A screening tool identifies high distress in newly diagnosed breast cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Many breast cancer patients and survivors experience clinically significant distress, which poses a danger to both their psychologic and clinical well-being. Improved understanding of the types of distress that patients experience at the time of breast cancer diagnosis may reveal areas for intervention to improve quality of life and long-term outcomes. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated newly diagnosed breast cancer patients who completed a cancer distress screening tool at their initial multidisciplinary clinic visit. The screening tool, which has not yet been validated, asked patients to rate their distress and identify specific concerns related to emotional, social, health, and practical distress. To evaluate predictors of distress, patient characteristics were collected through review of the electronic medical record. RESULTS: The study population consisted of 379 patients. The number of patients experiencing high distress varied by domain: emotional (66.5%), social (25.1%), health (57.8%), and practical (36.4%). With the exception of marital status, no demographic, clinical, or pathologic factors were found to be significantly associated with distress in any domain. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer patients experience significant distress at the time of initial diagnosis. Additional investigation assessing modifiable contributors to distress and developing clinical interventions to decrease distress from the time of diagnosis throughout treatment is needed to improve quality of life in this patient population.

Does availability of expanded point-of-care services improve outcomes for rural diabetic patients?

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to assess compliance with American Diabetes Association screening recommendations at Salina Family Healthcare (SFHC) in Salina, Kansas, a large rural town, and to evaluate the impact of point-of-care (POC) dilated eye exams for uninsured patients. POC exams are those performed in the location where patients are treated. METHODS: There were 462 type II diabetic (DM2) patients seen at SFHC in 2009 and 537 DM2 patients seen in 2010. A chart review of all patients with DM2 was done to assess rates of recommended screening exams, including dilated eye exams and foot exams. RESULTS: In 2009/2010 urine microalbumin was checked in 57%/75% of DM2 patients. HbA1c and low density lipoprotein (LDL) levels at goal were 46%/48% and 58%/58%, respectively. 47%/67% of DM@ patients received foot exams and 21%/30% received eye exams. In 2009, 23% of the 155 uninsured diabetic patients at SFHC received a dilated eye exam. The following year, after implementation of on-site ophthalmologic services, rates of dilated eye exams increased 1.6 fold to 37% of the 196 uninsured patients. CONCLUSIONS: SFHC performed similarly to national rates on some diabetic screening exams, but there is room for improvement in all recommended screening exams. The implementation of a novel approach to increasing dilated eye exam rates indicates that expanded POC services can improve outcomes for diabetic patients.