Brad Zebrack|Karen Kayser|Laura Sundstrom|Sue Ann Savas|Chris Henrickson|Chiara Acquati|Rebecca L Tamas
Psychosocial Distress Screening Implementation in Cancer Care: An Analysis of Adherence, Responsiveness, and Acceptability
Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville|Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville|Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville|Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville|Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville|Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville|Association of Oncology Social Work|University of Michigan–Ann Arbor|University of Louisville
purpose american college surgeons commission cancer mandated implementation systematic protocol psychosocial distress screening referral condition cancer center accreditation beginning 2015 compliance standards requires evidence distress screening protocols carried intended result appropriate referral followup indicated purpose study examine fidelity distress screening protocols two tertiary cancer treatment centers methods retrospective review analysis electronic medical records 12week period examined clinic adherence prescribed distress screening protocol responsiveness patients whose scores national comprehensive cancer network distress thermometer dt indicated clinically significant levels distress requiring subsequent psychosocial contact weekly online survey assessed clinician perspectives acceptability protocol results across clinics rates adherence distress screening protocol ranged 47 73 eligible patients patients indicating clinically significant distress dt score 4 documentation psychosocial contact referral occurred average 50 63 time likely occur one two participating institutions dt scores high dt score 8 10 clinician assessments protocols utility addressing patient concerns responding patient needs generally positive conclusion systematic tracking distress screening protocols needed demonstrate compliance new standards care demonstrate well institutions responding clinical obligation address cancer patients emotional psychosocial needs