332 Background: Receiving a cancer diagnosis and awaiting initial management recommendations is a stressful time. Distress should be recognized, documented, and treated promptly as part of quality oncologic care. The NCCN Distress Thermometer (DT) is a useful tool for patients to quantify their level of distress. This pilot study assesses the rate of distress screening at a high-volume academic healthcare network, before and after institutional quality improvement (QI) intervention. Methods: All patients seen for Radiation Medicine between 1/1/22 - 12/31/23 were reviewed. Rates of DT documentation at the time of consultation were assessed as the QI metric. Patients seen in 2022 served as a baseline of departmental compliance. The importance of distress assessment was formally introduced to physicians and advanced care practitioners (ACPs) in Q4 2022 during monthly departmental quality reports, with notice that a formal QI metric would be monitored beginning 1/1/23. Chi-square test was used to compare rates of DT documentation. Monthly departmental DT documentation rates were back presented to the physicians and ACPs during quality meetings. Results: 9391 patients were seen for radiation oncology consultation (2022 = 4311; 2023 = 5080). Baseline DT documentation was 51.0%. Initial compliance with the metric was below baseline, at 41.4% for Jan 2023. With continued feedback, education, and goal-setting, rates of DT use continually improved over Q1/Q2 2023 and remained relatively steady through the remainder of Q3/Q4 2023, reaching a monthly high of 89.8%. Overall DT documentation significantly improved for 2023 was 81.4% (χ 2 = 977.9, p < 0.0001). The rates of DT documentation were relatively consistent based on diagnoses codes, though lower amongst consults seen for metastatic disease (84.0% vs 73.4%, χ 2 = 24.28, p < 0.0001). Conclusions: Screening rates at consultation are modifiable and maintainable, but distress management remains a continuous quality improvement project as we explore services to address identified stressors and reassess distress levels at future visits.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Chen et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: