Development and validation of a modified version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale in a Flemish palliative care population

Assessing dynamical resilience indicators in older adults: a prospective feasibility cohort study

PURPOSE

Measuring dynamical resilience indicators based on time series data may improve the prediction of health deterioration in older adults after hospital discharge. We examined the feasibility of an intensive prospective cohort study examining dynamical resilience indicators based on time series data of symptoms and physical activity in acutely ill older adults who visited the Emergency Department (ED).

METHODS

This is a prospective cohort study with time series data from symptom questionnaires and activity trackers. Thirty older adults (aged 75.9 ± 5.5 years, 37% female) who were discharged from the ED of a tertiary hospital in the Netherlands were included in the study. We monitored self-reported symptoms using a daily online questionnaire, and physical activity using an activity tracker for 30 days. Descriptive data on participant eligibility and adherence to and acceptability of the assessments were collected.

RESULTS

Of 134 older patients visiting the ED, 109/134 (81%) were eligible for inclusion and 30/109 (28%) were included. Twenty-eight (93%) of the included participants completed follow-up. Regarding the adherence rate, 78% of participants filled in the questionnaire and 80% wore the activity tracker. Three (10%) participants completed fewer than three questionnaires. Most participants rated the measurements as acceptable and seven (23%) participants experienced an adverse outcome in the 30 days after discharge.

CONCLUSION

Such an intensive prospective cohort study examining dynamical resilience indicators in older adults was feasible. The quality of the collected data was sufficient, some adjustments to the measurement protocol are recommended. This study is an important first step to study resilience in older adults.

Cancer-related fatigue measures in palliative care: A psychometric systematic review

INTRODUCTION

In palliative care, the prevention and relief of fatigue are regarded as crucial goals in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A systematic review was carried out according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments methodology. Searches were conducted in Medline (through PubMed), Web of Science, Open Gray, Scielo, Cochrane, CINAHL and EMBASE. All instruments found in each study were assessed using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments checklist and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

A total of 5598 articles were identified in the different databases. In total, 57 studies describing 19 instruments were included in this study. The main properties evaluated were internal consistency, cross-cultural validity, hypotheses testing and responsiveness. All studies were evaluated with the Strobe scale with a score greater than 6 points.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the quality methodological results, Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, Problems and Needs in Palliative Care Questionnaire, European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life 15-item Questionnaire for Palliative Care and Palliative Care Quality of Life Instrument are the recommended instruments used for assessing cancer-related fatigue in palliative care. PROPESRO registration number: CRD42020206783.

How to measure the effects and potential adverse events of palliative sedation? An integrative review

BACKGROUND

Palliative sedation is the monitored use of medications intended to relieve refractory suffering. The assessment of palliative sedation has been focused on the assess of the level of consciousness but a more comprehensive approach to assessment is needed.

AIM

To understand how the potential effects and possible adverse events of palliative sedation in Palliative Care patients are measured.

DESIGN

Integrative review of most recent empirical research.

DATA SOURCES

Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, PubMed, and CINAHL were searched (2010-2020) using the terms sedation, palliative care, terminal care, assessment. Limits included studies in English and adults. Inclusion criteria were: scientific assessment papers, effects and complications of palliative sedation; patients with incurable illness.

RESULTS

Out of 588 titles, 26 fulfilled inclusion criteria. The Discomfort Scale-Dementia of Alzheimer Type and Patient Comfort Score were used to assess comfort. The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale and The Ramsay Sedation Scale are the most used to measure its effect. Refractory symptoms were assessed through multi-symptom or specific scales; except for psychological or existential distress. Delirium was assessed using the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale and pain through the Critical Care Pain Observation Tool. The use of technical approaches to monitor effects is upcoming. There is lack of measurement of possible adverse events and variability in timing measurement.

CONCLUSIONS

There are palliative care validated instruments to assess the sedation effect but this review shows the need for a more standardized approach when assessing it. Instruments should be used within an experienced and trained expert, providing a holistic assessment.

