Sharing psychosocial risk screening information with pediatric oncology healthcare providers: Service utilization and related factors.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial morbidity in pediatric oncology patients and their caregivers is widely recognized. Although routine systematic psychosocial screening has been proposed as a standard of care, screening is still limited. The present study assessed whether supplying the patient's treating team of healthcare providers with psychosocial risk screening information near diagnosis would increase the rate of documented psychosocial contacts, particularly for patients/families with elevated risk. The effect of demographic and clinical factors was also examined. PROCEDURES: Ninety-three families with a child/youth newly diagnosed with cancer participated. Families were randomly assigned to a care as usual control group (n = 44) or an intervention group (n = 49) where the treating team was provided with a summary of family psychosocial risk, measured by the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT). The PAT was completed by the primary caregiver, who also provided demographic information. The number of psychosocial intervention contacts documented in the medical charts was examined. RESULTS: The rate of psychosocial intervention did not significantly differ between the groups (P > 0.05). The intensity of the child's cancer treatment was found to be the only significant predictor of the number of documented psychosocial intervention contacts (ß = 0.396, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical factors appear to be more predictive of the rate of psychosocial intervention provided to pediatric oncology patients and their families than informing the treating team of family psychosocial risk. Additional research is required to address the gap between psychosocial risk screening, psychosocial intervention, and family outcomes.

Healthcare provider utility ratings of a psychosocial screening summary: from diagnosis to 6 months.

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial screening has been proposed as a core standard of care in pediatric oncology. However, there has been limited application of this standard thus far. Understanding healthcare provider (HCP) attitudes towards psychosocial screening is an important element towards furthering implementation initiatives of standard screening practices in pediatric oncology. OBJECTIVE: To compare HCP perceptions of the utility of a psychosocial risk summary by discipline (oncologist, nurse, social worker), risk level (Universal, Targeted, Clinical) derived from the Psychosocial Assessment Tool (PAT), and time (shortly after a child's diagnosis [T1] and 6 months later [T2]). METHOD: All participating HCPs (oncologists, nurses, social workers) were asked to rate how useful they found the psychosocial risk summary using a visual analogue scale (VAS). RESULTS: The psychosocial risk summary was perceived as equally useful across providers (oncologists, nurses, social workers) and PAT risk levels at T1. At T2, the psychosocial risk summary was perceived as more useful by oncologists and nurses than social workers, and summaries indicating elevated risk were perceived as more useful than those indicating low risk. Overall, healthcare providers reported greater utility of psychosocial risk summary near diagnosis compared with 6 months later, largely driven by lower utility ratings reported by social workers at T2. CONCLUSION: Understanding perceived utility and factors affecting perceived utility is a key component to designing effective implementation strategies for systematic psychosocial screening. Active engagement of HCPs in the screening process is critical in improving implementation of psychosocial screening throughout pediatric cancer treatment.