What to do with screening for distress scores? Integrating descriptive data into clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation of routine Screening for Distress constitutes a major change in cancer care, with the aim of achieving person-centered care. METHOD: Using a cross-sectional descriptive design within a University Tertiary Care Hospital setting, 911 patients from all cancer sites were screened at the time of their first meeting with a nurse navigator who administered a paper questionnaire that included: the Distress Thermometer (DT), the Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC), and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS). RESULTS: Results showed a mean score of 3.9 on the DT. Fears/worries, coping with the disease, and sleep were the most common problems reported on the CPC. Tiredness was the most prevalent symptom on the ESAS. A final regression model that included anxiety, the total number of problems on the CPC, well-being, and tiredness accounted for almost 50% of the variance of distress. A cutoff score of 5 on the DT together with a cutoff of 5 on the ESAS items represents the best combination of specificity and sensitivity to orient patients on the basis of their reported distress. SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS: These descriptive data will provide valuable feedback to answer practical questions for the purpose of effectively implementing and managing routine screening in cancer care.

Fast, systematic, and continuous delirium assessment in hospitalized patients: the nursing delirium screening scale.

Because no rigorously validated, simple yet accurate continuous delirium assessment instrument exists, we developed the Nursing Delirium Screening Scale (Nu-DESC). The Nu-DESC is an observational five-item scale that can be completed quickly. To test the validity of the Nu-DESC, 146 consecutive hospitalized patients from a prospective cohort study were continuously assessed for delirium symptoms by bedside nurses using the Nu-DESC. Psychometric properties of Nu-DESC screening were established using 59 blinded Confusion Assessment Method (CAM) ratings made by research nurses and psychiatrists. DSM-IV criteria and the Memorial Delirium Assessment Scale (MDAS) were rated along with CAM assessments. Analysis of these data showed that the Nu-DESC is psychometrically valid and has a sensitivity and specificity of 85.7% and 86.8%, respectively. These values are comparable to those of the MDAS, a longer instrument. Nu-DESC and DSM-IV sensitivities were similar. The Nu-DESC appears to be well-suited for widespread clinical use in busy oncology inpatient settings and shows promise as a research instrument.