Factors associated with distress and the impact of distress on acute health-care service utilization among patients diagnosed with breast and gynecological cancers.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with cancer often have unmet needs (e.g., physical, psychosocial, and emotional) during their cancer journey, putting them at risk for distress. This study aimed to identify factors associated with distress and to investigate the association between distress and acute health-care services utilization in a cohort of breast and gynecological cancer patients across different survivorship stages. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of patients who visited National Cancer Centre Singapore between September 2019 and July 2020. Distress was evaluated using the self-reported Distress Thermometer and Problem List, with a distress thermometer score ≥4 signifying high distress. Data were extracted from electronic medical records. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify demographic or clinical variables associated with distress and estimate the odds of emergency department (ED) visits and hospitalizations within 30 days of distress screening, adjusted for covariates. RESULTS: Of the 1386 patients included in the analysis, 510 (36.8%) reported high distress on their first distress screening. Variables associated with high distress included younger age, presence of psychiatric diagnosis, poorer Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, and shorter duration from cancer diagnosis to distress screening. Patients with high distress were associated with higher odds of ED visits (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 2.25, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14-4.43) and hospitalizations (adjusted OR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.27-3.50) within 30 days of distress screening. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: Self-reported high distress was associated with higher odds of increased acute health-care services utilization (ED visits and hospitalizations) in patients with breast and gynecological cancer. Identifying the subgroups at risk of high distress could trigger early interventions that reduce unplanned health-care services utilization and possibly health-care costs.

Palliative care pain control: inpatient consultation versus corounding models compared.

BACKGROUND: Compared with the current inpatient consultation model, a novel corounding model of care whereby palliative specialists round with oncology teams, increases healthcare collaboration and may improve quality of care for inpatients. Whether this translates to better pain control for patients is unexplored. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the corounding model provides better pain control compared with the consultation model for cancer inpatients. METHODS: Cancer patients with moderate or severe pain severity during the admission were included in this observational study. Pain severity was determined using electronic records. Improvement to mild or no pain by day 3 of identification of moderate or severe pain was defined as good pain control and proportion of admissions achieving this was compared between models. RESULTS: A total of 142 and 128 admissions admitted under the consult and corounding model, respectively, had moderate or severe pain. The proportion of patients that achieved good pain control was 77.3% (99/128) and 71.8% (102/142) in the corounding and consult model, respectively. The difference in proportion of admissions achieving good pain control was significantly higher in the corounding model after adjusting for differences in baseline characteristics (unadjusted OR, 1.34; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.33; adjusted OR, 2.25; 95% CI, 1.19 to 4.26). DISCUSSION: The odds of achieving good pain control was significantly better in the corounding model. However, the mechanism behind this is unexplored. This study can serve as precedence for future studies evaluating the corounding model of care.