Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

Development, implementation, and initial results of the UC San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center Wellbeing Screening Tool

  • Veronica Cardenas (a1) (a2), Yuko Abbott (a1), Jeremy M. Hirst (a1) (a2), Brent T. Mausbach (a1) (a2), Suzanne Agarwal (a1), Georgianna Collier (a1), Luke Tran (a1), Geline Tamayo (a1), Anna Downey (a1), Maurice Herring (a3) and Scott A. Irwin (a4)...

Abstract

Objective

All accredited cancer institutions are required to screen patients for psychosocial distress. This paper describes the development, implementation, and preliminary outcomes of the University of California San Diego Health Moores Cancer Center Wellbeing Screening Program.

Method

Essential steps learned in a formal National Cancer Institute–funded training workshop entitled “Implementing Comprehensive Biopsychosocial Screening” were followed to ensure successful program implementation. These steps included identification of stakeholders; formation of a working committee; establishment of a vision, process, and implementation timeline; creation of a screening tool; development of patient educational material; tool integration into an electronic medical record system; staff training and pilot testing of tool administration; and education about tool results and appropriate follow-up actions. Screening data were collected and analyzed retrospectively for preliminary results and rapid cycle improvement of the wellbeing screening process.

Results

Over an 8-month implementation and assessment period, the screening tool was administered 5,610 times of 7,664 expected administrations (73.2%.) to 2,394 unique patients. Visits in which the questionnaire was administered averaged 39.6 ± 14.8 minutes, compared with 40.3 ± 15.2 minutes for visits in which the questionnaire was not administered (t = −1.76, df = 7,662, p = 0.079).

Significance of results

This program provides a process and a tool for successful implementation of distress screening in cancer centers, in a meaningful way for patients and providers, while meeting accreditation standards. Further, meaningful data about patient distress and tool performance were able to be collected and utilized.

Copyright

Corresponding author

Author for correspondence: Scott A. Irwin, Supportive Care Services, Cedars-Sinai Heal System, Samuel Oschin Comprehensive Cancer Institute, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neurosciences, 8700 Beverly Blvd, Suite AC-1108, Los Angeles, CA 90048. E-mail: scott.irwin@cshs.org

References

Hide All
American Society of Clinical Oncology (2014) QOPI certification site assessment standards. Available from https://practice.asco.org/sites/default/files/drupalfiles/QOPI-2018-QCP-Track-Measure-Summary.pdf
Carlson, LE, Waller, A, and Mitchell, AJ (2011) Screening for distress and unmet needs in patients with cancer: Review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30(11), 11601177.
Clark, K (2013) Integrating automated screening (Personal Communication).
Commission on Cancer (2012) Cancer program standards 2012: Ensuring patient-centered care. Available from https://www.facs.org/~/media/files/quality%20programs/cancer/coc/programstandards2012.ashx
Giese-Davis, J, Waller, A, Carlson, LE, et al. (2012) Screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: Common problems in cancer outpatients over one year in usual care: Associations with marital status, sex, and age. BMC Cancer 12(1), 112.
Johnson, L (2013) Achieving quality oncology practice initiative certification through quality improvement. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 17(2), 123125.
Muriel, AC, Hwang, VS, Kornblith, A, et al. (2015) Management of psychosocial distress by oncologists. Psychiatric Services 60(8), 11321134.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network (2014) NCCN clinical practice guidelines in Oncology: Distress management: Version 1.2014. Available from https://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/default.aspx#distress
Wagner, LI, Spiegel, D, and Pearman, T (2013) Using the science of psychosocial care to implement the new American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer distress screening standard. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 11(2), 214221.

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Cardenas et al. supplementary material
Cardenas et al. supplementary material 1

 Word (301 KB)
301 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed