3.9 Article

Supporting Commission on Cancer-Mandated Psychosocial Distress Screening With Implementation Strategies

期刊

JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE
卷 11, 期 3, 页码 E413-E420

出版社

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JOP.2014.002816

关键词

-

类别

资金

  1. National Cancer Institute [R25CA177553-01]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The American College of Surgeons Commission on Cancer (CoC) has set psychosocial distress screening as a new patient care standard to be met by 2015. The standard requires CoC-accredited cancer centers to integrate and monitor distress screening and, when needed, refer patients to psychosocial health care services. We describe the uptake of distress screening reported by applicants to a distress screening cancer education program and the degree of and barriers to implementation of distress screening programs reported by selected participants. Materials and Methods: This cross-sectional study collected quantitative data online from applicants to the program between August 1 and November 15, 2013, described by frequencies, percentages, and measures of central tendency, and qualitative data in person from accepted participants on February 13, 2014, analyzed using an integrated approach to open-ended data. Results: Applications were received from 70 institutions, 29 of which had started distress screening. Seven of 18 selected applicant institutions had not begun screening patients for distress. Analysis of qualitative data showed that all participants needed to create buy-in among key cancer center staff, including oncologists; to decide how to conduct screening in their institution in a way that complied with the standard; and to pilot test screening before large-scale rollout. Conclusion: Fourteen months before the compliance deadline, fewer than half of applicant institutions had begun distress screening. Adding implementation strategies to mandated quality care standards may reduce uncertainty about how to comply. Support from key staff members such as oncologists may increase uptake of distress screening.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据