Nursing Challenges and Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic has required healthcare organizations to creatively address patient care needs. The pandemic-induced disruption resulted in multiple examples of disruptive innovation. Several innovative strategies and learnings identified during the COVID-19 pandemic have resulted in approaches to nursing education and staffing, which will serve to optimize the future healthcare environment. The solutions identified by the nursing workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic can readily be replicated in similar or dissimilar healthcare environments.

Clinical Nurse Specialist-Driven Practice Change: Standardizing Vital Sign Monitoring.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this project was to standardize vital sign (VS) monitoring throughout a patient's stay in the hospital, including at admission, following transitions to different levels of care, reassessment of abnormal VS results, daily monitoring, and before dismissal. The population of focus was adult general and progressive care patients. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: Standards for VS monitoring, documentation, and provider notification were established. Unit routines, nursing procedural guidelines, and order sets were updated with the new standards. Nursing staff received Web-based education. Compliance with the new standards was monitored monthly, and data were shared with nursing leadership. Leadership reviewed the data with nursing staff to identify opportunities and recognize achievements. OUTCOMES: Overall, improvement in VS documentation was achieved. Continued opportunities exist for monitoring and reassessment of a full set of VSs after an abnormal result. CONCLUSION: Establishing a minimum standard of VS frequency and documentation allows for all healthcare providers to trend and monitor a patient's clinical status. Variability in patient care can be diminished by establishing minimum standards of VS monitoring.

Paced breathing compared with usual breathing for hot flashes.

OBJECTIVE: Paced breathing (slow, deep, diaphragmatic breathing) reduces central sympathetic activity and facilitates the relaxation response. The present study was designed to assess the feasibility of and to obtain initial efficacy estimates of two paced-breathing programs, compared with usual breathing, for the frequency and severity of hot flashes. METHODS: We designed a 9-week, randomized, three-arm, parallel-group, blinded (investigator) phase II clinical trial. Using an audio CD, participants in the active arms practiced paced breathing at 6 breaths/minute for 15 minutes, either once or twice a day, whereas the control arm practiced usual breathing at 14 breaths/minute for 10 minutes/day. Feasibility was assessed through self-report questionnaires; percent reduction and effect size estimates were determined using changes in hot flash frequency and scores within each group. RESULTS: Of the 92 eligible participants, 68 (74%) completed the study. Most women reported that the intervention was easy to do (79%) and of appropriate duration (71%). They could practice exercises as taught (61%) and could practice on most days (65%). Participants in all arms reported hot flash reductions during the 9 weeks: 52% for paced breathing twice a day, 42% for paced breathing once a day, and 46% for usual breathing. CONCLUSIONS: The paced-breathing intervention is feasible. Although paced breathing twice a day seems to be the most helpful dose, efforts to intensify paced breathing once a day may be more practical for widespread dissemination. The efficacy and overall clinical impact of paced-breathing exercises on hot flash reduction require further evaluation in an adequately powered, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III clinical trial.

Further data supporting that paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome is associated with development of peripheral neuropathy: North Central Cancer Treatment Group trial N08C1.

BACKGROUND: Paclitaxel causes an acute pain syndrome (P-APS), occurring within days after each dose and usually abating within days. Paclitaxel also causes a more classic peripheral neuropathy, which steadily increases in severity with increasing paclitaxel total doses. Little detail is available regarding the natural history of these 2 syndromes, or any relationship between them, although a recent publication does provide natural history data about weekly paclitaxel, supporting an association between the severity of P-APS and eventual peripheral neuropathy symptoms. METHODS: Patients entering this study were about to receive paclitaxel and carboplatin every 3 weeks. Daily questionnaires were completed for the first week after every chemotherapy dose, and European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer, Quality of Life Questionnaire, Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy 20-item instruments were completed weekly. RESULTS: The P-APS severity peaked on day 4 after the initial chemotherapy dose, with 12%, 29%, 23%, and 36% of patients having maximal pain scores of 0, 1 to 4, 5 or 6, or 7 to 10 during the first week after the first dose of therapy, respectively. Patients with P-APS scores of 0 to 4 with the first dose of chemotherapy had less eventual sensory neuropathy than did patients with P-APS scores of 5 to 10 (P = 0.001). With regard to the more peripheral neuropathy, sensory neuropathy was more problematic than was either motor or autonomic neuropathy. Numbness and tingling were more common components of the sensory neuropathy than was pain. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with worse P-APS severities appear to have more eventual chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy. This provides support for the concept that P-APS is a form of nerve pathology.

