Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-23T20:41:19.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Barriers and facilitators to implementing the commission on cancer's distress screening program standard

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2018

Andrea K. Knies ,
Devika R. Jutagir Open the ORCID record for Devika R. Jutagir [Opens in a new window] ,
Elizabeth Ercolano ,
Nicholas Pasacreta ,
Mark Lazenby  and
Ruth McCorkle
Andrea K. Knies*
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Nursing, West Haven, CT
Devika R. Jutagir
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
Elizabeth Ercolano
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Nursing, West Haven, CT
Nicholas Pasacreta
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Nursing, West Haven, CT
Mark Lazenby
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Nursing, West Haven, CT
Ruth McCorkle
Affiliation:
Yale University School of Nursing, West Haven, CT
*
Author of correspondence: Andrea K. Knies, Department of Neurology, Division of Neurocritical Care & Emergency Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, 15 York Street, New Haven, CT 06510. E-mail: andrea.knies@yale.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective

Many cancer centers struggle to implement standardized distress screening despite the American College of Surgeons’ Commission on Cancer 2012 mandate for a distress screening program standard of care by 2015. This paper presents outcomes for the first cohort of participants (n = 36) of a Screening for Psychosocial Distress Program (SPDP), a 2-year training program designed to assist clinicians in implementing routine distress screening as mandated by the American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer. Specifically, participants’ success with distress screening implementation, institutional barriers and facilitators to implementation, and the role of the SPDP are described.

Method

This research followed a longitudinal pre- and posttest mixed methods design. An investigator-developed questionnaire collected qualitative (distress screening goals, institutional barriers and facilitators, facilitators associated with participation in the SPDP) and quantitative (level of goal achievement) data at 6, 12, and 24 months of participation in the SPDP. Conventional content analysis was applied to qualitative data. Mixed methods data analysis in Dedoose evaluated (1) types and number of distress screening goals, barriers, and facilitators, and (2) goal achievement at 6, 12, and 24 months of participation.

Result

Ninety-five percent of distress screening implementation goals were completed after 2 years of participation. Most common institutional barriers to distress screening implementation were “lack of staff,” “competing demands,” and “staff turn-over.” Most common institutional facilitators were “buy-in,” “institutional support,” and “recognition of participants’ expertise.” The number of reported facilitators associated with SPDP participation was higher than the number associated with any institutional factor, and increased over time of participation.

Significance of results

Participating in training programs to implement distress screening may facilitate successful achievement of the Commission on Cancer's distress screening standard, and benefits seem to increase with time of participation. Training programs are needed to promote facilitators and overcome barriers to distress screening.

Keywords

Quality of lifedistress screeningcanceranxiety/depressioninterventions
Type
Original Article
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , June 2019 , pp. 253 - 261
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

These authors shared first authorship.

