Consensus-Building efforts to identify best tools for screening and assessment for supportive services in oncology.

Purpose: To build consensus around an optimal patient-reported outcome measure of cancer symptoms and patient needs to facilitate patient-provider communication and trigger referrals to supportive services.Methods and materials: The Grid-Enabled Measures platform was used to crowdsource and facilitate collaboration to achieve consensus. Respondents were invited to nominate and independently rate the usefulness of measures that: (1) have been actively used at a healthcare institution, (2) have a multiple choice or yes/no type format, (3) are applicable to adults with cancer, (4) are patient-reported, and 5) have psychometric data if possible. Discussion boards within the GEM workspace allowed respondents to identify barriers to implementing patient assessment and referral systems.Results: 166 individuals from various disciplines from 25 organizations participated. Six instruments were nominated, and 553 rating surveys were submitted. The three most highly-rated overall instruments were the Distress Thermometer, the James Supportive Case Screening, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General. Participants noted that wide-scale implementation of this process requires both identifying problems and providing clinicians with algorithms to facilitate appropriate referrals.Conclusions: Consensus reported three most highly-related measures as optimal for comprehensive screening and identification for referral by assessing multiple domains of functioning and quality of life.Implications for RehabilitationGaining consensus on the best patient reported outcome measures is an important step towards improving access to cancer rehabilitation services.A consensus agreed on several measures to use for cancer rehabilitation screening. Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, National Comprehensive Cancer. Network Distress Thermometer and the James Instrument.The selected measures do not put undue burden on clinicians and patients.

The Intersection of Rehabilitation and Palliative Care: Patients With Advanced Cancer in the Inpatient Rehabilitation Setting.

BACKGROUND: Patients diagnosed with advanced cancer often differ from the traditional patient typically seen in the inpatient rehabilitation setting. PURPOSE: To identify differences in care while highlighting the considerable similarities between the complementary specialties of palliative care and rehabilitation, and to provide rehabilitation clinicians with knowledge and skills to enhance care for palliative care patients and their families. METHODOLOGY: Narrative literature review describing common functional losses in patients diagnosed with advanced cancer, followed by articulation of the intersection of palliative care with traditional rehabilitation approaches and goals. CONCLUSION: The evidence supports implementation of a distinct body of skills and knowledge, referred to as "palliative rehabilitation," among inpatient rehabilitation providers. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Implementing palliative rehabilitation skills can improve the quality of care within the inpatient rehabilitation setting for patients with advanced cancer.

Making Cancer Rehabilitation Services Work for Cancer Patients: Recommendations for Research and Practice to Improve Employment Outcomes.

Cancer and its treatment can result in impairments that limit physical, psychosocial, and cognitive functioning, interfering with patients' ability to perform work-related functions. Because these work limitations can carry significant personal and societal costs, there is a timely need to identify and refer patients to cancer rehabilitation services to manage adverse consequences of treatment and to preserve employment. Coordinated efforts in 3 key areas will better connect patients to rehabilitation interventions that will help optimize employment. These include the following: planning for the impact of cancer on the ability to work; implementing routine screening for impairments and facilitating referrals to cancer rehabilitation specialists; and focusing rehabilitation interventions on preserving employment. Coordinated strategies are presented to achieve these 3 goals, including the following: implementing changes to clinical practice to routinely screen for impairments; working with oncology providers and patients to better understand the benefits of cancer rehabilitation to facilitate referrals and uptake; training more cancer rehabilitation providers to handle the increased need; better coordination of care across providers and with employers; and filling research gaps needed to proactively anticipate how cancer treatment would affect work for a given patient and deploy personalized interventions to preserve the ability to work.