This study examines the ability of the distress thermometer to accurately identify patients with higher symptoms, unmet needs and psychological morbidity.

Baseline data collected as part of a randomized controlled trial evaluating a nurse-led supportive care intervention for men with prostate cancer commencing radiotherapy at a specialist cancer hospital in Melbourne, Australia. Measures assessed global distress (DT), anxious and depressive symptomatology (HADS), prostate-cancer specific quality of life (EPIC-26), unmet supportive care needs (SCNS-SF34R) and cancer treatment-related concerns (CATS). Following descriptive and correlational analysis, hierarchical multiple regression was employed to examine the contribution of variable sets to explaining variance in DT scores.

Less than 20% of men reported DT scores of 4 or higher, indicating overall low distress. The DT accurately identified almost all men reporting HADS score indicative of anxious or depressive symptomatology, suggesting it accurately identifies psychological morbidity. Importantly, the DT identified a further group of distressed men, not identified by HADS, whose distress related to unmet needs and prostate cancer-specific issues, indicating the DT is superior in identifying other forms of distress. While the hierarchical multiple regression confirmed anxious and depressive symptomatology as the best predictor of distress score, many other scales are also good predictors of DT scores, supporting the argument that distress is multi-determined.

Nurses can be confident that the DT accurately identifies patients with psychological morbidity and importantly identifies other patients with distress who may require intervention. A distress score of 4 or higher identified participants with higher physical symptomatology, higher unmet needs, more concerns about treatment and poorer quality of life. The low prevalence of distress reaching cut off scores suggests nurses would not be overwhelmed by the outcomes of screening and could use the score to prioritise the patients who need greater attention at entry to radiotherapy services.

Cancer-related distress has been endorsed as the sixth vital sign by many international cancer organizations, and some countries such as Canada have implemented national screening for distress programs. The completion of a screening tool is an important first step in improving responsiveness to cancer-related distress, but screening must be followed with skilled supportive care to make a difference in patient-reported outcomes. Our objective was to create a web-based education program to support nurses and other frontline staff in providing an initial response to screening results.

To address screening and supportive care learning needs, the Canadian Association of Psychosocial Oncology (CAPO), with support from the Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, created a web-based education program as one component of the national screening for distress agenda. The program provides clinically grounded and interactive learning through the use of PowerPoint presentations, video clips of clinical interactions with patients and family members, and test questions. Presentation topics include, for example, strategies for dealing with screening results, managing referrals, and supportive counseling. We employed a matched pairs, pre-post survey design to assess the effect of the education program on confidence in screening and in providing initial supportive care.

Our analysis of the first 147 matched pairs to complete the course suggests that satisfaction with the course was high. Statistically significant increases in confidence in relation to screening for distress and assessing distress, and in providing initial supportive care, were evident.

Our ongoing experience with CAPO's Interprofessional Psychosocial Oncology Distance Education (IPODE) project (www.ipode.ca) project suggests that healthcare professionals value web-based learning for its accessibility and convenience. Such programs appear to offer excellent opportunities for cost-effective education that supports practice change.

Implementation of routine Screening for Distress constitutes a major change in cancer care, with the aim of achieving person-centered care.

Using a cross-sectional descriptive design within a University Tertiary Care Hospital setting, 911 patients from all cancer sites were screened at the time of their first meeting with a nurse navigator who administered a paper questionnaire that included: the Distress Thermometer (DT), the Canadian Problem Checklist (CPC), and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS).

Results showed a mean score of 3.9 on the DT. Fears/worries, coping with the disease, and sleep were the most common problems reported on the CPC. Tiredness was the most prevalent symptom on the ESAS. A final regression model that included anxiety, the total number of problems on the CPC, well-being, and tiredness accounted for almost 50% of the variance of distress. A cutoff score of 5 on the DT together with a cutoff of 5 on the ESAS items represents the best combination of specificity and sensitivity to orient patients on the basis of their reported distress.

These descriptive data will provide valuable feedback to answer practical questions for the purpose of effectively implementing and managing routine screening in cancer care.

The purpose of this paper is to summarize the use of the knowledge to action framework for adapting guidelines for practice and the evidence for effective implementation interventions to promote a quality response to cancer distress screening data.

