant improvement, whereas increase of at least 1.4, 1.8, 1.1, 1.1, and 1.4 units, respectively, in pain, tiredness, depression, anxiety, and appetite loss items were required for deterioration. At the subsequent follow-ups, these values were similar. Overall, the MCID for improvement tended to be smaller than that for deterioration. The distribution-based method estimates tended to be larger than the 0.3 SD estimates, but closer to the 0.5 SD estimates. Conclusion. MCIDs allow health care professionals to determine the success of treatment in improving the patient's quality of life. MCIDs may prompt health care professionals to intervene with new treatment. Future studies should confirm our findings with a variety of anchors.
Current Oncology, 2019
Background We assessed whether the presence and severity of common cancer symptoms are associated with the health utility score (hus) generated from the EQ-5D (EuroQol Research Foundation, Rotterdam, Netherlands) in patients with cancer and evaluated whether it is possible pragmatically to integrate routine hus and symptom evaluation in our cancer population.Methods Adult outpatients at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre with any cancer were surveyed cross-sectionally using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (esas) and the EQ-5D-3L, and results were compared using Spearman correlation coefficients and regression analyses.Results Of 764 patients analyzed, 27% had incurable disease. We observed mild-to-moderate correlations between each esas symptom score and the hus (Spearman coefficients: –0.204 to –0.416; p < 0.0001 for each comparison), with the strongest associations being those for pain (R = –0.416), tiredness (R = –0.387), and depression (R =-0.354). Multivariable analyses ...
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 2010
Background: Many patients with advanced cancer depend upon health care providers for symptom assessment. The extent of agreement between patient and provider symptom assessments and the association of agreement with demographic-and disease-related factors was examined. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 1933 patient-health care provider dyads, from 11 European countries. Patients reported symptoms by using the four-point scales of the European Organization of Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) version 3, and providers used corresponding four-point categorical scales. Level of agreement was addressed at the group level (Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test), by difference scores (provider score minus patient score), at the individual level (Intraclass Correlation Coefficients, ICCs) and visually by Bland-Altman plots. Absolute numbers and chi-square tests were used to investigate the relationship between agreement and demographic-, as well as disease-related factors. Results: The prevalence of symptoms assessed as moderate or severe by patients and providers, respectively, were for pain (67 vs.47%), fatigue (71 vs. 54%), generalized weakness (65 vs. 47%), anorexia (47 vs. 25%), depression (31 vs. 17%), constipation (45 vs. 30%), poor sleep (32 vs. 21%), dyspnea (30 vs. 16%), nausea (27 vs. 14%), vomiting (14 vs. 6%) and diarrhea (14 vs. 6%). Symptom scores were identical or differed by only one response category in the majority of patient-provider assessment pairs (79-93%). Providers underestimated the symptom in approximately one of ten patients and overestimated in 1% of patients. Agreement at the individual level was moderate (ICC 0.38 to 0.59). Patients with low Karnofsky Performance Status, high Mini Mental State-score, hospitalized, recently diagnosed or undergoing opioid titration were at increased risk of symptom underestimation by providers (all p < 0.001). Also, the agreement was significantly associated with drug abuse (p = 0.024), provider profession (p < 0.001), cancer diagnosis (p < 0.001) and country (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Considerable numbers of health care providers underestimated symptom intensities. Clinicians in cancer care should be aware of the factors characterizing patients at risk of symptom underestimation.