Addressing Distress Management Challenges: Recommendations From the Consensus Panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients’ quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient-reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization—inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization—outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health-care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence-based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges. CA Cancer J Clin 2021;71:407-436. © 2021 The Authors. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Cancer Society. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made

Addressing distress management challenges: Recommendations from the consensus panel of the American Psychosocial Oncology Society and the Association of Oncology Social Work

Distress management (DM) (screening and response) is an essential component of cancer care across the treatment trajectory. Effective DM has many benefits, including improving patients’ quality of life; reducing distress, anxiety, and depression; contributing to medical cost offsets; and reducing emergency department visits and hospitalizations. Unfortunately, many distressed patients do not receive needed services. There are several multilevel barriers that represent key challenges to DM and affect its implementation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used as an organizational structure to outline the barriers and facilitators to implementation of DM, including: 1) individual characteristics (individual patient characteristics with a focus on groups who may face unique barriers to distress screening and linkage to services), 2) intervention (unique aspects of DM intervention, including specific challenges in screening and psychosocial intervention, with recommendations for resolving these challenges), 3) processes for implementation of DM (modality and timing of screening, the challenge of triage for urgent needs, and incorporation of patient- reported outcomes and quality measures), 4) organization- inner setting (the context of the clinic, hospital, or health care system); and 5) organization- outer setting (including reimbursement strategies and health- care policy). Specific recommendations for evidence- based strategies and interventions for each of the domains of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research are also included to address barriers and challenges.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170202/1/caac21672.pdfhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/170202/2/caac21672_am.pd

Prospective Study of a Novel Risk Stratification Process for Opioid-Related Harm Reduction in Cancer Patients Seen in an Outpatient Palliative Care Clinic

Background: Oncologists and palliative specialists prescribe opioids for millions of cancer patients despite limited research on effective screening and mitigation strategies to reduce risk of opioid-related harm in that population. Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of a novel opioid risk stratification process for predicting significant aberrant behaviors (SABs) related to prescribed opioid medications. Design and Setting/Subjects: This is a prospective, longitudinal study of 319 consecutive patients referred to an outpatient palliative care clinic between 2010 and 2012, a period during which prescription opioid-related deaths began to increase in the United States. Measures: Patients completed a psychodiagnostic/substance use risk assessment with a licensed clinical psychologist or social worker at the initial palliative clinic visit. Patients were assigned to Low-, Moderate-, or High-Risk groups based on predetermined stratification criteria and were managed via an opioid harm reduction approach. The primary dependent measure was the presence of at least one SAB after the initial visit. Results: Eighteen percent of patients (n = 56) demonstrated at least one major aberrant behavior. Odds of future aberrant behavior was 15 times greater in the High-Risk versus the Low-Risk category. Five risk factors significantly enhanced our risk model: Age 18 to 45 years, job instability, history of bipolar diagnosis, history of substance abuse, and theft. Conclusion: Our risk stratification process provides a useful model for predicting those at greatest risk of future aberrant behaviors and most in need of comanagement. We recommend additional studies to test our proposed streamlined risk stratification tool