Krista Rowe

Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (Version 2.0): A Review of System Assessment Instrument for Cancer Patients

CONTEXT The Patient Care Monitor (PCM) is a review of systems survey delivered by means of an electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) data capture system that uses wireless tablet computers. Although the PCM 1.0 is validated, the updated PCM 2.0 has not been validated nor tested in the academic setting. OBJECTIVES To validate and test the PCM 2.0 in three cancer populations. METHODS Two hundred seventy-five individuals participated in three clinical trials enrolling breast (n=65), gastrointestinal (n=113), and lung (n=97) cancer patients. Internal consistency was evaluated using Cronbachs alpha coefficients calculated for six PCM subscales (general physical symptoms, treatment side effects, distress, despair, impaired performance, and impaired ambulation) and a Quality-of-Life Index. Construct validity was evaluated through Pearsons correlation between PCM subscales and subscales of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy--General (FACT-G), the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI), and the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy--Fatigue (FACIT-F). The participants had the following characteristics: mean age was 58 years (standard deviation: 11), 52% were females, 79% were whites, 17% were blacks, 62% had no college degree, and 78% had metastatic or recurrent disease. RESULTS Raw and normalized scores for PCM 2.0 subscales were internally consistent across study cohorts. PCM 2.0 subscales correlated significantly (P<0.05) with the corresponding subscales on FACT-G, MDASI, and FACIT-F, with the exception of FACT-G social well-being, particularly for the lung cancer population. These correlations demonstrated construct validity. PCM 2.0 results followed expected patterns by cancer etiology. Prior reports demonstrate patient satisfaction with PCM 2.0. CONCLUSION Within three unique academic oncology populations, PCM 2.0 is a valid ePRO instrument for assessing symptoms with seven patient-centered subscale or index domains.

Comorbidity, age, race and stage at diagnosis in colorectal cancer: a retrospective, parallel analysis of two health systems

BackgroundStage at diagnosis plays a significant role in colorectal cancer (CRC) survival. Understanding which factors contribute to a more advanced stage at diagnosis is vital to improving overall survival. Comorbidity, race, and age are known to impact receipt of cancer therapy and survival, but the relationship of these factors to stage at diagnosis of CRC is less clear. The objective of this study is to investigate how comorbidity, race and age influence stage of CRC diagnosis.MethodsTwo distinct healthcare populations in the United States (US) were retrospectively studied. Using the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium database, we identified CRC patients treated at 15 Veterans Administration (VA) hospitals from 2003–2007. We assessed metastatic CRC patients treated from 2003–2006 at 10 non-VA, fee-for-service (FFS) practices. Stage at diagnosis was dichotomized (non-metastatic, metastatic). Race was dichotomized (white, non-white). Charlson comorbidity index and age at diagnosis were calculated. Associations between stage, comorbidity, race, and age were determined by logistic regression.Results342 VA and 340 FFS patients were included. Populations differed by the proportion of patients with metastatic CRC at diagnosis (VA 27% and FFS 77%) reflecting differences in eligibility criteria for inclusion. VA patients were mean (standard deviation; SD) age 67 (11), Charlson index 2.0 (1.0), and were 63% white. FFS patients were mean age 61 (13), Charlson index 1.6 (1.0), and were 73% white. In the VA cohort, higher comorbidity was associated with earlier stage at diagnosis after adjusting for age and race (odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58–1.00; p = 0.045); no such significant relationship was identified in the FFS cohort (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.82–1.44; p = 0.57). In both cohorts, no association was found between stage at diagnosis and either age or race.ConclusionHigher comorbidity may lead to earlier stage of CRC diagnosis. Multiple factors, perhaps including increased interactions with the healthcare system due to comorbidity, might contribute to this finding. Such increased interactions are seen among patients within a healthcare system like the VA system in the US versus sporadic interactions which may be seen with FFS healthcare.

Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement system to improve distress management in oncology.

OBJECTIVE Management of patient distress is a critical task in cancer nursing and cancer practice. Here we describe two examples of how an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurement system implemented into routine oncology care can practically aid clinical and research tasks related to distress management. METHODS Tablet personal computers were used to routinely complete a standardized ePRO review of systems surveys at point of care during every encounter in the Duke Oncology outpatient clinics. Two cases of use implementation are explored: (1) triaging distressed patients for optimal care, and (2) psychosocial program evaluation research. RESULTS Between 2009 and 2011, the ePRO system was used to collect information during 17,338 Duke Oncology patient encounters. The system was used to monitor patients for psychosocial distress employing an electronic clinical decision support algorithm, with 1,952 (11.3%) referrals generated for supportive services. The system was utilized to examine the efficacy of a psychosocial care intervention documenting statistically significant improvements in distress, despair, fatigue, and quality of life (QOL) in 50 breast cancer patients. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS ePRO solutions can guide best practice management of cancer patient distress. Nurses play a key role in implementation and utilization.

Longitudinal Patterns of Chemotherapy Use in Metastatic Colorectal Cancer

Multiple agents and combination therapies available to patients with advanced colorectal cancer have significantly improved survival and provided an opportunity for individualization of care, allowing clinicians and patients to prioritize risks and benefits of comparable regimens.

Poor Documentation Prevents Adequate Assessment of Quality Metrics in Colorectal Cancer

To standardize oncology clinical practice and improve patient outcomes, multiple organizations have developed cancer-specific metrics on the basis of a systematic background review, expert guidance, and fundamental elements of cancer care-staging and treatment.

Quality management of potential chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications: evaluation of practice in an academic medical center

GoalsManagement of the risk of potential chemotherapy-induced neutropenic complications such as febrile neutropenia (FN) and severe neutropenia (SN) is a quality of care priority. How frequently does care at our institution conform to established guidelines?Materials and methodsThis retrospective chart review study included a random sample of 305 cancer patients receiving care at a single US academic medical center. Abstracted data included demographics, risk factors, and outcome variables (e.g., development of FN/SN, administration of myeloid growth factors). To evaluate quality of care, we assessed conformance between actual practice and established clinical practice guidelines for the use of myeloid growth factors from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN).Main resultsOf the 305 cases reviewed, 8% were classified as low risk (<10%), 48% as intermediate risk (10–20%), and 44% as high risk (>20%), using the risk classifications in the NCCN guidelines modified to accommodate illness and other risk factors. Thirty-four percent received prophylactic administration of myeloid growth factors. Half of the cases had adequate documentation of mid-cycle absolute neutrophil count to determine whether FN/SN developed. Among these cases with adequate documentation, 21% developed FN/SN. Use of growth factors did not conform to established quality guidelines. Overall, 77 of 133 (58%) high-risk cases received myeloid growth factors, whereas six of 25 (24%) low-risk cases received myeloid growth factors.ConclusionsRoutine clinical practice in this academic oncology setting was poorly aligned with established guidelines; there is substantial opportunity to standardize clinical strategies and increase conformance with evidence-based guidelines.