Neurophysiological Assessments During Continuous Sedation Until Death Put Validity of Observational Assessments Into Question: A Prospective Observational Study

Introduction

In case of untreatable suffering at the end of life, continuous sedation until death (CSD) may be the only treatment option left. Because these patients cannot communicate anymore, caregivers have to rely on behavioral observation to assess the patient’s comfort. Recently, however, a number of studies from the neurosciences have shown that sometimes consciousness and pain are undetectable with these traditional behavioral methods. The aim of this study was to find out if subjective caregiver assessments of consciousness and pain would be confirmed by objective neurophysiological measures.

Methods

In this prospective observational study, we observed patients from the start of palliative sedation until death. Subjective caregiver assessments of level of consciousness and pain based on behavioral observations were compared with objective measures from neurophysiological monitoring devices.

Results

We collected and analyzed 108 subjective caregiver assessments in a sample of 12 patients and 32 assessments by traditionally used observational scales. We compared these with objective neurophysiological measures. Sensitivity and specificity of caregivers’ subjective assessments of consciousness was 23.6 and 91.1% respectively, with an accuracy of 54.0% and interrater reliability (κ) of 0.13. For pain, this was 0 and 94.79%, respectively, an accuracy of 88%, and an inter-rater reliability (κ) of − 0.063. Agreement between caregivers’ subjective assessments and objective neurophysiological measures of consciousness and pain was very poor.

Conclusions

Caregivers’ subjective assessment of level of consciousness and pain during CSD is unreliable compared with objective neurophysiological monitoring. Our results suggest that assessments of patient comfort during CSD could have been improved substantially by including objective monitoring of level of consciousness and pain.

Trial Registration

The protocol for this observational study has been registered retrospectively at Clinical-Trials.gov (ID NCT03273244).

Associations between baseline symptom burden as assessed by patient-reported outcomes and overall survival of patients with metastatic cancer

BACKGROUND

Serial symptom assessments using patient-reported outcomes may be challenging to implement in routine clinical practices. We aimed to determine if a single measurement of symptom burden at the time of metastatic diagnosis is associated with survival.

METHODS

We examined baseline patient-reported outcomes (within 90 days of diagnosis) of patients newly diagnosed with metastatic breast, lung, colorectal, or prostate cancer using the revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESASr) questionnaire. The ESASr was categorized into physical, psychological, and total symptom domains whereby scores were classified as none to mild (0-3) or moderate to severe (4-10). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were constructed to evaluate the effect of baseline symptom scores on overall survival.

RESULTS

We identified 1316 patients eligible for analysis. There were 181, 601, 240, and 294 patients with breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer, respectively. Approximately one-quarter of all patients reported moderate to severe physical, psychological, and total symptom subscores. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, older age (P < 0.001), male sex (P = 0.002), primary lung cancer (P < 0.001), and smoking in the previous month (P = 0.007) were predictive of inferior overall survival as were baseline moderate to severe physical (hazard ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.90; P = 0.002) and total symptom subscores (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidence interval, 1.06-1.81; P = 0.017).

CONCLUSIONS

A single assessment of baseline symptom burden using the ESASr in patients with metastatic cancer has significant prognostic value. This may represent a feasible first step towards routine collection of patient-reported outcomes in real-world settings where serial symptom measurements can be challenging to implement.

Validation of the Dutch version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System

BACKGROUND

The Utrecht Symptom Diary (USD) is a Dutch and adapted version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System, a patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) tool to asses and monitor symptoms in cancer patients. This study analyses the validity and responsiveness of the USD and the cutoff points to determine the clinical significance of a symptom score.

METHODS

Observational longitudinal cohort study including adult in- and outpatients treated in an academic hospital in the Netherlands who completed at least one USD as part of routine care (2012-2019). The distress thermometer and problem checklist (DT&PC) was used as a reference PROM. Content, construct and criterion validity, responsiveness, and cutoff points are shown with prevalences, area under receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve, Chi-squared test, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, and positive and negative predictive values, respectively.

