A mixed methods approach to understand variation in lung cancer practice and the role of guidelines.

INTRODUCTION: Practice pattern data demonstrate regional variation and lower than expected rates of adherence to practice guideline (PG) recommendations for the treatment of stage II/IIIA resected and stage IIIA/IIIB unresected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in Ontario, Canada. This study sought to understand how clinical decisions are made for the treatment of these patients and the role of PGs. METHODS: Surveys and key informant interviews were undertaken with clinicians and administrators. RESULTS: Participants reported favorable ratings for PGs and the evidentiary bases underpinning them. The majority of participants agreed more patients should have received treatment and that regional variation is problematic. Participants estimated that up to 30% of patients are not good candidates for treatment and up to 20% of patients refuse treatment. The most common barrier to implementing PGs was the lack of organizational support by clinical administrative leadership. There was concern that the trial results underpinning the PG recommendations were not generalizable to the typical patients seen in clinic. The qualitative analysis yielded five themes related to physicians' decision making: the unique patient, the unique physician, the family, the clinical team, and the clinical evidence. A dynamic interplay between these factors exists. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the challenges inherent in (i) the complexity of clinical decision making; (ii) how quality of care problems are perceived and operationalized; and (iii) the clinical appropriateness and utility of PG recommendations. We argue that systematic and rigorous methodologies to help decision makers mitigate or negotiate these challenges are warranted.

Do high symptom scores trigger clinical actions? An audit after implementing electronic symptom screening.

PURPOSE: Standardized, electronic, symptom assessment is purported to help identify symptom needs. However, little research examines clinical processes related to symptom management, such as whether patients with worsening symptoms receive clinical actions more often. This study examined whether patient visits with higher symptom scores are associated with higher rates of symptom documentation in the chart and symptom-specific actions being taken. METHODS: Retrospective chart reviews on cancer patient visits at a regional cancer center. An electronic Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), a validated tool to measure symptoms, was implemented center-wide to standardize symptom screening at every patient visit. The independent variable was ESAS scores for pain and shortness of breath, categorized by severity: 0 (none), 1-3, 4-6, 7-10 (severe). Outcomes included symptom documentation in the chart on the visit date and symptom-related action(s) taken within 1 week. RESULTS: Nine hundred twelve visits were identified. Pain and shortness of breath were documented in 51.8% and 29.7% of charts, and a related-action occurred in 16.9% and 3.9% of charts, respectively. As ESAS severity score category increased from none to severe, the proportion of visits with pain documented increased significantly (36.9%, 49.2%, 55.2%, and 71.4%; P < .001). Likewise, as ESAS score severity increased, the proportion of visits with a pain-related action increased significantly (4.2%, 10.6%, 21.3%, and 37.0%; P < .001). Trends were similar for shortness of breath. CONCLUSION: Results show a positive association between higher symptom scores and higher rates of documentation and clinical actions taken. However, symptom-related actions were documented in a minority of visits in which symptoms were noted as severe.

Multidisciplinary health care professionals' perceptions of the use and utility of a symptom assessment system for oncology patients.

PURPOSE: Despite growing implementation of electronic symptom assessment in oncology settings, few studies have described how standardized symptom assessment can enhance multidisciplinary care. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is a validated measure of symptom burden that has been adopted by Ontario's cancer centers to assess symptoms for patients with cancer. This study examines the perceived value of the ESAS among clinical teams and barriers to its use in enhancing multidisciplinary care. METHODS: Self-completed surveys were administered online to clinical teams at various disease-site clinics at a cancer center in Ontario, Canada. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-eight nurses, oncology physicians, and allied health professions completed the survey. The majority of nurses (89%), physicians (55%), and other providers (57%) reported referring to ESAS in clinic either "always" or "most of the time." Many of those who either "never" or "rarely" looked at ESAS scores reported finding it more efficient to talk to the patient or do their own assessment to determine symptom issues. Although most of the nurses and allied health professions found the ESAS to enhance patient care, help patients to articulate their symptom issues, and facilitate follow-up with patients with past symptom issues, only approximately half of the physicians agreed with these statements. CONCLUSION: Variable adoption of the ESAS by physicians may limit its potential to improve both interprofessional communication and comprehensive symptom control. To encourage consistent use, a symptom assessment system needs to be complementary to the perceived roles of all multidisciplinary team members, including physicians.