Online screening for distress, the 6th vital sign, in newly diagnosed oncology outpatients: randomised controlled trial of computerised vs personalised triage.

BACKGROUND: This randomised controlled trial examined the impact of screening for distress followed by two different triage methods on clinically relevant outcomes over a 12-month period. METHODS: Newly diagnosed patients attending a large tertiary cancer centre were randomised to one of the two conditions: (1) screening with computerised triage or (2) screening with personalised triage, both following standardised clinical triage algorithms. Patients completed the Distress Thermometer, Pain and Fatigue Thermometers, the Psychological Screen for Cancer (PSSCAN) Part C and questions on resource utilisation at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: In all, 3133 patients provided baseline data (67% of new patients); with 1709 (54.5%) retained at 12 months (15.4% deceased). Mixed effects models revealed that both groups experienced significant decreases in distress, anxiety, depression, pain and fatigue over time. People receiving personalised triage and people reporting higher symptom burden were more likely to access services, which was subsequently related to greater decreases in distress, anxiety and depression. Women may benefit more from personalised triage, whereas men may benefit more from a computerised triage model. CONCLUSION: Screening for distress is a viable intervention that has the potential to decrease symptom burden up to 12 months post diagnosis. The best model of screening may be to incorporate personalised triage for patients indicating high levels of depression and anxiety while providing computerised triage for others.

Characterizing distress, the 6th vital sign, in an oncology pain clinic.

CONTEXT: The delineation of populations of cancer patients with complex symptoms can inform the planning and delivery of supportive care services. OBJECTIVES: We explored the physical, psychosocial, and practical concerns experienced by patients attending an ambulatory oncology symptom control clinic. METHODS: Patients attending a Pain Clinic at a large tertiary cancer centre were invited to complete screening measures assessing distress, pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, and practical and psychosocial problems. A matched sample of patients who did not attend the Pain Clinic were selected as a comparison group. RESULTS: Of all eligible Pain Clinic patients, 46 (77%) completed the measures; so did 46 comparison group patients. The percentages of patients reporting distress (78.3%), pain (93.5%), and fatigue (93.5%) were higher among Pain Clinic patients than among the comparison patients. A higher percentage of Pain Clinic patients also reported multiple, severe, concurrent symptoms: 87% scored 7 or higher in at least one of the pain, fatigue, or distress scales, and 30.4% of the patients scored 7 or higher on all three. The most common problem areas were feeling a burden to others, trouble talking with friends and family, spirituality, and sleep difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: Higher levels of multiple, concurrent symptoms and psychosocial problems were found in Pain Clinic patients than in a group of patients who did not attend the Pain Clinic. Routine screening and triaging of cancer patients using a comprehensive and standardized panel of questions can facilitate symptom assessment and management, and can inform program planning.