RESULTS

A total of 3913 patients completed 22 400 USDs. Content validity was confirmed for all added USD items with prevalences of ≥22%. All USD items also present on the DT&PC demonstrated a good criterion validity (ROC >0.8). Construct validity was confirmed for the USD as a whole and for the items dry mouth, dysphagia and well-being (P < .0001). USD scores differed significantly for patients when improving or deteriorating on the DT&PC which confirmed responsiveness. Optimal cutoff points (3 or 4) differed per symptom.

CONCLUSION

The USD is a valid 12-item PROM for the most prevalent symptoms in cancer patients, which has content, criterion, and construct validity, and detects clinically important changes over time, in both curative and palliative phase.

Transcultural Validation of the French Version of the Modified Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale: The ESAS12-F

Background: Cancer-related physical symptoms can decrease patients' overall quality of life and are often underdiagnosed. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is widely used in palliative care for cancer patients to easily assess cancer patients' symptoms. It has been often modified, adding symptoms and explanations, and translated into many languages. The European Association of Palliative Care research team developed a database, which included the modified 12-item ESAS-r as the symptom assessment tool. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to achieve the translation and cross-cultural validation in French of the 12-item ESAS-r, the ESAS12-F. Design: A French version of the ESAS-r was developed using a standardized forward and backward translation method. Patients completed the ESAS12-F and provided feedback on the translation. Setting/Subjects: Forty-five patients with advanced cancer, followed by the palliative care team from the Lyon Sud University Hospital in France, were recruited. Results: Eighty-nine percent of patients considered the ESAS easy to understand. They highlighted some concerns more about the tool itself than the translation: the time line "now," the difficulty to quantify a symptom in a numerical evaluation. Some items (sleep and appetite) needed to be reread and for some others (digestive and psychological symptoms, and well-being) to be reordered in the questionnaire. Conclusion: The ESAS12-F is well accepted and easy to use for the cancer patients. The next step is to carry out a psychometric validation of the definitive version of the ESAS12-F.

Symptom Burden and Palliative Referral Disparities in an Ambulatory South Texas Cancer Center

Background: The American Society of Clinical Oncology's recommendation for “dedicated palliative care services, early in the disease course, concurrent with active treatment” for cancer patients is a challenge for cancer centers to accommodate. Despite demonstrated benefits of concurrent care, disparities among socioeconomic and ethnic groups in access to supportive care services have been described. The aim of this project was to evaluate: (a) how insurance coverage and ethnicity impact patient symptom burden and, (b) how those factors influence palliative access for patients at a South Texas NCI-designated cancer center.

Methods: During a 5-month prospective period, 604 patients from five ambulatory oncology clinics completed the 10 question Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) surveys during their clinic visit. Patient demographics, ESAS scores, palliative referral decisions, and time to palliative encounters were collected. We compared symptom burden and time to consult based on ethnicity and insurance status (insured = Group A; under-insured and safety net = Group B).

Results: The mean ESAS score for all patients at the initial visit was 19.9 (SD = 18.1). Safety net patients were significantly more likely to be Hispanic, younger in age, and have an underlying GI malignancy in comparison to insured patients; however, the symptom severity was similar between groups with over 40% of individuals reporting at least one severe symptom. Twenty-one referrals were made to palliative care. On average, Group B had 33.3 days longer wait times until their first potential visit (p < 0.01) when compared to Group A. Time to actual visit was on average 57.6 days longer for patients in Group B compared to patients in Group A (p = 0.01), averaging at 73.8 days for safety net patients.

Conclusions: This project highlights the high symptom burden of oncology patients and disparities in access to services based on insurance coverage. This investigation revealed a 4-fold increase in the time to the first scheduled palliative care visit based on whether patients were insured vs. under-insured. While this study is limited by a small sample size, data suggest that under-insured oncology patients may have significant barriers to palliative care services, which may influence their cancer care quality.

