A comprehensive whole-person approach might improve processes and outcomes of care for patients with cancer.
Objective:
To assess the ability of NEST13+ (Needs of a social nature; Existential concerns; Symptoms; and Therapeutic interaction), a screening and assessment tool, to identify social, emotional, physical, and care-system needs and to improve clinical outcomes for cancer patients in tertiary care.
Design, setting, patients:
A controlled trial involving 451 patients hospitalized for cancer care at a comprehensive cancer center.
Intervention:
Patients responded to 13 screening questions regarding possible care needs. When an individual response exceeded threshold levels, additional in-depth questions for the relevant need were asked. For patients in the intervention arm, clinical recommendations for each dimension of need were generated based on a previously developed NEST-response–driven menu, and were reported to the clinical team.
Measurements:
Documented needs, clinician response, patient perception of goals alignment, and overall quality of palliative care.
Results:
Using the NEST13+ tool in the clinical setting facilitated greater documentation of illness-related needs than routine clinical assessment. Improvement in secondary outcomes was attenuated: changes in the clinician response were modest; changes in outcomes were not significant.
Conclusion:
The NEST13+ tool facilitated identification of a wider range of important needs than traditional evaluation, while care outcomes were not improved. Traditional evaluation may need improvement. Future trials of the NEST13+ should focus on more intensive clinician-directed interventions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdlerNE, PageAEK. Cancer Care For The Whole Patient: Meeting Psychosocial Health Needs. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2007.
2.
Institute of Medicine and National Research Council. From Cancer Patient To Cancer Survivor: Lost In Transition. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2006.
3.
EmanuelEJ, EmanuelLL. The promise of a good death. Lancet, 1998; 351,Suppl 2:SII21–SII29.
4.
SUPPORT Principal Investigators: A controlled trial to improve care for seriously ill hospitalized patient: The study to understand prognoses and preferences for outcomes and risks of treatments (SUPPORT)JAMA, 1995; 274:1591–1598.
5.
VachonMLS. The emotional problems of the patient. DoyleD, HanksGWC, MacDonaldN. Oxford Textbook of Palliative Medicine, 2nd. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1998; 882–907.
6.
Good care of the dying patient. Council on Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association. JAMA, 1996; 275:474–478.
7.
SilveiraM, EiPieryA, GerrityM, GuedtnerC. Patients knowledge of options at the end of life. JAMA, 2000; 284:2483–2488.
CullA, StewartM, AltamanD. Assessment of and intervention for psychosocial problems in routine oncology practice. Br J Cancer, 1995; 72:229–235.
12.
CegalaDJ. A study of doctors' and patients' communication during a primary care consultation: Implications for communication training. J Health Commun, 1997; 2:169–194.
13.
CasselCK. Introduction to Pioneer Programs in Palliative Care: Nine Case Studies. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 2000.
14.
SnyderCF, DySN, HendricksDE, BrahmerJR, CarducciMA, WolffAC, WuAW. Asking the right questions: Investigating needs assessments and health related quality of life questionnaires for use in oncology clinical practice. Support Care Cancer, 2007; 15:1079–1085.
15.
YabroffKR, MandelblattJS. The quality of medical care at the end of life in the USA: Existing barriers and examples of process and outcome measures. Palliat Med., 2004; 18:202–216.
16.
ButtZ, WagnerLI, BeaumontJL, PaiceJA, PetermanAH, ShevrinD, Von RoennJH, CarroG, StrausJL, MuirJC, CellaD. Use of a single item screening tool to detect clinically significant fatigue, pain, distress, and anorexia in ambulatory cancer practice. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2008; 35:20–30.
17.
DautR, CleelanS, FlanneryR. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain, 1988; 17:197–210.
18.
McCuskerJ, BellavanceF, CardinS, TrépanierS, VerdonJ, ArdmanO. Detection of older people at increased risk of adverse health outcomes after an emergency visit: The ISAR screening tool. J Am Geriatr Soc, 1999; 47:1229–1237.
GotayCC. Assessment of psychological functioning in cancer patients. Special issue: Psychosocial resource variables in cancer studies: Conceptual and measurement issues. J Psychol Oncol, 1995; 13:123–160.
21.
ZaboraJR, Smith-WilsonR, FettingJH, EnterlineJP. An efficient method of psychosocial screening of cancer patients. Psychosomatics, 1990; 31:1992–1996.
22.
GillTM, FeinsteinAR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality of life measurements. JAMA, 1995; 272:619–626.
23.
AnandarajahG, HightE. Spirituality and medical practice: Using the HOPE questions as a practical tool for spiritual assessment. Am Fam Physician, 2001; 63:81–89.
24.
PuchalskiC, RomaA. Taking a spiritual history allows clinicians to understand patients more fully. J Palliat Med, 2000; 3:129–137.