The relationship between numbness, tingling, and shooting/burning pain in patients with chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) as measured by the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 instrument, N06CA.

BACKGROUND: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is characterized by numbness, tingling, and shooting/burning pain. This analysis was performed to describe the relationship between numbness, tingling, and shooting/burning pain in patients with CIPN, as reported using the EORTC QLQ-CIPN20 (CIPN20). METHODS: Baseline CIPN20 data were provided for all patients on a prospective trial designed to treat patients with bothersome CIPN. Baseline frequencies for the items on the CIPN20 are primarily described by descriptive statistics and histograms, with correlational analyses between individual items. RESULTS: A majority of the 199 patients accrued to this study reported "quite a bit" to "very much" numbness (57%) or tingling (63%) in the hands compared to "a little" or "not at all" (numbness (43%), tingling (38%)). Fewer patients reported "quite a bit" to "very much" shooting/burning pain in the hands (18%). Numbness and tingling in the hands were highly correlated (r = 0.69), while neither were highly correlated with shooting/burning pain. Similar results were observed in the feet. More severe ratings for tingling and shooting/burning pain were ascribed to the lower extremities, as opposed to the upper extremities. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with CIPN, severe sensory neuropathy symptoms (numbness, tingling) commonly exist without severe neuropathic pain symptoms (shooting/burning pain), while the reverse is not common. Symptoms in the feet should be evaluated distinctly from those in the hands as the experience of symptoms is not identical, for individual patients, in upper versus lower extremities.

Natural history of paclitaxel-associated acute pain syndrome: prospective cohort study NCCTG N08C1.

PURPOSE: The characteristics and natural history of the paclitaxel-acute pain syndrome (P-APS) and paclitaxel's more chronic neuropathy have not been well delineated. METHODS: Patients receiving weekly paclitaxel (70 to 90 mg/m(2)) completed daily questionnaires and weekly European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy (CIPN) -20 instruments during the entire course of therapy. RESULTS: P-APS symptoms peaked 3 days after chemotherapy. Twenty percent of patients had pain scores of 5 to 10 of 10 with the first dose of paclitaxel. Sensory neuropathy symptoms were more prominent than were motor or autonomic neuropathy symptoms. Of the sensory neuropathy symptoms, numbness and tingling were more prominent than was shooting or burning pain. Patients with higher P-APS pain scores with the first dose of paclitaxel appeared to have more chronic neuropathy. CONCLUSION: These data support that the P-APS is related to nerve pathology as opposed to being arthralgias and/or myalgias. Numbness and tingling are more prominent chronic neuropathic symptoms than is shooting or burning pain.

Placebo-controlled trial to determine the effectiveness of a urea/lactic acid-based topical keratolytic agent for prevention of capecitabine-induced hand-foot syndrome: North Central Cancer Treatment Group Study N05C5.