Comfort in palliative sedation (Compas): a transdisciplinary mixed method study protocol for linking objective assessments to subjective experiences

BACKGROUND

In case of untreatable suffering at the end of life, palliative sedation may be chosen to assure comfort by reducing the patient's level of consciousness. An important question here is whether such sedated patients are completely free of pain. Because these patients cannot communicate anymore, caregivers have to rely on observation to assess the patient's comfort. Recently however, more sophisticated techniques from the neurosciences have shown that sometimes consciousness and pain are undetectable with these traditional behavioral methods. The aim of this study is to better understand how unconscious palliative sedated patients experience the last days of their life and to find out if they are really free of pain.

METHODS

In this study we will observe 40 patients starting with initiation of palliative sedation until death. Assessment of comfort based on behavioral observations will be related with the results from a NeuroSense monitor, an EEG-based monitor used for evaluation of the adequacy of anesthesia and sedation in the operating room and an ECG-based Analgesia Nociception Index (ANI) monitor, which informs about comfort or discomfort condition, based on the parasympathetic tone. An innovative and challenging aspect of this study is its qualitative approach; "objective" and "subjective" data will be linked to achieve a holistic understanding of the study topic. The following data will be collected: assessment of pain/comfort by the patients themselves (if possible) by scoring a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS); brain function monitoring; monitoring of parasympathetic tone; caregivers' assessment (pain, awareness, communication); relatives' perception of the quality of the dying process; assessment by 2 trained investigators using observational scales; video and audio registration.

DISCUSSION

Measuring pain and awareness in non-communicative dying patients is both technically and ethically challenging. ANI and EEG have shown to be promising technologies to detect pain that otherwise cannot be detected with the "traditional" methods. Although these technologies have the potential to provide objective quantifiable indicators for distress and awareness in non-communicative patients, strikingly they have not yet been used to check whether the current assessments for non-communicative patients are reliable.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (Identifier: NCT03273244 ; registration date: 7.9.2017).

Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review of self-administered measurement instruments

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming increasingly important in clinical practice. The implementation of PROMS in routine practice is challenging because information regarding psychometric quality of measurement instruments is fragmented and standardization is lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments for use in patients with advanced cancer in clinical practice.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL to identify studies concerning self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments in patients with advanced cancer between January 1990 and September 2016. Quality of the measurement instruments was assessed by predefined criteria derived from the COSMIN checklist.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine articles relating to 39 measurement instruments met the inclusion criteria. Information regarding important measurement properties was often incomplete. None of the instruments performed sufficient on all measurement properties. Considering available information, the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL appeared to have adequate psychometric properties, together with the EORTC QLQ-BM22.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the existing HRQoL measurement instruments have not yet been evaluated in an adequate manner. Validation of self-administered HRQoL measurement instruments is an ongoing development and should be prioritized. This review contributes to improved clarity regarding the availability and quality of HRQoL measurement instruments for patients with advanced cancer and supports health care professionals in an adequate selection of suitable PROMs in clinical practice.

Symptom Intensity of Hospice Patients: A Longitudinal Analysis of Concordance Between Patients' and Nurses' Outcomes

CONTEXT

Nearing death, hospice patients are increasingly unable or unwilling to self-report their symptom intensity and rely on nurses' assessments.

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that concordance between patients' and nurses' assessments of symptom intensity improves over time.

METHOD

A prospective longitudinal study was conducted from January 2012 to June 2015 using dyads of patient- and nurse-reported outcome measures, collected in daily hospice practice in the first three weeks after admission. Main outcomes were symptom intensity and well-being, measured using the Utrecht Symptom Diary (USD) and USD-Professional. Absolute concordance was the proportion of dyads with no difference in scores between USD and USD-Professional per week after admission. For agreement beyond chance, the squared weighted Kappa for symptom intensity and the one-way agreement intraclass correlation coefficient for well-being were used.

