Doris Howell

Clinician-patient communication: a systematic review

Goal of WorkThe goal of this work was to identify methods of clinician–patient cancer-related communication that may impact patient outcomes associated with distress at critical points in the course of cancer care.Materials and methodsA systematic review of practice guidelines, systematic reviews, or randomized trials on this topic was conducted. Guidelines for quality was evaluated using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Instrument, and the contributive value for recommendations was assessed. Systematic reviews and randomized trials were also evaluated for methodological rigor.ResultsFour existing guidelines, eight systematic reviews and nine randomized trials were identified. Two of the guidelines were of high quality, and all systematic reviews reported clear search criteria and support for their conclusions; the randomized trials were of modest or low quality. For all situations and disease stages, guidelines consistently identified open, honest, and timely communication as important; specifically, there was evidence for a reduction in anxiety when discussions of life expectancy and prognosis were included in consultations. Techniques to increase patient participation in decision-making were associated with greater satisfaction but did not necessarily decrease distress. Few studies took cultural and religious diversity into account.ConclusionsThere is little definitive evidence supporting the superiority of one specific method for communicating information compared to another. Evidence regarding the benefit of decision aids or other strategies to facilitate better communication is inconsistent. Since patients vary in their communication preferences and desire for active participation in decision making, there is a need to individualize communication style.

The changed meaning of food: Physical, social and emotional loss for patients having received radiation treatment for head and neck cancer.

PURPOSEnResearch has drawn attention to the challenges that patients receiving treatment for head and neck cancers experience, including the physical and emotional impact of diagnosis and treatment, the effects of weight loss, challenges related to eating and strategies used by patients to address nutritional problems. There is limited research in head and neck cancer populations about the impact associated with the disruptions and daily experience related to eating problems and the meaning and significance of these changes.nnnMETHODSnThis article describes research that is part of a larger study about patients experiences of receiving radiation for head and neck cancer. The article reports an in-depth analysis of one of the subthemes from 17 participants, the changed meaning of food that emerged within the overarching theme of disrupted expectations and changes in life routines in the original study. This paper highlights participants perspectives about their experiences and the disruptions caused by treatment, with a specific focus on the losses associated with the changed meaning of food.nnnRESULTS & CONCLUSIONSnThere are physical, emotional and social losses associated with a changed meaning of food for Head and Neck cancer patients. Acknowledging the significance of eating problems and the changed meaning of food is required in order to provide patients with the appropriate support, strategies and interventions to manage with the changes and losses.