PURPOSE: Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a dose-limiting toxicity of capecitabine for which no effective preventative treatment has been definitively demonstrated. This trial was conducted on the basis of preliminary data that a urea/lactic acid-based topical keratolytic agent (ULABTKA) may prevent HFS. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A randomized, double-blind phase III trial evaluated 137 patients receiving their first ever cycle of capecitabine at a dose of either 2,000 or 2,500 mg/m(2) per day for 14 days. Patients were randomly assigned to a ULABTKA versus a placebo cream, which was applied to the hands and feet twice per day for 21 days after the start of capecitabine. Patients completed an HFS diary (HFSD) daily. HFS toxicity grade (Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [CTCAE] v3.0) was also collected at baseline and at the end of each cycle. The primary end point was the incidence of moderate/severe HFS symptoms in the first treatment cycle, based on the patient-reported HFSD. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with moderate/severe HFS symptoms was not different between groups, being 13.6% in the ULABTKA arm and 10.2% in the placebo arm (P = .768 by Fisher's exact test). The odds ratio was 1.37 (95% CI, 0.37 to 5.76). Cycle 1 CTCAE skin toxicity was higher in the ULABTKA arm but not significantly so (33% v 27%; P = .82). No significant differences were observed in other toxicities between groups. CONCLUSION: These data do not support the efficacy of a ULABTKA cream for preventing HFS symptoms in patients receiving capecitabine.

Symptom management in premenopausal patients with breast cancer.

Women with breast cancer have many adverse symptoms, of which some are specific to premenopausal patients. Management of these common symptoms include non-hormonal drugs, such as antidepressants and antiseizure compounds to alleviate hot flushes. Non-oestrogenic vaginal lubricants seem to moderately decrease occurrence of vaginal dryness and dyspareunia. Transdermal testosterone alone has not been shown to improve libido in these women. Options for fertility preservation include cryopreservation of embryos or oocytes before chemotherapy. Exercise is the one evidenced-based intervention shown to positively affect cancer-related fatigue. However, effective prevention and treatments for peripheral neuropathy and paclitaxel acute pain syndrome remain elusive. Weight-bearing exercise helps to maintain bone strength with adequate intake of calcium and vitamin D. Use of bisphosphonates in women taking aromatase inhibitors (combined with ovarian suppression in premenopausal women) to prevent bone fractures has not been substantiated, although it should be considered in women with osteoporosis. No specific drug has been shown to prevent radiation-induced dermatitis alone. Although some effective treatments can counteract symptoms related to cancer or treatments, research is needed to expand evidence-based care in premenopausal survivors of breast cancer.

The Paclitaxel acute pain syndrome: sensitization of nociceptors as the putative mechanism.

PURPOSE: Paclitaxel therapy often result in a unique subacute pain syndrome, commonly termed "myalgia" or "arthralgia." The pathophysiology of this syndrome is unknown and has not been demonstrated to be associated with any structural alteration of muscles or joints. We hypothesized that this syndrome was caused by a neuropathic nerve injury from paclitaxel. Herein, we characterize the clinical characteristics of this syndrome using detailed patient interviews and consider the putative mechanism(s) for these symptoms. METHODS: Oncology patients who were treated with paclitaxel and developed a subacute pain syndrome were questioned using a detailed structured interview. Data were tabulated descriptively. RESULTS: Eighteen patients were interviewed. The symptoms (ie, pain) typically began 1-2 days after the infusion and lasted for a median of 4-5 days. Pain was most commonly located in the back, hips, shoulders, thighs, legs, and feet, with the most common descriptors used being "aching" or "deep pain." Commonly used adjectives to describe the pain were radiating, shooting, aching, stabbing, and pulsating. Some patients described increased pain with weight bearing, walking, or tactile contact. When asked directly whether the pains appeared to be specifically localized to either joints or muscles, 15 of 18 patients denied localization. DISCUSSION: Based on the nature and temporal occurrence of the paclitaxel acute pain syndrome symptoms, we infer that the paclitaxel acute pain syndrome occurs as a result of sensitization of nociceptors, their fibers, or the spinothalamic system. This proposed neurologic etiology of this pain may also explain the subsequent development in some patients of a symmetric length-dependent sensorimotor polyneuropathy. The mechanism of this syndrome needs further study.