RESULTS

The most prevalent symptoms, fatigue, dry mouth, and anorexia also had the highest intensity scores assessed by patients and nurses. Symptom intensity was underestimated more frequently than overestimated by the nurses. The absolute concordance was fair to good (35%-69%). Agreement beyond chance was low to fair (0.146-0.539) and the intraclass correlation for well-being was low (0.25-0.28). Absolute concordance and agreement beyond chance did not improve over time.

CONCLUSION

Concordance between patients' and nurses' assessment of symptom prevalence is good, and both patients and nurses reveal identical symptoms as most and least prevalent and intense. However, nurses tend to underestimate symptom intensity. Concordance between patients and nurses symptom intensity scores is poor and does not improve over time.

Integrating Palliative Care Services in Ambulatory Oncology: An Application of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System

PURPOSE

Research in palliative care demonstrates improvements in overall survival, quality of life, symptom management, and reductions in the cost of care. Despite the American Society of Clinical Oncology recommendation for early concurrent palliative care in patients with advanced cancer and high symptom burden, integrating palliative services is challenging. Our aims were to quantitatively describe the palliative referral rates and symptom burden in a South Texas cancer center and establish a palliative referral system by implementing the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS).

METHODS

As part of our Plan-Do-Study-Act process, all staff received an educational overview of the ESAS tool and consultation ordering process. The ESAS form was then implemented across five ambulatory oncology clinics to assess symptom burden and changes therein longitudinally. Referral rates and symptom assessment scores were tracked as metrics for quality improvement.

RESULTS

On average, one patient per month was referred before implementation of the intervention compared with 10 patients per month after implementation across all clinics. In five sample clinics, 607 patients completed the initial assessment, and 430 follow-up forms were collected over 5 months, resulting in a total of 1,037 scores collected in REDCap. The mean ESAS score for initial patient visits was 20.0 (standard deviation, 18.1), and referred patients had an initial mean score of 39.0 (standard deviation, 19.0).

CONCLUSION

This project highlights the low palliative care consultation rate, high symptom burden of oncology patients, and underuse of services by oncologists despite improvements with the introduction of a symptom assessment form and referral system.

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System 25 Years Later: Past, Present, and Future Developments

CONTEXT

Routine symptom assessment represents the cornerstone of symptom management. Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is one of the first quantitative symptom assessment batteries that allows for simple and rapid documentation of multiple patient-reported symptoms at the same time.

OBJECTIVES

To discuss the historical development of ESAS, its current uses in different settings, and future developments.

METHODS

Narrative review.

RESULTS

Since its development in 1991, ESAS has been psychometrically validated and translated into over 20 languages. We will discuss the variations, advantages, and limitations with ESAS. From the clinical perspective, ESAS is now commonly used for symptom screening and longitudinal monitoring in patients seen by palliative care, oncology, nephrology, and other disciplines in both inpatient and outpatient settings. From the research perspective, ESAS has offered important insights into the nature of symptom trajectory, symptom clusters, and symptom modulators. Furthermore, multiple clinical studies have incorporated ESAS as a study outcome and documented the impact of various interventions on symptom burden. On the horizon, multiple groups are actively investigating further refinements to ESAS, such as incorporating it in electronic health records, using ESAS as a trigger for palliative care referral, and coupling ESAS with personalized symptom goals to optimize symptom response assessment.

CONCLUSION

ESAS has evolved over the past 25 years to become an important symptom assessment instrument in both clinical practice and research. Future efforts are needed to standardize this tool and explore its full potential to support symptom management.