Manual lymphatic drainage for lymphedema following breast cancer treatment

BACKGROUNDnMore than one in five patients who undergo treatment for breast cancer will develop breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL). BCRL can occur as a result of breast cancer surgery and/or radiation therapy. BCRL can negatively impact comfort, function, and quality of life (QoL). Manual lymphatic drainage (MLD), a type of hands-on therapy, is frequently used for BCRL and often as part of complex decongestive therapy (CDT). CDT is a fourfold conservative treatment which includes MLD, compression therapy (consisting of compression bandages, compression sleeves, or other types of compression garments), skin care, and lymph-reducing exercises (LREs). Phase 1 of CDT is to reduce swelling; Phase 2 is to maintain the reduced swelling.nnnOBJECTIVESnTo assess the efficacy and safety of MLD in treating BCRL.nnnSEARCH METHODSnWe searched Medline, EMBASE, CENTRAL, WHO ICTRP (World Health Organizations International Clinical Trial Registry Platform), and Cochrane Breast Cancer Groups Specialised Register from root to 24 May 2013. No language restrictions were applied.nnnSELECTION CRITERIAnWe included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs of women with BCRL. The intervention was MLD. The primary outcomes were (1) volumetric changes, (2) adverse events. Secondary outcomes were (1) function, (2) subjective sensations, (3) QoL, (4) cost of care.nnnDATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSISnWe collected data on three volumetric outcomes. (1) LE (lymphedema) volume was defined as the amount of excess fluid left in the arm after treatment, calculated as volume in mL of affected arm post-treatment minus unaffected arm post-treatment. (2) Volume reduction was defined as the amount of fluid reduction in mL from before to after treatment calculated as the pretreatment LE volume of the affected arm minus the post-treatment LE volume of the affected arm. (3) Per cent reduction was defined as the proportion of fluid reduced relative to the baseline excess volume, calculated as volume reduction divided by baseline LE volume multiplied by 100. We entered trial data into Review Manger 5.2 (RevMan), pooled data using a fixed-effect model, and analyzed continuous data as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We also explored subgroups to determine whether mild BCRL compared to moderate or severe BCRL, and BCRL less than a year compared to more than a year was associated with a better response to MLD.nnnMAIN RESULTSnSix trials were included. Based on similar designs, trials clustered in three categories.(1) MLD + standard physiotherapy versus standard physiotherapy (one trial) showed significant improvements in both groups from baseline but no significant between-groups differences for per cent reduction.(2) MLD + compression bandaging versus compression bandaging (two trials) showed significant per cent reductions of 30% to 38.6% for compression bandaging alone, and an additional 7.11% reduction for MLD (MD 7.11%, 95% CI 1.75% to 12.47%; two RCTs; 83 participants). Volume reduction was borderline significant (P = 0.06). LE volume was not significant. Subgroup analyses was significant showing that participants with mild-to-moderate BCRL were better responders to MLD than were moderate-to-severe participants.(3) MLD + compression therapy versus nonMLD treatment + compression therapy (three trials) were too varied to pool. One of the trials compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus pneumatic pump. Volume reduction was statistically significant favoring MLD (MD 47.00 mL, 95% CI 15.25 mL to 78.75 mL; 1 RCT; 24 participants), per cent reduction was borderline significant (P=0.07), and LE volume was not significant. A second trial compared compression sleeve plus MLD to compression sleeve plus self-administered simple lymphatic drainage (SLD), and was significant for MLD for LE volume (MD -230.00 mL, 95% CI -450.84 mL to -9.16 mL; 1 RCT; 31 participants) but not for volume reduction or per cent reduction. A third trial of MLD + compression bandaging versus SLD + compression bandaging was not significant (P = 0.10) for per cent reduction, the only outcome measured (MD 11.80%, 95% CI -2.47% to 26.07%, 28 participants).MLD was well tolerated and safe in all trials.Two trials measured function as range of motion with conflicting results. One trial reported significant within-groups gains for both groups, but no between-groups differences. The other trial reported there were no significant within-groups gains and did not report between-groups results. One trial measured strength and reported no significant changes in either group.Two trials measured QoL, but results were not usable because one trial did not report any results, and the other trial did not report between-groups results.Four trials measured sensations such as pain and heaviness. Overall, the sensations were significantly reduced in both groups over baseline, but with no between-groups differences. No trials reported cost of care.Trials were small ranging from 24 to 45 participants. Most trials appeared to randomize participants adequately. However, in four trials the person measuring the swelling knew what treatment the participants were receiving, and this could have biased results.nnnAUTHORS CONCLUSIONSnMLD is safe and may offer additional benefit to compression bandaging for swelling reduction. Compared to individuals with moderate-to-severe BCRL, those with mild-to-moderate BCRL may be the ones who benefit from adding MLD to an intensive course of treatment with compression bandaging. This finding, however, needs to be confirmed by randomized data.In trials where MLD and sleeve were compared with a nonMLD treatment and sleeve, volumetric outcomes were inconsistent within the same trial. Research is needed to identify the most clinically meaningful volumetric measurement, to incorporate newer technologies in LE assessment, and to assess other clinically relevant outcomes such as fibrotic tissue formation.Findings were contradictory for function (range of motion), and inconclusive for quality of life.For symptoms such as pain and heaviness, 60% to 80% of participants reported feeling better regardless of which treatment they received.One-year follow-up suggests that once swelling had been reduced, participants were likely to keep their swelling down if they continued to use a custom-made sleeve.

Core Domains for a Person-Focused Outcome Measurement System in Cancer (PROMS-Cancer Core) for Routine Care: A Scoping Review and Canadian Delphi Consensus

OBJECTIVESnThe objectives of this scoping review study were 1) to identify core domains and dimensions for inclusion in a person-focused and self-reported outcome measurement system for cancer and 2) to reach consensus among key stakeholders including cancer survivors on the relevance, acceptability, and feasibility of a core outcome set for collection in routine clinical care.nnnMETHODSnFollowing a scoping review of the literature, a Rand Delphi consensus method was used to engage key interdisciplinary decision makers, clinicians, and cancer survivors in reaching consensus on a core patient-reported outcome domain taxonomy and outcome measures.nnnRESULTSnOf the 21,900 citations identified in the scoping review, 1,503 citations were included in the full article review (380 conceptual articles, 461 psychometric evaluation articles, and 662 intervention studies) and subjected to data abstraction and mapping. Final consensus was reached on 20 domains, related subdimensions, and 45 self-report measures considered relevant and feasible for routine collection in cancer by the Delphi panel (PROMS-Cancer Core).nnnCONCLUSIONSnStandardization of patient-reported outcome data collection is key to assessing the impact of cancer and treatment on the person for population comparison and monitoring the quality of clinical care. The PROMS-Cancer Core taxonomy of domains and outcome measures can be used to guide the development of a patient-reported outcome information system for cancer.

