Implementing a Tailored Psychosocial Distress Screening Protocol in a Head and Neck Cancer Program.

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS: Psychosocial distress is common among patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) and is associated with poorer quality of life and clinical outcomes. Despite these risks, distress screening is not widely implemented in HNC care. In this study, we investigated the prevalence of psychosocial distress and its related factors in routine care of patients with HNC. METHODS: Data from medical records between September 2017 and March 2020 were analyzed. Psychosocial distress was measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network's Distress Thermometer (DT), and a modified HNC-specific problem list; depression and anxiety were assessed using the Patient Health Questionnaire-4. Descriptive statistics and logistic regression were conducted to report prevalence of distress, depression and anxiety, and factors associated with clinical distress. Implementation outcomes, including rates of referrals and follow-up for distressed patients, are also reported. RESULTS: Two hundred and eighty seven HNC patients completed the questionnaire (age 64.3 ± 14.9 years), with a mean distress score of 4.51 ± 3.35. Of those, 57% (n = 163) reported clinical distress (DT ≥ 4). Pain (odds ratio [OR] = 3.31, 95% CI = 1.75-6.26), fatigue (OR = 2.43, 95% CI = 1.1.7-5.05), anxiety (OR = 1.63, 95% CI = 1.30-2.05), and depression (OR = 1.51, 95% CI = 1.04-2.18) were significantly associated with clinical distress (P < .05). Of patients identified as distressed, 79% received same-day psychosocial evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical distress was identified in 57% of patients who completed the questionnaire, suggesting that an ultra-brief psychosocial screening protocol can be implemented in routine ambulatory oncology care, and identifies patients whose distress might otherwise go unrecognized. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4 Laryngoscope, 132:1600-1608, 2022.

The methodological quality is insufficient in clinical practice guidelines in the context of COVID-19: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The number of published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19 has rapidly increased. This study explored if basic methodological standards of guideline development have been met in the published clinical practice guidelines related to COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Rapid systematic review from February 1 until April 27, 2020 using MEDLINE [PubMed], CINAHL [Ebsco], Trip and manual search, including all types of healthcare workers providing any kind of healthcare to any patient population in any setting. RESULTS: There were 1342 titles screened and 188 guidelines included. The highest average AGREE II domain score was 89% for scope and purpose, the lowest for rigor of development (25%). Only eight guidelines (4%) were based on a systematic literature search and a structured consensus process by representative experts (classified as the highest methodological quality). The majority (156; 83%) was solely built on an informal expert consensus. A process for regular updates was described in 27 guidelines (14%). Patients were included in the development of only one guideline. CONCLUSION: Despite clear scope, most publications fell short of basic methodological standards of guideline development. Clinicians should use guidelines that include up-to-date information, were informed by stakeholder involvement, and employed rigorous methodologies.

Financial Vulnerability: A Case Study Involving a Patient With Head and Neck Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) face unique financial challenges. Even with stable income and health insurance, many patients become overwhelmed with direct and indirect treatment-associated costs. OBJECTIVES: This article discusses how prolonged financial burden in patients with cancer can result in compromised patient outcomes. METHODS: A case study is presented that highlights financial burden associated with reduced income, treatment-related commuting, and challenges in resuming a job while dealing with functional impairments and long-term treatment effects from HNC. It also describes the financial impact on a spousal caregiver. FINDINGS: Nurses must initiate discussions with their patients about potential and actual financial concerns and barriers to care. In addition, nurses should include repeated assessment of financial health throughout the cancer care trajectory and provide appropriate resources and referrals when issues are identified.

Impact of Open Access to Physician Notes on Radiation Oncology Patients: Results from an Exploratory Survey.

PURPOSE: There is an increasing effort to allow patients open access to their physician notes through electronic medical record portals. However, limited data exist on the impact of such access on oncology patients, and concerns remain regarding potential harms. Therefore, we determined the baseline perceptions and impact of open access to oncology notes on radiation oncology patients. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Patients receiving radiation therapy were provided instructional materials on accessing oncology notes at the time of their initial evaluation. Patients were prospectively surveyed to evaluate baseline interest and expectations before access and to determine the actual usage and impact at the end of their radiation treatment course. RESULTS: A total of 220 patients were surveyed; 136 (62%) completed the baseline survey, of which 88 (40%) completed the final survey. The majority of participants were age >60 years (n = 83; 61%), and 70 were male (51%). Before accessing the notes, the majority of patients agreed that open access to oncology notes would improve understanding of diagnosis (99%), understanding of treatment side effects (98%), reassurance about treatment goals (96%), and communication with family (99%). All patients who accessed the notes found them to be useful. After accessing the notes, approximately 96%, 94%, and 96% of patients reported an improved understanding of their diagnosis, an improved understanding of treatment side effects, and feeling more reassured about their treatment, respectively. Approximately 11%, 6%, and 4% of patients noted increased worry, increased confusion, and finding information they now regret reading, respectively. Patient age, sex, and specific cancer diagnoses were not predictive of experiencing negative effects from accessing the notes. CONCLUSIONS: Radiation oncology patients have a strong interest in open access to their physician notes, and the majority of patients expect and actually report meaningful benefits. These data support strategies to allow more patients with cancer access to their physicians' notes.

Changes at the Dinner Table and Beyond: Nourishing Our Patients Throughout the Trajectory of Their Cancer Journey.

Patients with head and neck cancers (HNC) can experience significant distress from presentation of symptoms to surveillance/survivorship and end-of-life. It is of value to all members of the HNC team to practice patient-centered care in assessment and interventions with patients and their support systems to achieve the best possible outcome given patient health status. Early assessment and referral to ancillary support provide a strong foundation across the illness trajectory. Specific attention should be given to the psychosocial implications of changes in physiologic functioning. Support around these changes involves a strong multidisciplinary team familiar with the biopsychosocial effects of HNC and its treatment.