We summarize progress in screening implementation in Ontario, Canada and the application of a systematic approach for adapting knowledge to practice and use of evidence-based knowledge translation interventions to ensure the uptake of best practices to manage distress.

While significant progress has been made in the uptake of distress screening it is less clear if this has resulted in improvements in patient outcomes, i.e., reduced distress. The use of evidence-based knowledge translation strategies tailored to barriers at many levels of care delivery is critical to facilitate the uptake of distress screening data by the primary oncology team.

There is a wealth of knowledge about the approaches that can be applied to translate knowledge into practice to improve psychosocial care and promote evidence-based distress management by the primary care oncology team. However, further implementation research is needed to advance knowledge about the most effective strategies in the context of cancer care.

Distress screening guidelines call for rapid screening for emotional distress at the time of cancer diagnosis. The purpose of this study was to examine the distress thermometer's (DT) ability to screen in patients in treatment for advanced cancer who may be depressed.

Using cross-sectional data collected from patients within 30 days of diagnosis with advanced cancer, this study used ROC analysis to determine the optimal-cutoff point of the distress thermometer (DT) for screening for depression as measured by the physician health questionnaire (PHQ)-9; inter-test reliability analysis to compare the DT with the PHQ-2 for screening in possible cases of depression, and multivariate analysis to examine associations among the DT emotional problem list (EPL) items with cases of depression.

The average age of the 123 patients in the study was 59.9 (12.9) years. Seventy (56.9%) were female. All had Stage 3 or 4 cancers (40% gastrointestinal, 19% gynecologic, 20% head and neck, 21% lung). The mean DT score was 4 (2.7)/10; and 56 (43%) were depressed as measured by the PHQ-9 ≥5. The optimal DT cut-off score to screen in possible cases of depression was ≥2/10, with a sensitivity of .96, compared to a sensitivity of .32 of the PHQ-2 ≥2. Correlation coefficients for the DT ≥2 and the PHQ-2 with the PHQ-9 ≥5 were 0.4 and −0.2, respectively. EPL items associated with cases of depression were Depression (OR = 0.15, 0.02–0.85) and Sadness (OR = 0.21, 0.06–0.72).

The optimal DT threshold for identifying possible cases of depression at the time of diagnosis is ≥2; this threshold is more sensitive than the PHQ-2 ≥2. EPL items may be used with the DT score to triage patients for evaluation.

Management of patient distress is a critical task in cancer nursing and cancer practice. Here we describe two examples of how an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurement system implemented into routine oncology care can practically aid clinical and research tasks related to distress management.

Tablet personal computers were used to routinely complete a standardized ePRO review of systems surveys at point of care during every encounter in the Duke Oncology outpatient clinics. Two cases of use implementation are explored: (1) triaging distressed patients for optimal care, and (2) psychosocial program evaluation research.

Between 2009 and 2011, the ePRO system was used to collect information during 17,338 Duke Oncology patient encounters. The system was used to monitor patients for psychosocial distress employing an electronic clinical decision support algorithm, with 1,952 (11.3%) referrals generated for supportive services. The system was utilized to examine the efficacy of a psychosocial care intervention documenting statistically significant improvements in distress, despair, fatigue, and quality of life (QOL) in 50 breast cancer patients.

ePRO solutions can guide best practice management of cancer patient distress. Nurses play a key role in implementation and utilization.

To evaluate the feasibility of implementing psychosocial distress screening in a breast center of a comprehensive cancer center, using a model of structure (personnel, resources), process (screening), and outcome (number of patients screened, number referred).

The first step in the project was to establish administrative support, educate and engage breast center staff, identify stakeholders and persons with expertise in the conduct of evidence based initiatives. A two-phase implementation approach was agreed upon with Phase I being screening of new patients in surgical oncology and Phase II being screening women in medical oncology.

A total of 173 patients were screened. The new patients screened in surgical oncology reported higher average distress scores compared to patients in medical oncology (5.7 vs. 4.0). However, a greater number of patients in medical oncology reported scores >4 compared to the new patients screened in surgery (54% vs. 35%). Psychological distress was the most commonly reported distress for patients in surgery. In contrast, 60% of scores >4 in medical oncology were symptom related, managed by the nurse or physician.

Nurse led implementation of psychosocial distress screening is feasible, addressing this important quality indicator of patient-centered care.