Managing symptoms during cancer treatments: evaluating the implementation of evidence-informed remote support protocols

BackgroundManagement of cancer treatment-related symptoms is an important safety issue given that symptoms can become life-threatening and often occur when patients are at home. With funding from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, a pan-Canadian steering committee was established with representation from eight provinces to develop symptom protocols using a rigorous methodology (CAN-IMPLEMENT©). Each protocol is based on a systematic review of the literature to identify relevant clinical practice guidelines. Protocols were validated by cancer nurses from across Canada. The aim of this study is to build an effective and sustainable approach for implementing evidence-informed protocols for nurses to use when providing remote symptom assessment, triage, and guidance in self-management for patients experiencing symptoms while undergoing cancer treatments.MethodsA prospective mixed-methods study design will be used. Guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework, the study will involve (a) establishing an advisory knowledge user team in each of three targeted settings; (b) assessing factors influencing nurses’ use of protocols using interviews/focus groups and a standardized survey instrument; (c) adapting protocols for local use, ensuring fidelity of the content; (d) selecting intervention strategies to overcome known barriers and implementing the protocols; (e) conducting think-aloud usability testing; (f) evaluating protocol use and outcomes by conducting an audit of 100 randomly selected charts at each of the three settings; and (g) assessing satisfaction with remote support using symptom protocols and change in nurses’ barriers to use using survey instruments. The primary outcome is sustained use of the protocols, defined as use in 75% of the calls. Descriptive analysis will be conducted for the barriers, use of protocols, and chart audit outcomes. Content analysis will be conducted on interviews/focus groups and usability testing with comparisons across settings.DiscussionGiven the importance of patient safety, patient-centered care, and delivery of quality services, learning how to effectively implement evidence-informed symptom protocols in oncology healthcare services is essential for ensuring safe, consistent, and effective care for individuals with cancer. This study is likely to have a significant contribution to the delivery of remote oncology services, as well as influence symptom management by patients at home.

Managing skin toxicities related to panitumumab

BACKGROUNDnDermatologic toxicities from targeted agents such as panitumumab can interfere with cancer treatment.nnnOBJECTIVEnWe sought to evaluate the rash assessment and management in a consecutive patient cohort who received panitumumab for colorectal cancer treatment.nnnMETHODSnThis was a retrospective chart review.nnnRESULTSnSkin toxicity, consisting of papulopustular rash, was experienced by 32 of 34 patients. The majority (85%) developed the rash by the end of the second infusion cycle. Patients presented with a mild (41%), moderate (38%), and severe (21%) rash, and progressed to an extensive rash without appropriate treatment. A grading system was used for 65% of patients to document severity.nnnLIMITATIONSnSmall sample size limited power in analysis. Rash severity had to be inferred based on rash description and management in 11 of the patients.nnnCONCLUSIONnDermatologic toxicities related to panitumumab are common; however, the way they are reported and managed varies among physicians. To prevent progression, toxicities must be assessed and treated early and aggressively, according to severity grading. Dermatologists could aid oncologists in choosing the best management strategies.

Feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) item banks for routine surveillance of sleep and fatigue problems in ambulatory cancer care.

Routine screening for problematic symptoms is emerging as a best practice in cancer systems globally. The objective of this observational study was to assess the feasibility and diagnostic accuracy of Patient‐Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) computerized adaptive testing (CAT) for fatigue and sleep‐disturbance items compared with legacy measures in routine ambulatory cancer care.

Implementation of Symptom Protocols for Nurses Providing Telephone‐Based Cancer Symptom Management: A Comparative Case Study