25.
WordenJW, WeismanAD. Preventive psychosocial intervention with newly diagnosed cancer patients. Gen Hosp Psychiatry, 1984; 6:243–249.
26.
GordonWA, FreidenbergsI, DillerL, HibbardM, WolfC, LevineL, LipkinsR, EzrachiO, LucidoD. Efficacy of psychosocial intervention with cancer patients. J Consul Clin Psychol., 1980; 48:743–759.
27.
CohenHJ, FeussnerJR, WinbergerM, CarnesM, HamdyRC, HsiehF, PhibbsC, CourtneyD, LylesKW, MayC, McMurtryC, PennypackerL, SmithDM, AinslieN, HornickT, BrodkinK, LavoriP. A controlled trial of inpatient and outpatient geriatric evaluation and management. N Engl J Med, 2002; 346:905–912.
28.
EvansLK, YurkowJ, SieglerEL. The CARE Program: A nurse-managed collaborative outpatient program to improve function of frail older people. Collaborative Assessment and Rehabilitation for Elders. J Am Geriatr Soc, 1995; 43:1155–1160.
SarajuuriJM, KaipioML, KoskinenSK, NiemeläMR, ServoAR, VilkkiJS. Outcome of a comprehensive neurorehabilitation program for patients with traumatic brain injury. Arch Phys Med Rehabil, 2005; 86:2296–2302.
SaundersC. Care of the Dying. London: Macmillan, 1959.
33.
ChristakisN, IwashynaTJ. The health impact of health care on families: A matched cohort study of hospice use by decedents and mortality outcomes in surviving widowed spouses. Soc Sci Med, 2003; 57:465–475.
34.
WenKY, GustafsonDH. Needs assessments for cancer patients and their families. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 2004; 26:2–11.
35.
RichardsonA, MedinaJ, BrownV, SitziaJ. Patient needs assessment in cancer care: A review of assessment tools. Support Care Cancer, 2007; 15:1125–1144.
36.
EmanuelLL, AlpertHR, EmanuelEE. Concise screening questions for clinical assessments of terminal care: The needs near the end-of-life care screening tool (NEST)J Palliat Med, 2001; 4:465–474.
37.
OkenMM, CreechRH, TormeyDC, HortonJ, DavisTE, McFaddenET, CargonePP. Toxicity and response criteria of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. Am J Clin Oncol, 1982; 5:649–655.
38.
The Education for Physicians on End-of-Life Care (EPEC) Project. www.epec.net. 2009 June 1.
39.
EmanuelLL, von GuntenCF. FerrisFD. Whole patient assessment. The EPEC Curriculum: Education for Physicians on End-of-Life Care. The EPEC Project, 2003. www.epec.net. 2009 June 1.
40.
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology 2001. www.nccn.org. 2009 June 1.
41.
National Consensus Project for Quality Palliative Care. Clinical Practice Guidelines for Quality Palliative Care, 2ndwww.nationalconsensusproject.org. 2009 June 1.
42.
EmanuelLL, AlpertHR, BaldwinDC, EmanuelEJ. What terminally ill patients care about: Toward a validated construct of patients' perspectives. J Palliat Med, 2000; 3:419–431.
43.
DixonJ. Evaluation criteria in studies of continuing education in the health professions: A critical review and a suggested strategy. Eval Health Prof, 1978; 1:47–65.
44.
DavisD, O'BrienMA, FreemantleN, WolfFM, MazmanianP, Taylor-VaiseyA. Impact of formal continuing medical education: Do conferences, workshops, rounds, and other traditional continuing education activities change physician behavior or health care outcomes?JAMA, 1999; 282:867–874.
45.
SolomonJ, CardJJ, MalowRM. Adapting efficacious interventions: Advancing translational research in HIV prevention. Eval Health Prof, 2006; 29:162–194.
46.
SussmanS, ValenteTW, PentzMA, RohrbachLA, SkaraS. Translation in the health professions: Converting science into action. Eval Health Prof, 2006; 29:7–32.
47.
SussmanS, ValenteTW, RohrbachLA, SkaraS, PentzMA. Translation in the health professions: Converting science into action. Eval Health Prof, 2006; 29:7–32.
48.
NeuhauserL, RichardsonD, MackenzieS, MinklerM. Advancing Transdisciplinary and translational research practice: Issues and models of doctoral education in public health. J Res Pract, 2007; 3:M19.
49.
RabinBA, BrownsonRC, Haire-JoshuD, KreuterMW, WeaverNL. A glossary for dissemination and implementation research in health. J Public Health Manag Pract, 2008; 14:117–123.
50.
LeachDC. Changing education to improve patient care. Qual Health Care, 2001; 10:ii54–ii58.
