RESUMEN
Objective: Chronic illness in children and adolescents is associated with significant stress and risk of psychosocial problems. In busy pediatric clinics, limited time and resources are significant barriers to providing mental health assessment for every child. A brief, real-time self-report measure of psychosocial problems is needed. Methods: An electronic distress screening tool, Checking IN, for ages 8-21 was developed in 3 phases. Phase I used semi-structured cognitive interviews (N = 47) to test the wording of items assessing emotional, physical, social, practical, and spiritual concerns of pediatric patients. Findings informed the development of the final measure and an electronic platform (Phase II). Phase III used semi-structured interviews (N = 134) to assess child, caregiver and researcher perception of the feasibility, acceptability, and barriers of administering Checking IN in the outpatient setting at 4 sites. Results: Most patients and caregivers rated Checking IN as "easy" or "very easy" to complete, "feasible" or "somewhat feasible," and the time to complete the measure as acceptable. Most providers (n = 68) reported Checking IN elicited clinically useful and novel information. Fifty-four percent changed care for their patient based on the results. Conclusions: Checking IN is a versatile and brief distress screener that is acceptable to youth with chronic illness and feasible to administer. The summary report provides immediate clinically meaningful data. Electronic tools like Checking IN can capture a child's current psychosocial wellbeing in a standardized, consistent, and useful way, while allowing for the automation of triaging referrals and psychosocial documentation during outpatient visits.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Oncofertility is a developing field of increasing importance, particularly in pediatric oncology, where most patients are likely to survive long-term and have not yet had the opportunity to have children. AIMS: We performed a quality improvement initiative to increase our rates of fertility preservation counseling and referral through the implementation of a pediatric oncofertility team, and we report outcomes 7 years following implementation of our initiative. METHODS AND RESULTS: We compare our baseline oncofertility survey to 44 post-intervention survey respondents and electronic medical record documentation for 149 patients treated in 2019. Ninety-five percent of post-intervention survey respondents recalled fertility counseling (baseline 70%, p = .004) and 89.3% were appropriately referred for fertility preservation (baseline 50%, p = .017). Counseling was documented in 60.4% of charts; 81% of patients analyzed by chart review were appropriately referred for fertility preservation. Fertility preservation outcomes differed by sex assigned at birth. CONCLUSION: Creation of an oncofertility team produced improvements in fertility counseling and fertility preservation referral across an extended period of time.
