Susan Ditaranto

Screening for psychosocial risk in pediatric cancer.

Major professional organizations have called for psychosocial risk screening to identify specific psychosocial needs of children with cancer and their families and facilitate the delivery of appropriate evidence‐based care to address these concerns. However, systematic screening of risk factors at diagnosis is rare in pediatric oncology practice. Subsequent to a brief summary of psychosocial risks in pediatric cancer and the rationale for screening, this review identified three screening models and two screening approaches [Distress Thermometer (DT), Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT)], among many more articles calling for screening. Implications of broadly implemented screening for all patients across treatment settings are discussed. Pediatr Blood Cancer 2012; 59: 822–827.

Family psychosocial risk, distress, and service utilization in pediatric cancer: predictive validity of the Psychosocial Assessment Tool.

The way families negotiate diagnosis and early treatment for pediatric cancer sets the stage for their adaptation throughout treatment and survivorship. The Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT) is a brief parent‐report screener capable of systematically identifying families at risk for problems of adaptation. The current study evaluated stability and predictive validity of PAT psychosocial risk classification with regard to distress, family functioning, and the use of psychosocial services over the first 4 months of treatment.

Screening for psychosocial risk at pediatric cancer diagnosis: the psychosocial assessment tool.

Background To investigate the feasibility of integrating an evidence-based screening tool of psychosocial risk in pediatric cancer care at diagnosis. Methods Parents of children newly diagnosed with cancer received either the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT; n=52) or psychosocial care as usual (n=47; PAU), based on their date of diagnosis and an alternating monthly schedule. Time to completion of the PAT, time to communication of PAT results to clinical care teams, distribution of PAT risk scores, and identification of psychosocial risks in the medical record were examined. Results Of families receiving the PAT, 88% completed it within 48 hours. PAT was scored and results communicated within 48 hours in 98% of cases. Most families (72%) were classified as Universal risk based on the underlying Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model, 24% were classified as Targeted risk, and 4% scored in the Clinical range. Significantly more psychosocial risks were recorded in the medical record during PAT intervals than during PAU. Conclusions An evidence-based psychosocial screener is feasible in pediatric oncology care and is associated with documentation of psychosocial risks in the medical record. Although the majority of families report low levels of psychosocial risk, about one-quarter report problems.

Association of psychosocial risk screening in pediatric cancer with psychosocial services provided

Objective: How screening for psychosocial risk in pediatric oncology may relate to the number and type of psychosocial services provided is a critical step in linking screening with treatment. We predicted that screening at diagnosis would be associated with the delivery of more psychosocial services over 8 weeks and that these services would be consistent with Universal, Targeted, or Clinical psychosocial risk level based on the Pediatric Psychosocial Preventative Health Model (PPPHM).

Evolution of a Rapid Hydration Protocol.

The Oncology Division of the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP) embarked on a comprehensive project to reduce chemotherapy errors. Careful review of all systems revealed many areas for improvement. Using a unique systems improvement approach, the interdisciplinary team carried out many concurrent change projects. This article describes a project carried out by the nursing staff to improve the safety of chemotherapy administration. Nurses realized that the majority of chemotherapy infusions occurred in the evening and nighttime hours after prolonged prehydration, leading to many “handoffs” and possibilities for error. Nurses developed a novel method of prehydration, delivering a large volume of fluid in a rapid infusion. The “Rapid Hydration Protocol” greatly reduced duration of hydration without adverse effects. Rapid hydration decreased the time needed for hydration and the number of nurses involved in the first day of chemotherapy, and contributed to having chemotherapy begin earlier. The project achieved the goals of improving systems and reducing handoffs. The impact of this project, in combination with the widespread efforts of the error reduction team at CHOP, contributed to significant improvements in chemotherapy safety. Nurses developed and tested this innovative hydration strategy, which continues to be very effective.

Using Four-Phased Unit-Based Patient Safety Walkrounds to Uncover Correctable System Flaws

BACKGROUND A unit-based Patient Safety Leadership Walkrounds (PSWR) model was deployed in six medical/surgical units at The Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia to identify patient safety issues in the clinical microsystem. Specific objectives of PSWR were to (1) provide a forum for frontline staff to freely report and discuss patient safety problems with unit local leaders, (2) improve teamwork and communication within and across units, and (3) develop a supportive environment in which staff and leaders brainstorm on potential solutions. METHODS Baseline data collection and discussion with leaders and staff from the pilot units were used to create a standard set of safety tools and questions. Through multiple Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, safety tools and questions were refined, while the process of walkrounds in each of the six pilot units was customized. RESULTS Leaders in all six pilot units indicated that PSWR helped them to uncover previously unidentified safety concerns. Top-impact areas included nurse-medical team relationship, work-flow flaws, equipment defects, staff education, and medication safety. The project engaged 149 individuals across all disciplines, including 33 physicians, and entailed 34 PSWR in its first year. Information from these pilot units initiated safety changes that spread across multiple units, with identification of hospital-wide quality and patient safety issues. CONCLUSIONS For participating units, the PSWR process is a situational awareness tool that helps management periodically assess new or unresolved vulnerabilities that may affect safety and care quality on the unit. Unit-based PSWR help identify safety concerns at the microsystem level while improving communication about safety events across units and to hospital leaders in the macrosystem.