Supporting generalist nurses in the rural setting with the introduction of a clinical assessment process

The aim of this research was to evaluate the implementation of an assessment process for general nurses involved in providing end-of-life care. A mixed-method, three-phased study was conducted on a medical ward at a regional hospital in a rural setting. Participating nurses completed a questionnaire about their awareness levels of the five validated scales included in the assessment of patients receiving palliative care. Auditing of the completed assessment forms was conducted at the interim and post data collection points and focus groups were conducted in the final phase. Analysis of the data revealed that nurses were able to integrate the use of this assessment process into the care of this group of patients. The author concludes, while nurses working in rural settings require general clinical knowledge of a wide range of patient groups, validated assessment scales can assist them in the provision of evidence-based palliative care.

The Brazilian Version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) Is a Feasible, Valid and Reliable Instrument for the Measurement of Symptoms in Advanced Cancer Patients

Purposes

To develop and validate a Portuguese version of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) in Brazilian patients with advanced cancer.

Methods

The ESAS was translated and then back translated into Portuguese in accordance with international guidelines. The final version was approved by an Expert Committee after pilot testing on 24 advanced cancer patients. Subsequently, we evaluated the time to complete the assessment, the number of unanswered items, internal consistency, convergent validity, and known-group validity in a sample of 249 advanced cancer patients who completed the ESAS along with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Core Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS). A total of 90 clinically stable patients were retested after 4 to 96 hours (test-retest reliability), and 80 patients answered the ESAS after 21 (±7) days to measure scale responsiveness using an anchor-based method.

Results

The ESAS was completed in a mean time of only 2.2 minutes. The internal consistency was good (Cronbach's alpha = 0.861), and the removal of single items did not change the overall alpha value. For convergent validity, Spearman’s correlation coefficients between the ESAS symptom scores and the corresponding EORTC QLQ-C30 and ESS symptom scores ranged between 0.520 (95% CI = 0.424–0.605) and 0.814 (95% CI = 0.760–0.856), indicating moderate to strong correlations. Test-retest reliability values were considered adequate, with intraclass correlation coefficients ranging from 0.758 (95% CI = 0.627–0.843) to 0.939 (95% CI = 0.905–0.960).

Conclusions

ESAS is a feasible, valid and reliable multi-symptom assessment instrument for use in Brazil.

The psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments: a clinical review

PURPOSE

Various instruments are used to assess both individual and multiple cancer symptoms. We evaluated the psychometric properties of cancer multisymptom assessment instruments.

METHODS

An Ovid MEDLINE search was done. All searches were limited to adults and in English. All instruments published from 2005 to 2014 (and with at least one validity test) were included. We excluded those who only reported content validity. Instruments were categorized by the three major types of symptom measurement scales employed as follows: visual analogue (VAS), verbal rating (VRS), and numerical rating (NRS) scales. They were then examined in two areas: (1) psychometric thoroughness (number of tests) and (2) psychometric strength of evidence (validity, reliability, generalizability). We also assigned an empirical global psychometric quality score (which combined the concepts of thoroughness and strength of evidence) to rank the instruments.

RESULTS

We analyzed 57 instruments (17 original, 40 modifications). They varied in types of scales used, symptom dimensions measured, and time frames evaluated. Of the 57, 10 used VAS, 28 VRS, and 19 NRS. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS), ESAS-Spanish, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), Profile of Mood States (POMS), Symptom Distress Scale (SDS), M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI)-Russian, and MDASI-Taiwanese were the most comprehensively tested for validity and reliability. The ESAS, ESAS-Spanish, ASDS-2, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS)-SF, POMS, SDS, MDASI (and some translations), and MDASI-Heart Failure all showed good validity and reliability.

CONCLUSIONS

The MDASI appeared to be the best overall from a psychometric perspective. This was followed by the ESAS, ESAS-Spanish, POMS, SDS, and some MDASI translations. VRS-based instruments were most common. There was a wide range of psychometric rigor in validation. Consequently, meta-analysis was not possible. Most cancer multisymptom assessment instruments need further extensive validation to establish the excellent reliability and validity required for clinical utility and meaningful research.