Impact of a half-day multidisciplinary symptom control and palliative care outpatient clinic in a comprehensive cancer center on recommendations, symptom intensity, and patient satisfaction: A retrospective descriptive study

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

To characterize a new, one-stop multidisciplinary palliative care (MD) clinic which offers standardized multidisciplinary assessment, specific care recommendations, patient and family education, and on-site counseling, we retrospectively compared the assessments of 138 consecutive patients with advanced cancer referred to the MD clinic and 77 patients referred to a traditional pain and symptom management (PSM) clinic. The two groups were similar in tumor type, demographics, and symptom distress. The MD clinic team (physicians; nurses; pharmacists; physical, speech, and occupational therapists; social workers; chaplains; nutritionists; psychiatric nurse practitioner) delivered 1,066 non-physician recommendations (median 4 per patient, range 0-37). The PSM clinic team made no non-physician recommendations, but referred 14 patients to other medical specialists. In 80 (58%) MD-clinic patients with follow-up 9 days (median) after assessment, significant improvement was observed in pain, nausea, depression, anxiety, sleep, dyspnea, and well-being, but not in fatigue, anorexia, or drowsiness. In 83 patients interviewed after the MD clinic, satisfaction was rated as excellent (5 out of 5) in 86-97% of seven areas. Assessment at an MD clinic results in a high number of patient care recommendations, improved symptoms, and high levels of patient satisfaction.

Related collections

Most cited references 26

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Pain and its treatment in outpatients with metastatic cancer.

C Cleeland, R Gonin, A Hatfield … (1994)

Pain is often inadequately treated in patients with cancer. A total of 1308 outpatients with metastatic cancer from 54 treatment locations affiliated with the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group rated the severity of their pain during the preceding week, as well as the degree of pain-related functional impairment and the degree of relief provided by analgesic drugs. Their physicians attributed the pain to various factors, described its treatment, and estimated the impact of pain on the patients' ability to function. We assessed the adequacy of prescribed analgesic drugs using guidelines developed by the World Health Organization, studied the factors that influenced whether analgesia was adequate, and determined the effects of inadequate analgesia on the patients' perception of pain relief and functional status. Sixty-seven percent of the patients (871 of 1308) reported that they had had pain or had taken analgesic drugs daily during the week preceding the study, and 36 percent (475 of 1308) had pain severe enough to impair their ability to function. Forty-two percent of those with pain (250 of the 597 patients for whom we had complete information) were not given adequate analgesic therapy. Patients seen at centers that treated predominantly minorities were three times more likely than those treated elsewhere to have inadequate pain management. A discrepancy between patient and physician in judging the severity of the patient's pain was predictive of inadequate pain management (odds ratio, 2.3). Other factors that predicted inadequate pain management included pain that physicians did not attribute to cancer (odds ratio, 1.9), better performance status (odds ratio, 1.8), age of 70 years or older (odds ratio, 2.4), and female sex (odds ratio, 1.5). Patients with less adequate analgesia reported less pain relief and greater pain-related impairment of function. Despite published guidelines for pain management, many patients with cancer have considerable pain and receive inadequate analgesia.

0 comments Cited 258 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Validation of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale.

D. Hwang, M Feuerman, Jeffrey Chang (2000)

The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a nine-item patient-rated symptom visual analogue scale developed for use in assessing the symptoms of patients receiving palliative care. The purpose of this study was to validate the ESAS in a different population of patients. In this prospective study, 240 patients with a diagnosis of cancer completed the ESAS, the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), and the Functional Assessment Cancer Therapy (FACT) survey, and also had their Karnofsky performance status (KPS) assessed. An additional 42 patients participated in a test-retest study. The ESAS "distress" score correlated most closely with physical symptom subscales in the FACT and the MSAS and with KPS. The ESAS individual item and summary scores showed good internal consistency and correlated appropriately with corresponding measures from the FACT and MSAS instruments. Individual items between the instruments correlated well. Pain ratings in the ESAS, MSAS, and FACT correlated best with the "worst-pain" item of the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Test-retest evaluation showed very good correlation at 2 days and a somewhat smaller but significant correlation at 1 week. A 30-mm visual analogue scale cutoff point did not uniformly distinguish severity of symptoms for different symptoms. For this population, the ESAS was a valid instrument; test-retest validity was better at 2 days than at 1 week. The ESAS "distress" score tends to reflect physical well-being. The use of a 30-mm cutoff point on visual analogue scales to identify severe symptoms may not always apply to symptoms other than pain.

0 comments Cited 153 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The symptoms of advanced cancer: relationship to age, gender, and performance status in 1,000 patients.

D. Walsh, S. Donnelly, L Rybicki (2000)

A multivariate analysis of the data was conducted to evaluate the effects of age, gender, and performance status on symptom profile. A comprehensive prospective analysis of symptoms was conducted in 1,000 patients on initial referral to the Palliative Medicine Program of the Cleveland Clinic. The median number of symptoms per patient was 11 (range 1-27). The ten most prevalent symptoms were pain, easy fatigue, weakness, anorexia, lack of energy, dry mouth, constipation, early satiety, dyspnea, and greater than 10% weight loss. The prevalence of these 10 symptoms ranged from 50% to 84%. Younger age was associated with 11 symptoms: blackout, vomiting, pain, nausea, headache, sedation, bloating, sleep problems, anxiety, depression, and constipation. Gender was associated with 8 symptoms. Males had more dysphagia, hoarseness, >10% weight loss and sleep problems; females, more early satiety, nausea, vomiting, and anxiety. Performance status was associated with 14 symptoms. Advanced cancer patients are polysymptomatic. Ten symptoms are highly prevalent. Symptom prevalence for 24 individual symptoms differs with age, or gender, or performance status.