Improving the detection and documentation of patients’ symptoms in an integrated gastrointestinal oncology and palliative care clinic.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
336 Background: Patients with gastrointestinal (GI) malignancies experience a high burden of disease-related symptoms and treatment side effects. We established an integrated GI oncology and palliative care (PC) clinic in which a PC physician is co-located with the oncology team and can provide timely response to patient distress and facilitate communication with the interdisciplinary palliative care team. Yet, even in the integrated clinic, patient symptoms were unreliably assessed, leading to missed opportunities to address patient suffering. Between October 2023 and January 2024 for patients seen in-person in the integrated clinic for oncology or PC visits, the median rate of symptom documentation was 45%. Emotional, financial, and spiritual distress documentation rates were lowest. We hypothesized that by implementing a systematic, comprehensive patient-reported symptom assessment tool, we could increase the detection and documentation of symptoms, and in turn, improve communication around patient distress and timely response to symptoms. Methods: We measured the rate of symptom documentation (primary outcome) and the use of a patient-reported symptom assessment tool for adults with GI cancers seen in-person in the integrated clinic in Spring 2024. Based on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) and expert consensus, we determined which symptoms were most important to identify. Documentation rates were assessed via manual chart review of visit notes and flowsheet data. Prospective post-intervention data (March to May 2024) were compared to retrospective pre-intervention baseline data (October 2023 to January 2024). Interventions included modification of the ESAS to include GI oncology-specific symptoms, implementation of the tool in paper format to encourage patient-clinician communication, frequent staff education and feedback sessions, creation and dissemination of a resource guide for clinicians to respond to identified distress, and patient satisfaction surveys. Results: 126 patients were included in the study (31 pre-intervention and 95 post-intervention). During the post-intervention period, the median rate of symptom documentation increased from 45% to 83% and the median rate of ESAS survey completion increased from 9% to 68%. Documentation of financial and spiritual distress increased from 13% to 71%, for both, and documentation of emotional distress increased from 35% to 72%. On satisfaction surveys (N=20), most patients reported the tool was helpful in sharing their symptoms (70%), was easy to read and understand (100%), and that their clinician was engaged in addressing their symptoms (67%). Conclusions: The implementation of a patient-reported symptom assessment tool in an integrated GI oncology/PC clinic increased documentation of important symptoms, potentially increasing clinician awareness of patient distress.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».