Dataset Information

Effects on patient-reported outcomes of "Screening of Distress and Referral Need" implemented in Dutch oncology practice.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:This study investigated the effect of the "Screening for Distress and Referral Need" (SDRN) process (completing a screening instrument; patient-caregiver discussion about the patient's responses, regardless of distress level, and possible referral to specialized care), implemented in Dutch oncology practice on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). METHODS:A non-randomized time-sequential study was conducted to compare two cohorts. Cohort 1 respondents (C1) were recruited before and cohort 2 respondents (C2) after SDRN implementation in nine Dutch hospitals. Participants completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30, HADS, Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-III, and the Distress Thermometer and Problem List (DT&PL). Descriptive analyses and univariate tests were conducted. RESULTS:C2 respondents (N = 422, response = 54%) had significantly lower mean scores on the practical (t = 2.3; p = 0.02), social (t = 2.3; p = 0.03), and emotional PL domains (t = 2.9; p = 0.004) compared with C1 (N = 518, response = 53%). No significant differences were found on quality of life, anxiety, depression, satisfaction with care, distress level, the spiritual and physical PL domains, or on referral wish. CONCLUSIONS:After implementation of SDRN, patients report significantly fewer psychosocial (practical, social, and emotional) problems on the DT/PL but responses on the other patient-reported outcomes were comparable. These results add to the mixed evidence on the beneficial effect of distress screening. More and better focused research is needed.

SUBMITTER: van Nuenen FM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7256091 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effects on patient-reported outcomes of "Screening of Distress and Referral Need" implemented in Dutch oncology practice.

van Nuenen Floor M FM Donofrio Stacey M SM Tuinman Marrit A MA van de Wiel Harry B M HBM Hoekstra-Weebers Josette E H M JEHM

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20191128 7

<h4>Purpose</h4>This study investigated the effect of the "Screening for Distress and Referral Need" (SDRN) process (completing a screening instrument; patient-caregiver discussion about the patient's responses, regardless of distress level, and possible referral to specialized care), implemented in Dutch oncology practice on patient-reported outcomes (PROs).<h4>Methods</h4>A non-randomized time-sequential study was conducted to compare two cohorts. Cohort 1 respondents (C1) were recruited befor ...[more]

PMID: 31781949

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess what is known about the relationship between patient experience measures and incentives designed to improve care, and to identify how public policy and medical practices can promote patient-valued outcomes in health systems with strong financial incentives.Data sources/study settingExisting literature (gray and peer-reviewed) on measuring patient experience and patient-reported outcomes, identified from Medline and Cochrane databases; evaluations of pay-for-performance programs in the United States, Europe, and the Commonwealth countries.Study design/data collectionWe analyzed (1) studies of pay-for-performance, to identify those including metrics for patient experience, and (2) studies of patient experience and of patient-reported outcomes to identify evidence of influence on clinical practice, whether through public reporting or private reporting to clinicians.Principal findingsFirst, we identify four forms of "patient-reported information" (PRI), each with distinctive roles shaping clinical practice: (1) patient-reported outcomes measuring self-assessed physical and mental well-being, (2) surveys of patient experience with clinicians and staff, (3) narrative accounts describing encounters with clinicians in patients' own words, and (4) complaints/grievances signaling patients' distress when treatment or outcomes fall short of expectations. Because these forms vary in crucial ways, each must be distinctively measured, deployed, and linked with financial incentives. Second, although the literature linking incentives to patients experience is limited, implementing pay-for-performance systems appears to threaten certain patient-valued aspects of health care. But incentives can be made compatible with the outcomes patients value if: (a) a sufficient portion of incentives is tied to patient-reported outcomes and experiences, (b) incentivized forms of PRI are complemented by other forms of patient feedback, and (c) health care organizations assist clinicians to interpret and respond to PRI. Finally, we identify roles for the public and private sectors in financing PRI and orchestrating an appropriate balance among its four forms.ConclusionsUnless public policies are attentive to patients' perspectives, stronger financial incentives for clinicians can threaten aspects of care that patients most value. Certain policy parameters are already clear, but additional research is required to clarify how best to collect patient narratives in varied settings, how to report narratives to consumers in conjunction with quantified metrics, and how to promote a "culture of learning" at the practice level that incorporates patient feedback.

Project description:ObjectivesPrevious studies have looked at National Early Warning Score performance in predicting in-hospital deterioration and death, but data are lacking with respect to patient outcomes following implementation of National Early Warning Score. We sought to determine the effectiveness of National Early Warning Score implementation on predicting and preventing patient deterioration in a clinical setting.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingTertiary care academic facility and a community hospital.PatientsPatients 18 years old or older hospitalized from March 1, 2014, to February 28, 2015, during preimplementation of National Early Warning Score to August 1, 2015, to July 31, 2016, after National Early Warning Score was implemented.InterventionsImplementation of National Early Warning Score within the electronic health record and associated best practice alert.Measurements and main resultsIn this study of 85,322 patients (42,402 patients pre-National Early Warning Score and 42,920 patients post-National Early Warning Score implementation), the primary outcome of rate of ICU transfer or death did not change after National Early Warning Score implementation, with adjusted hazard ratio of 0.94 (0.84-1.05) and 0.90 (0.77-1.05) at our academic and community hospital, respectively. In total, 175,357 best practice advisories fired during the study period, with the best practice advisory performing better at the community hospital than the academic at predicting an event within 12 hours 7.4% versus 2.2% of the time, respectively. Retraining National Early Warning Score with newly generated hospital-specific coefficients improved model performance.ConclusionsAt both our academic and community hospital, National Early Warning Score had poor performance characteristics and was generally ignored by frontline nursing staff. As a result, National Early Warning Score implementation had no appreciable impact on defined clinical outcomes. Refitting of the model using site-specific data improved performance and supports validating predictive models on local data.

Dataset Information

Effects on patient-reported outcomes of "Screening of Distress and Referral Need" implemented in Dutch oncology practice.

Publications

Effects on patient-reported outcomes of "Screening of Distress and Referral Need" implemented in Dutch oncology practice.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets