Pain Management in Cancer Center Inpatients: A Cluster Randomized Trial to Evaluate a Systematic Integrated Approach-The Edinburgh Pain Assessment and Management Tool

Neuropathic Pain in Cancer: What Are the Current Guidelines?

OPINION STATEMENT

Neuropathic cancer pain is experienced by 30-40% of patients with cancer. It significantly reduces quality of life and overall wellbeing for patients living with and beyond cancer. The underlying mechanisms of neuropathic pain in patients with cancer are complex and involve direct tumour involvement, nerve compression or infiltration, chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy-induced nerve damage, or post-surgical complications. It is crucial for healthcare professionals to assess and manage neuropathic cancer pain effectively. There is increasing recognition that standardisation of neuropathic pain assessment leads to tailored management and improved patient outcomes. Pain management strategies, including medication, interventional analgesia, physical and complementary therapy, can help alleviate neuropathic pain and improve the patient's comfort and quality of life.

Cannabis and Cannabinoids in Adults With Cancer: ASCO Guideline

PURPOSE

To guide clinicians, adults with cancer, caregivers, researchers, and oncology institutions on the medical use of cannabis and cannabinoids, including synthetic cannabinoids and herbal cannabis derivatives; single, purified cannabinoids; combinations of cannabis ingredients; and full-spectrum cannabis.

METHODS

A systematic literature review identified systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies on the efficacy and safety of cannabis and cannabinoids when used by adults with cancer. Outcomes of interest included antineoplastic effects, cancer treatment toxicity, symptoms, and quality of life. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched from database inception to January 27, 2023. ASCO convened an Expert Panel to review the evidence and formulate recommendations.

RESULTS

The evidence base consisted of 13 systematic reviews and five additional primary studies (four RCTs and one cohort study). The certainty of evidence for most outcomes was low or very low.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Cannabis and/or cannabinoid access and use by adults with cancer has outpaced the science supporting their clinical use. This guideline provides strategies for open, nonjudgmental communication between clinicians and adults with cancer about the use of cannabis and/or cannabinoids. Clinicians should recommend against using cannabis or cannabinoids as a cancer-directed treatment unless within the context of a clinical trial. Cannabis and/or cannabinoids may improve refractory, chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when added to guideline-concordant antiemetic regimens. Whether cannabis and/or cannabinoids can improve other supportive care outcomes remains uncertain. This guideline also highlights the critical need for more cannabis and/or cannabinoid research.Additional information is available at www.asco.org/supportive-care-guidelines.

Can illness representations be used to understand pain experienced in breast cancer survivorship-a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Chronic pain is a recognised long-term consequence associated with breast cancer and its treatment; however, it is often underdiagnosed and undertreated. This study aims to explore the associations between illness representations, chronic cancer pain, and HRQoL in women who have survived breast cancer.

DESIGN AND METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey design was used. Data from 182 women who participated in the survey were analysed.

RESULTS

Chronic cancer pain was reported by 66% of respondents. Using the BPI-SF (score 0-10), participants were categorised into one of four pain categories: no chronic pain (BPI score 0; 34.1%), mild pain (BPI score 1-3; 35.7%), moderate pain (BPI score 4-6; 25.3%), and severe pain (BPI score 7 + ; 4.9%). The main findings were that having a strong illness identity (IPQ-R subscale which assesses the number of symptoms an individual attributes to their illness) was found to be a significant predictor of pain severity (OR 1.21 (95% CI 1.07-1.37), p = 0.003). Furthermore, HRQoL was significantly associated and predictive of pain severity (OR 0.97 (95% CI 0.95-0.99), p < 0.001). An additional finding was that not being in paid work was strongly associated with being in a higher pain category (OR 5.92 (95% CI 1.84-19.05), p = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the high prevalence of chronic cancer pain experienced by this population. Results show that dimensions of illness representations are associated with chronic cancer pain experienced by breast cancer survivors. Furthermore, having a strong illness identity and HRQoL were found to be independent, significant predictors of pain severity.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

These findings demonstrate that chronic pain is an unmet clinical need experienced by breast cancer survivors, which is associated with reduced overall HRQoL. Therefore, consideration is needed regarding the assessment and management of chronic pain experienced by this population.

Cancer pain assessment and management: does an institutional approach individualise and reduce cost of care?

OBJECTIVES

To understand individual prescribing and associated costs in patients managed with the Edinburgh Pain Assessment and management Tool (EPAT).

METHODS

The EPAT study was a two-arm parallel group cluster randomised (1:1) trial, including 19 UK cancer centres. Study outcome assessments, including pain levels, analgesia and non-pharmacological and anaesthetic interventions, collected at baseline, 3-5 days and, if applicable, 7-10 days after admission. Costs calculated for inpatient length of stay (LoS), medications and complex pain interventions. Analysis accounted for the clustered nature of the trial design. In this post-hoc analysis, healthcare utilisation and costs are presented descriptively.

PARTICIPANTS

10 centres randomised to EPAT (487 patients) and 9 (449 patients) to usual care (UC).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Pharmacological and non-pharmacological management, complex pain interventions, length of hospital stay and costs related to these outcomes.

RESULTS

The mean per patient hospital cost was £3866 with EPAT and £4194 with UC, reflecting a mean LoS of 2.9 days and 3.1 days, respectively. Costs were lower for non-opioids, Non-steroidal anti-inflammatories (NSAIDs) and opioids but slightly higher for adjuvants with EPAT than with UC. The mean per-patient opioid costs were £17.90 (EPAT) and £25.80 (UC). Mean per patient costs of all medication were £36 (EPAT) and £40 (UC).Complex pain intervention costs were £117 with EPAT per patient and £90 with UC. Overall mean cost per patient was £4018.3 (95% CI 3698.9 to 4337.8) with EPAT and £4323.8 (95% CI 4060.0 to 4587.7) with UC.

CONCLUSIONS

EPAT facilitated personalised medicine and may result in less opioids, more specific treatments, improved pain outcomes and cost savings.

Exploration of pain assessment and management processes in oncology outpatient services with healthcare professionals: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

This study explored cancer pain management practices and clinical care pathways used by healthcare professionals (HCPs) to understand the barriers and facilitators for standardised pain management in oncology outpatient services (OS).

DESIGN

Data were collected using semistructured interviews that were audio-recorded and transcribed. The data were analysed using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Three NHS trusts with oncology OS in Northern England.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty HCPs with varied roles (eg, oncologist and nurse) and experiences (eg, registrar and consultant) from different cancer site clinics (eg, breast and lung). Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

HCPs discussed cancer pain management practices during consultation and supporting continuity of care beyond consultation. Key findings included : (1) HCPs' level of clinical experience influenced pain assessments; (2) remote consulting impeded experienced HCPs to do detailed pain assessments; (3) diffusion of HCP responsibility to manage cancer pain; (4) nurses facilitated pain management support with patients and (5) continuity of care for pain management was constrained by the integration of multidisciplinary teams.

CONCLUSIONS

These data demonstrate HCP cancer pain management practices varied and were unstructured. Recommendations are made for a standardised cancer pain management intervention: (1) detailed evaluation of pain with a tailored self-management strategy; (2) implementation of a structured pain assessment that supports remote consultations, (3) pain assessment tool that can support both experienced and less experienced clinicians. These findings will inform the development of a cancer pain management tool to integrate within routine oncology OS.

Opioid-induced constipation: a stepwise treatment algorithm feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Opioid-induced constipation (OIC) is frequently undertreated in patients with advanced cancer. Our hypothesis is that the use of a stepwise treatment algorithm, supported by regular patient-reported outcome measures, should improve the management of OIC. The aim of this feasibility study was to determine whether a definitive study could be successfully completed.

METHODS

Patients with OIC (Rome Foundation diagnostic criteria positive), and a Bowel Function Index (BFI) score of ≥30, were recruited to the study. The study involved weekly assessments, and decisions about management were based on the current BFI score (and the tolerability of the current treatment). Management was based on a four-step treatment algorithm, developed from recent international guidelines.

RESULTS

One hundred patients entered the study, and 79 patients completed the study. Fifty-seven (72%) participants responded to treatment, with 34 (43%) participants having a 'complete' response (ie, final BFI<30) and 23 (29%) participants having a 'partial' response (ie, change in BFI≥12). In participants with a complete response, 73.5% were prescribed conventional laxatives, 12% were prescribed a peripherally acting mu-opioid receptor antagonist (PAMORA) and 14.5% were prescribed a PAMORA and conventional laxative.

DISCUSSION

The feasibility study suggests that a definitive study can be successfully completed. However, we will amend the methodology to try to improve participant recruitment, participant retention and adherence to the treatment algorithm. The feasibility study also suggests that the use of the BFI to monitor OIC, and the use of a treatment algorithm to manage OIC, can result in clinically important improvements in OIC.Trial registration number NCT04404933.

The effects of cancer clinical decision support systems on patient-reported outcomes: A systematic review

PURPOSE

The implementation of high-quality decision-making support are integral to ensuring the delivery of quality cancer care and subsequently achieving positive patient outcomes. Decision Support Systems (DSS) are increasingly used, however it is not known what the effects are beyond supporting the decision-making process. We aimed to identify and synthesize the available literature regarding the effects of DSS on patient-reported outcomes both during and after cancer treatment.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted using dual processes to identify empirical literature that reported an evaluation of DSS interventions and patient-reported outcomes. We appraised study quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

We included 15 studies, categorized as symptom assessment interventions or interactive educational interventions. Findings were mixed regarding the effectiveness of DSS interventions in improving total symptom distress and severity, whereas the majority were effective in reducing mean scores for worst and usual pain. Interventions were not effective in improving other health-related patient-reported outcomes including quality of life, global distress, depression, or self-efficacy and there were mixed effects for reducing decisional conflict. There was moderate to high patient adherence to the interventions and generally high satisfaction and acceptability, yet minimal evidence for the effect of DSS interventions in clinician adherence to intervention recommendations.

CONCLUSIONS

Including patient-reported outcomes in the evaluation of DSS is critical to understand their impact. Inconsistencies in reporting of interventions may, however, be a contributing factor to heterogeneous effects of clinical DSS regarding a broad range of patient-reported outcomes.

The Perioperative Pain Management Bundle is Feasible: Findings From the PAIN OUT Registry

OBJECTIVES

The quality of postoperative pain management is often poor. A "bundle," a small set of evidence-based interventions, is associated with improved outcomes in different settings. We assessed whether staff caring for surgical patients could implement a "Perioperative Pain Management Bundle" and whether this would be associated with improved multidimensional pain-related patient-reported outcomes (PROs).

METHODS

"PAIN OUT," a perioperative pain registry, offers tools for auditing pain-related PROs and obtaining information about perioperative pain management during the first 24 hours after surgery. Staff from 10 hospitals in Serbia used this methodology to collect data at baseline. They then implemented the "Perioperative Pain Management Bundle" into the clinical routine and collected another round of data. The bundle consists of 4 treatment elements: (1) a full daily dose of 1 to 2 nonopioid analgesics (eg, paracetamol and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), (2) at least 1 type of local/regional anesthesia, (3) pain assessment by staff, and (4) offering patients information about pain management. The primary endpoint was a multidimensional pain composite score (PCS), evaluating pain intensity, interference, and side effects that was compared between patients who received the full bundle versus not.

RESULTS

Implementation of the complete bundle was associated with a significant reduction in the PCS ( P < 0.001, small-medium effect size [ES]). When each treatment element was evaluated independently, nonopioid analgesics were associated with a higher PCS (ie, poorer outcome, and negligible ES), and the other elements were associated with a lower PCS (all negligible small ES). Individual PROs were consistently better in patients receiving the full bundle compared with 0 to 3 elements. The PCS was not associated with the surgical discipline.

DISCUSSION

We report findings from using a bundle approach for perioperative pain management in patients undergoing mixed surgical procedures. Future work will seek strategies to improve the effect.

Advanced practice physiotherapy care in emergency departments for patients with musculoskeletal disorders: a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial and cost analysis

BACKGROUND

Advanced practice physiotherapy (APP) models of care where physiotherapists are primary contact emergency department (ED) providers are promising models of care to improve access, alleviate physicians' burden, and offer efficient centered patient care for patients with minor musculoskeletal disorders (MSKD).

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of an advanced practice physiotherapist (APPT)-led model of care with usual ED physician care for persons presenting with a minor MSKD, in terms of patient-related outcomes, health care resources utilization, and health care costs.

METHODS

This trial is a multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) with a cost analysis. Six Canadian EDs (clusters) will be randomized to a treatment sequence where patients will either be managed by an ED APPT or receive usual ED physician care. Seven hundred forty-four adults with a minor MSKD will be recruited. The main outcome measure will be the Brief Pain Inventory Questionnaire. Secondary measures will include validated self-reported disability questionnaires, the EQ-5D-5L, and other health care utilization outcomes such as prescription of imaging tests and medication. Adverse events and re-visits to the ED for the same complaint will also be monitored. Health care costs will be measured from the perspective of the public health care system using time-driven activity-based costing. Outcomes will be collected at inclusion, at ED discharge, and at 4, 12, and 26 weeks following the initial ED visit. Per-protocol and intention-to-treat analyses will be performed using linear mixed models with a random effect for cluster and fixed effect for time.

DISCUSSION

MSKD have a significant impact on health care systems. By providing innovative efficient pathways to access care, APP models of care could help relieve pressure in EDs while providing efficient care for adults with MSKD.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05545917 . Registered on September 19, 2022.

Effect of a Symptom Monitoring Intervention for Patients Hospitalized With Advanced Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Symptom monitoring interventions are increasingly becoming the standard of care in oncology, but studies assessing these interventions in the hospital setting are lacking.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of a symptom monitoring intervention on symptom burden and health care use among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This nonblinded randomized clinical trial conducted from February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, assessed 321 hospitalized adult patients with advanced cancer and admitted to the inpatient oncology services of an academic hospital. Data obtained through November 13, 2020, were included in analyses, and all analyses assessed the intent-to-treat population.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients in both the intervention and usual care groups reported their symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) and the 4-item Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4) daily via tablet computers. Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports displayed during daily oncology rounds, with alerts for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms. Patients assigned to usual care did not have their symptom reports displayed to their clinical teams.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the proportion of days with improved symptoms, and the secondary outcomes were hospital length of stay and readmission rates. Linear regression was used to evaluate differences in hospital length of stay. Competing-risk regression (with death treated as a competing event) was used to compare differences in time to first unplanned readmission within 30 days.

RESULTS

From February 12, 2018, to October 30, 2019, 390 patients (76.2% enrollment rate) were randomized. Study analyses to assess change in symptom burden included 321 of 390 patients (82.3%) who had 2 or more days of symptom reports completed (usual care, 161 of 193; intervention, 160 of 197). Participants had a mean (SD) age of 63.6 (12.8) years and were mostly male (180; 56.1%), self-reported as White (291; 90.7%), and married (230; 71.7%). The most common cancer type was gastrointestinal (118 patients; 36.8%), followed by lung (60 patients; 18.7%), genitourinary (39 patients; 12.1%), and breast (29 patients; 9.0%). No significant differences were detected between the intervention and usual care for the proportion of days with improved ESAS-physical (unstandardized coefficient [B] = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.05; P = .56), ESAS-total (B = -0.05; 95% CI, -0.12 to 0.02; P = .17), PHQ-4-depression (B = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.04; P = .55), and PHQ-4-anxiety (B = -0.04; 95% CI, -0.10 to 0.03; P = .29) symptoms. Intervention patients also did not differ significantly from patients receiving usual care for the secondary end points of hospital length of stay (7.59 vs 7.47 days; B = 0.13; 95% CI, -1.04 to 1.29; P = .83) and 30-day readmission rates (26.5% vs 33.8%; hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.48-1.09; P = .12).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This randomized clinical trial found that for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer, the assessed symptom monitoring intervention did not have a significant effect on patients' symptom burden or health care use. These findings do not support the routine integration of this type of symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03396510.

Effect of Cancer Pain Guideline Implementation on Pain Outcomes Among Adult Outpatients With Cancer-Related Pain: A Stepped Wedge Cluster Randomized Trial

IMPORTANCE

An evidence-practice gap exists for cancer pain management, and cancer pain remains prevalent and disabling.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the capacity of 3 cancer pain guideline implementation strategies to improve pain-related outcomes for patients attending oncology and palliative care outpatient services.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A pragmatic, stepped wedge, cluster-randomized, nonblinded, clinical trial was conducted between 2014 and 2019. The clusters were cancer centers in Australia providing oncology and palliative care outpatient clinics. Participants included a consecutive cohort of adult outpatients with advanced cancer and a worst pain severity score of 2 or more out of 10 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Data were collected between August 2015 and May 2019. Data were analyzed July to October 2019 and reanalyzed November to December 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

Guideline implementation strategies at the cluster, health professional, and patient levels introduced with the support of a clinical champion.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary measure of effect was the percentage of participants initially screened as having moderate to severe worst pain (NRS ≥ 5) who experienced a clinically important improvement of 30% or more 1 week later. Secondary outcomes included mean average pain, patient empowerment, fidelity to the intervention, and quality of life and were measured in all participants with a pain score of 2 or more 10 at weeks 1, 2, and 4.

RESULTS

Of 8099 patients screened at 6 clusters, 1564 were eligible, and 359 were recruited during the control phase (mean [SD] age, 64.2 [12.1] years; 196 men [55%]) and 329 during the intervention phase (mean [SD] age, 63.6 [12.7] years; 155 men [47%]), with no significant differences between phases on baseline measures. The mean (SD) baseline worst pain scores were 5.0 (2.6) and 4.9 (2.6) for control and intervention phases, respectively. The mean (SD) baseline average pain scores were 3.5 (2.1) for both groups. For the primary outcome, the proportions of participants with a 30% or greater reduction in a pain score of 5 or more of 10 at baseline were similar in the control and intervention phases (31 of 280 participants [11.9%] vs 30 of 264 participants [11.8%]; OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.79-1.60; P = .51). No significant differences were found in secondary outcomes between phases. Fidelity to the intervention was low.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

A suite of implementation strategies was insufficient to improve pain-related outcomes for outpatients with cancer-related pain. Further evaluation is needed to determine the required clinical resources needed to enable wide-scale uptake of the fundamental elements of cancer pain care. Ongoing quality improvement activities should be supported to improve sustainability.

Cancer cachexia in adult patients: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines☆

•This ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline provides key recommendations for managing cancer-related cachexia. •It covers screening, assessment and multimodal management of cancer cachexia. •All recommendations were compiled by a multidisciplinary group of experts. •Recommendations are based on available scientific data and the author's expert opinion.

Using Stakeholder Engagement to Overcome Barriers to Implementing Patient-reported Outcomes (PROs) in Cancer Care Delivery: Approaches From 3 Prospective Studies

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used during cancer care delivery improve communication about symptoms between patients and clinicians and reduce service utilization for uncontrolled symptoms. However, uptake of PROs in routine cancer care has been slow. In this paper, we describe stakeholder engagement activities used to overcome barriers to implementing PROs. Implementation occurred in 2 study settings: PROs completed in the waiting room and reviewed during clinical visits to guide symptom management for multiple myeloma (visit-based PROs); and weekly PROs completed by cancer patients between chemotherapy visits to monitor symptoms at home (remote PROs).

METHODS

PRO implementation steps across studies included: (1) clinician and patient input on key symptoms, PRO measures, and identifying which PRO responses are clinically concerning to better target nursing actions; (2) developing PRO-based clinical decision support (CDS) for responding to concerning PROs; (3) training clinicians and clinical research assistants to interpret PROs and use software; and (4) describing implementation impact (frequency of concerning PRO responses and nursing actions).

DISCUSSION

Clinician and patient input was critical for identifying key symptoms, PRO measures, and clinically concerning response options. For the visit-based PRO observational study, all symptom scores appeared on a clinician dashboard, and those rated ≥1 by patients (on a 0-4 or 0-10 scale) had PRO-based CDS available for access. For the 2 remote PROs trials, stakeholders recommended that the 2 "worst" response options (eg, PRO responses of "often"/"always" or "severe"/"very severe") would trigger an automated email alert to a nurse along with PRO-based CDS. In each study, PRO-based CDS was tailored based on clinician input. Across studies, the most common nursing response to concerning PROs was counseling patients on (or providing care plans for) self-management of symptoms. In the trials, the percentage of weekly remote PROs generating an alert to a nurse ranged from 13% at an academic center to 36% in community oncology practices.

KEY POINTS

Across 3 prospective studies, PROs implemented into cancer care enabled tailored care based on issues identified on PROs. Stakeholder engagement was critical for successful implementation. This paper assists in addressing important PRO implementation challenges by describing a stakeholder-driven approach.

Practice review: Evidence-based and effective management of pain in patients with advanced cancer

BACKGROUND

Pain of a moderate or severe intensity affects over half of patients with advanced cancer and remains undertreated in at least one-third of these patients.

AIM

The aim of this study was to provide a pragmatic overview of the evidence supporting the use of interventions in pain management in advanced cancer and to identify where encouraging preliminary results are demonstrated but further research is required.

DESIGN

A scoping review approach was used to examine the evidence supporting the use of guideline-recommended interventions in pain management practice.

DATA SOURCES

National or international guidelines were selected if they described pain management in adult cancer patients and were written within the last 5 years in English. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (January 2014 to January 2019) was searched for 'cancer' AND 'pain' in the title, abstract or keywords. A MEDLINE search was also made.

RESULTS

A strong opioid remains the drug of choice for treating moderate or severe pain. Bisphosphonates and radiotherapy are also effective for cancer-related bone pain. Optimal management requires a tailored approach, support for self-management and review of treatment outcomes. There is likely a role for non-pharmacological approaches. Paracetamol should not be used in patients taking a strong opioid to treat pain. Cannabis-based medicines are not recommended. Weak opioids, ketamine and lidocaine are indicated in specific situations only.

CONCLUSION

Interventions commonly recommended by guidelines are not always supported by a robust evidence base. Research is required to evaluate the efficacy of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, corticosteroids, some invasive anaesthetic techniques, complementary therapies and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation.

An in-hospital clinical care pathway with integrated decision support for cancer pain management reduced pain intensity and needs for hospital stay

PURPOSE

A clinical care pathway for pain management in a palliative care unit was studied with outcomes related to patients, physicians, and health care service. Mandatory use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and physician-directed decision support (DS) were integrated parts of the pathway.

METHODS

Adult cancer patients with pain intensity (PI) ≥ 5 (NRS 0-10) at admission were eligible. The patients reported average and worst PI at admission, day four, and discharge. The physicians completed the DS at admission and day four. The DS presented potential needs for treatment changes based on pain severity and pathophysiology. The physicians reported treatment changes due to input from the DS system. The two primary outcomes were average and worst PI changes from admission to discharge. Hospital length of stay (LOS) was registered.

RESULTS

Of 52 included patients, 41 were discharged alive. For those, the mean average PI at admission and at discharge was 5.8 and 2.4, respectively, a reduction of 3.4 points (CI 95% 2.7-4.1). The corresponding worst pain intensities were 7.9 and 3.8, a reduction of 4.1 points (CI 95% 3.4-4.8). The physicians completed DS forms for all patients. Fifty-five percent (CI 95% 41-69) of the patients had pain intervention changes based on the DS. A significant reduction in LOS (4.4 days, CI 95% 0.5-8.3) was observed during the study period.

CONCLUSIONS

The interventions were implemented according to the intentions and PI was reduced as hypothesized. For evaluation of generalizability, the interventions should be studied in other settings and with a controlled design.

The role of implementation science in improving distress assessment and management in oncology: a commentary on "Screening for psychosocial distress among patients with cancer: implications for clinical practice, healthcare policy, and dissemination to enhance cancer survivorship"

Despite considerable evidence that psychosocial interventions can effectively relieve distress in patients with cancer, many individuals who could benefit from these interventions do not receive them. A proposed solution to this problem is the establishment of programs in oncology settings that routinely screen for distress and refer patients for appropriate psychosocial care. This commentary addresses a review by Ehlers et al. that describes policies and procedures related to distress screening, summarizes prior research on this topic, and identifies key areas for future research. Among their major conclusions is the need for research to fill the gap in knowledge about how best to implement new distress screening programs as well as optimize the use and efficiency of existing programs. This commentary focuses on how the types of study methods, designs, and outcomes that are commonplace in implementation science to facilitate the integration of research into practice can be applied to distress screening programs. Priorities identified include designing and conducting pragmatic clinical trials, evaluating multilevel interventions, and using hybrid designs to simultaneously evaluate clinical effectiveness and barriers and facilitators of implementation. Use of these approaches holds considerable potential for developing an evidence base that can promote more widespread adoption of effective distress screening programs and inform further development of standards and policies related to the psychosocial care of patients with cancer.

Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring intervention for hospitalized patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Hospitalized patients with cancer experience a high symptom burden, which is associated with poor health outcomes and increased health care utilization. However, studies investigating symptom monitoring interventions in this population are lacking. We conducted a pilot randomized trial to assess the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of a symptom monitoring intervention to improve symptom management in hospitalized patients with advanced cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We randomly assigned patients with advanced cancer who were admitted to the inpatient oncology service to a symptom monitoring intervention or usual care. Patients in both arms self-reported their symptoms daily (Edmonton Symptom Assessment System and Patient Health Questionnaire-4). Patients assigned to the intervention had their symptom reports presented graphically with alerts for moderate/severe symptoms during daily team rounds. The primary end point of the study was feasibility. We defined the intervention as feasible if >75% of participants hospitalized >2 days completed >2 symptom reports. We observed daily rounds to determine whether clinicians discussed and developed a plan to address patients' symptoms. We used regression models to assess intervention effects on patients' symptoms throughout their hospitalization, readmission risk, and hospital length of stay (LOS).

RESULTS

Among 150 enrolled patients (81.1% enrollment), 94.2% completed >2 symptom reports. Clinicians discussed 60.4% of the symptom reports and developed a plan to address the symptoms highlighted by the symptom reports 20.8% of the time. Compared with usual care, intervention patients had a greater proportion of days with lower psychological distress (B = 0.12, P = 0.008), but no significant difference in the proportion of days with improved Edmonton Symptom Assessment System-physical symptoms (B = 0.07, P = 0.138). Intervention patients had lower readmission risk (hazard ratio = 0.68, P = 0.224), although this difference was not significant. We found no significant intervention effects on hospital LOS (B = 0.16, P = 0.862).

CONCLUSIONS

This symptom monitoring intervention is feasible and demonstrates encouraging preliminary efficacy for improving patients' symptoms and readmission risk.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02891993.