References

Biddle, L et al. (2016) Patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of holistic needs assessment using a cancer distress thermometer and problem list: a qualitative study. European Journal of Oncology Nursing 22, 59–65.10.1016/j.ejon.2016.04.004Google Scholar
BrintzenhofeSzoc, K et al. (2015) Screening for psychosocial distress: a national survey for oncology social workers. Journal of Psychosocial Oncology 33, 34–47.Google Scholar
Butz, BD et al. (2011). Implementing screening for distress, the 6th vital sign: A Canadian strategy for changing practice. Psycho-Oncology 20, 463–469.Google Scholar
Carlson, LE, Walker, A and Mitchell, AJ (2012). Screening for distress and unmet needs in patients with cancer: Review and recommendations. Journal of Clinical Oncology 30, 1160–1177.10.1200/JCO.2011.39.5509Google Scholar
Commission on Cancer (2012) Cancer Program Standards 2012 Version 1.1: Ensuring patient-centered care. Available from http://www.facs.org/cancer/coc/programstandards2012.htmlGoogle Scholar
Doran, GT (1981) There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives. Management Review 70, 35–36.Google Scholar
Grant, M et al. (2007) Disseminating end-of-life-education to cancer centers: Overview of program and of evaluation. Journal of Cancer Education 22, 140–148.10.1007/BF03174326Google Scholar
Grant, M et al. (1999) Improving cancer pain management using a performance improvement framework. Journal of Nursing Care Quality 13, 60–72.Google Scholar
Grassi, L et al. (2001) Educational intervention in cancer outpatient clinics on routine screening for emotional distress: An observational study. Psycho-Oncology 20, 669–674.10.1002/pon.1944Google Scholar
Groff, S et al. (2018) Examining the sustainability of Screening for Distress, the sixth vital sign, in two outpatient oncology clinics: A mixed-methods study. Psycho-Oncology 27, 141–147.10.1002/pon.4388Google Scholar
Holland, JC et al. (2013) Distress management. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 11, 190–209.10.6004/jnccn.2013.0027Google Scholar
Hsieh, HF and Shannon, SE (2005) Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research 15, 1277–1288.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, PB and Jim, HS (2008) Psychosocial interventions for anxiety and depression in adult cancer patients: Achievements and challenges. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians 58, 214–230.Google Scholar
Lambert, SD et al. (2014) Psycho-oncology services among women with gynecologic cancer following distress screening. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 12, 899–906.10.6004/jnccn.2014.0084Google Scholar
Lazenby, M et al. (2015a) Supporting commission on cancer-mandated psychosocial distress screening with implementation strategies. Journal of Oncology Practice 11, e413–e420.Google Scholar
Lazenby, M et al. (2015b) The five steps of comprehensive psychosocial distress screening. Current Oncology Reports 17, 447.Google Scholar
Lazenby, M et al. (2018) An educational program's effect on participants’ goals for implementing psychosocial distress screening in routine cancer care. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 22.Google Scholar
Lo, SB et al. (2016) Experience implementing distress screening using the National Comprehensive Cancer Network distress thermometer at an urban safety-net hospital. Psycho-Oncology 25, 1113–1115.Google Scholar
Lozcalzo, M, Clark, KL and Holland, J (2011) Successful strategies for implementing biopsychosocial screening. Psycho-Oncology 20, 455–462.Google Scholar
Mitchell, AJ et al. (2012) How feasible is implementation of distress screening by cancer clinicians in routine clinical care? Cancer 118, 6260–6269.Google Scholar
O'Connor, M et al. (2017) Detecting distress: Introducing routine screening in a gynecologic cancer setting. Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing 21, 79–85.10.1188/17.CJON.79-85Google Scholar
Pearman, T et al. (2015) Implementation of distress screening in an oncology setting. The Journal of Community and Supportive Oncology 13, 423–428.Google Scholar
Pirl, WF et al. (2014) Recommendations for the implementation of distress screening programs in cancer centers. Cancer 120, 2946–2954.10.1002/cncr.28750Google Scholar
Pirl, WF et al. (2007) Screening for psychosocial distress: A national survey of oncologists. Journal of Supportive Oncology 5, 499–504.Google Scholar
Riblet, N et al. (2014) Addressing distress in patients with head and neck cancers: A mental health quality improvement project. Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network 12, 1005–1013.Google Scholar
Schofield, P et al. (2006) Barriers to the provision of evidence-based psychosocial care in oncology. Psycho-Oncology 15, 863–872.Google Scholar
SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC (2016) Dedoose version 7.0.23. Available from http://www.dedoose.com/Google Scholar
Tavernier, SS, Beck, SL and Dudley, WN (2013) Diffusion of a distress management guideline into practice. Psycho-Oncology 22, 2332–2338.Google Scholar
Zabora, J et al. (2001) The prevalence of psychological distress by cancer site. Psycho-Oncology 10, 19–28.10.1002/1099-1611(200101/02)10:1<19::AID-PON501>3.0.CO;2-63.0.CO;2-6>Google Scholar