ABSTRACT Background The pan‐Canadian Oncology Symptom Triage and Remote Support (COSTaRS) team developed 13 evidence‐informed protocols for symptom management. Aim To build an effective and sustainable approach for implementing the COSTaRS protocols for nurses providing telephone‐based symptom support to cancer patients. Methods A comparative case study was guided by the Knowledge to Action Framework. Three cases were created for three Canadian oncology programs that have nurses providing telephone support. Teams of researchers and knowledge users: (a) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing protocol use, (b) adapted protocols for local use, (c) intervened to address barriers, (d) monitored use, and (e) assessed barriers and facilitators influencing sustained use. Analysis was within and across cases. Results At baseline, >85% nurses rated protocols positively but barriers were identified (64‐80% needed training). Patients and families identified similar barriers and thought protocols would enhance consistency among nurses teaching self‐management. Twenty‐two COSTaRS workshops reached 85% to 97% of targeted nurses (N = 119). Nurses felt more confident with symptom management and using the COSTaRS protocols (p < .01). Protocol adaptations addressed barriers (e.g., health records approval, creating pocket versions, distributing with telephone messages). Chart audits revealed that protocols used were documented for 11% to 47% of patient calls. Sustained use requires organizational alignment and ongoing leadership support. Linking Evidence to Action Protocol uptake was similar to trials that have evaluated tailored interventions to improve professional practice by overcoming identified barriers. Collaborating with knowledge users facilitated interpretation of findings, aided protocol adaptation, and supported implementation. Protocol implementation in nursing requires a tailored approach. A multifaceted intervention approach increased nurses’ use of evidence‐informed protocols during telephone calls with patients about symptoms. Training and other interventions improved nurses’ confidence with using COSTaRS protocols and their uptake was evident in some documented telephone calls. Protocols could be adapted for use by patients and nurses globally.

Opioid Prescribing Among Cancer and Non-cancer Patients: Time Trend Analysis in the Elderly Using Administrative Data

CONTEXTnIn 2007, Cancer Care Ontario introduced a provincial symptom screening program, which included pain, for cancer patients. Over this same time, opioid prescribing has been increasingly scrutinized among non-cancer patients. The study purpose was to see if opioid prescribing changed among older adults after 2007 in the context of changing opioid regulations, and whether effects were different among patients with a cancer history.nnnMETHODSnOntario residents aged ≥65 years were identified from 2004 to 2013. Subjects were annually stratified into three groups: no cancer history, cancer diagnosis >5xa0years ago, and cancer diagnosis ≤5xa0years ago. We evaluated time trends by year for: 1) opioid prescription rate, comparing trends before and after 2007 and 2) mean daily opioid dose.nnnRESULTSnBetween 2004 and 2013, opioid prescribing was relatively constant for cancer patients with no observed change in trends after 2007. For non-cancer patients, there was a 2% relative annual increase during this period. Significant changes were seen for opioid sub-classes (e.g., decreasing use of long-acting oxycodone). These were similar for those with or without a history of cancer. Among all groups, changes in the mean daily dose over time were similar in all drug classes.nnnCONCLUSIONnOverall prescribing rates for cancer patients aged ≥65 years remain unchanged over time, in spite of the introduction of a provincial symptom screening program. Decreasing prescription rates in some drug sub-classes were observed. The potential impact of these changes on the quality of symptom control for cancer patients needs further investigation.

Care burden and its predictive factors in parents of newly diagnosed children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia in academic hospitals in China

PurposeCaring for children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) is a distressing experience for parents without medical training. The experience can lead to parents’ care burden. This study explored care burden among parents of children with ALL and its related factors.MethodsA total of 130 parents were surveyed with the Zarit Burden Inventory (ZBI), Perceived Social Support Scale (PSSS), Zung’s Self-rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Zung’s Self-rating Depression Scale (SDS), Medical Outcome Study Short Form 36 (SF-36), and a study specific demographic information questionnaire. Independent-samples T test, one-way ANOVA, Pearson correlation analysis and multivariate linear regression analysis (stepwise method), and binomial logistic regression were used in data analysis.ResultsThe mean score of parents’ care burden overall was 37.74xa0±xa016.57, 17 (13.08%) had little or no burden, 57 (43.85%) had mild-to-moderate burden, 44 (33.84%) had moderate-to-severe burden, and 12 (9.23%) had severe burden. Regression analyses indicated daily care time, anxiety, general health, average monthly family income, social support, and number of co-caregivers were factors associated with care burden. These variables accounted for 51% of the variance in care burden. Other demographic information of parents and children, depression, and other dimensions of SF-36 were not related to care burden. The severe burden level was associated the increase risk of emotional distress compared with little or no burden group (ORxa0=xa037.500, 95% CIxa0=xa04.515–311.348, Pxa0=xa00.001).ConclusionThe results indicated that care burden in parents of children newly diagnosed with ALL is high. Parents with lower levels of care burden tend to have less daily care time, more co-caregivers, higher income, less anxiety, better general health, and social support. Strategies are needed to help reduce parents’ care burden.