Evaluation of a Program for Routine Implementation of Symptom Distress Screening and Referral in Cancer Care
Study Details
Study Description
Brief Summary
This study proposes to evaluate the process and outcome of an implementation program designed to implement nurse-led symptom distress screening and referral into routine cancer care clinics. Specifically, using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial, This study aim to test if a systematic symptom distress screening program increases the proportion of eligible patients screened and referred compared to usual control. For process evaluation, this study will use qualitative methods to assess the experience and response to the implementation program.
| Condition or Disease | Intervention/Treatment | Phase |
|---|---|---|
|
N/A |
Detailed Description
This study proposes to evaluate the process and outcome of an implementation program designed to implement nurse-led symptom distress screening and referral into routine cancer care clinics. Specifically, using a stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial, this study aim to test if a systematic symptom distress screening program (i.e. using the five implementation strategies including training, audit, feedback, facilitation and adaptable workflow) increases the proportion of eligible patients screened and referred compared to usual control under which no implementation strategies will be used to facilitate the adoption of the systematic symptom distress screening and referral. The investigator hypothesize that (1) the intervention will increase the proportion of eligible patients screened; (2) the intervention will increase the proportion of patients with moderate to severe symptom distress referred for psychosocial support.
For process evaluation, this study will use qualitative methods to assess the experience and response to the implementation program.
Study Design
Arms and Interventions
| Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
|---|---|
| Experimental: Implementation condition Under implementation condition, a nurse-led symptom distress screening program will be implemented using 5 implementation strategies including training, audit and feedback, facilitation and adaptable workflow. |
Other: A nurse-led symptom distress screening program
Five implementation strategies will be conducted individually for each of the study unit at the timepoint when the study unit is being randomly allocated to the implementation condition. For each study unit, all nurses will first receive a half-day training. Each study unit under the implementation condition will receive weekly audit and feedback reports to summarize the proportion of eligible patients, proportion of eligible patients being screened, proportion of patients appropriately referred to JCICC. The senior research assistant with a nursing background will receive training and mentoring from the PI and will be the guided facilitator. The guided facilitator will conduct weekly site visits to address operational issues arise during the implementation. Lastly, while the choice of symptom assessment tool and referral criteria are standardized and cannot be modified, the routine workflow for each study unit can be adjusted according to its context and resources.
|
| No Intervention: Control condition The control condition is the usual clinical outpatient operation without the specific implementation program (i.e. applying the five implementation strategies including training, audit and feedback, facilitation and adaptable workflow) for standardized routine symptom distress screening. Prior to the start of the first 4-month control condition, we will meet each study unit and brief the staff about the purpose of this implementation study, as well as the introduction of the symptom distress screening tool. The symptom distress screening tool and referral forms will be given to the study sites. The staff are encouraged to screened and referred all eligible patients to JCICC, a local cancer care centre. In contrast to the intervention condition, there will be no half-day skill training workshop and no weekly audit and feedback report delivered and discussed with the site facilitator. We will keep the recording of the briefing session for fidelity assessment. |
Outcome Measures
Primary Outcome Measures
- Change in the number of eligible patient screened [Pre- and post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
The primary outcome (the measurement of the reach) is the changes in the number of eligible patients screened. Using a standardized reporting form, each study site will be asked to submit a weekly record of a total number of eligible patients per clinic and the number of patients screened.
- Change in the number of eligible patient referred [Pre- and post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
The primary outcome (the measurement of the reach) is the changes in the number of eligible patients referred based on the predefined scores. Using a standardized reporting form, each study site will be asked to submit a weekly record of a total number of eligible patients per clinic and the number of patients referred.
Secondary Outcome Measures
- Change in referral uptake [Pre- and post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
The secondary outcome is the change in uptake of the referral, i.e. the proportion of referred patients accepting services.
- Process evaluation in providers by conducting qualitative interviews [post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
Using qualitative approach with service providers (i.e. the nurses) to identify facilitators and barriers for the implementation of the symptom distress screening program, as well as their overall experience. All nursing staff from the study units involved in the symptom distress screening will be invited to join the qualitative study at the post-implementation phase.
- Process evaluation in patients by conducting qualitative interviews [post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
We will also conduct qualitative interviews to explore patients' experiences with symptom distress screening and referral if appropriate. Patients who are referred for support services will be approached by the research assistant who will explain the purpose of the study and nature of participation, with an emphasis on confidentiality and anonymity. If agreeing to participate, the RA will obtain a written consent and each subject will subsequently participate in in-depth interview by a trained interviewer. For patients who decline to be referred for support services, we will ask the nursing staff to invite the patients to join the qualitative study. We will recruit patients from both implementation and control conditions as it will enable us to compare patients' experienc.
- Number of staff receiving training [pre-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
All nurses will first receive a half-day training on how to administer the symptom distress screening tool, evaluate patients' reported symptom distress, refer patients to and follow-up for referred patients. We will record the number of invited staff attending the half-day training workshop.
- Change in staff knowledge about the implementation of the screening programme assessed using categorical Likert scales [pre- and post-training workshop, and post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
We will assess the staff knowledge at pre- and post-training workshop and again at the end of the implementation study using a 6 points-categorical Likert scale (0-5) for participants' knowledge about the implementation of the screening program. Such information will be served as implementation indicators to facilitate the interpretation of the study findings.
- Change in staff's belief in the symptom distress screening programme assessed using categorical Likert scales [pre- and post-training workshop, and post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
We will assess the staff's belief at pre- and post-training workshop and again at the end of the implementation study using a 6 points-categorical Likert scale (0-5) for participants' beliefs towards the symptom distress screening programme. Such information will be served as implementation indicators to facilitate the interpretation of the study findings.
- Change in staff self-efficacy in administrating the symptom distress screening programme assessed using categorical Likert scales [pre- and post-training workshop, and post-implementation phase, up to 24 months]
We will assess the staff's self-efficacy at pre- and post-training workshop and again at the end of the implementation study using a 6 points-categorical Likert scale (0-5). Such information will be served as implementation indicators to facilitate the interpretation of the study findings.
Eligibility Criteria
Criteria
Inclusion Criteria:
- All cancer patients within two years post-treatment attending the specialized outpatient clinics for surveillance will be eligible for symptom distress screening, with no exclusions by any demographic and clinical characteristics.
Exclusion Criteria:
- All cancer patients beyond two years post-treatment
Contacts and Locations
Locations
| Site | City | State | Country | Postal Code | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | JCICC | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 2 | Kwong Wah Hospital-Breast Center | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 3 | North District Hospital | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 4 | Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital-Department of oncology | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 5 | Prince of Wales Hospital-Department of Surgery | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 6 | Queen Mary Hospital-Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 7 | Queen Mary Hospital-Department of Oncology | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 8 | Queen Mary Hospital-Department of Surgery | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 9 | The University of Hong Kong Jockey Club Institute of Cancer Care | Hong Kong | Hong Kong | ||
| 10 | Tung Wah Hospital-Department of Surgery | Hong Kong | Hong Kong |
Sponsors and Collaborators
- The University of Hong Kong
- Health and Medical Research Fund
Investigators
- Principal Investigator: Wendy Wing Tak Lam, PhD, School of Public Health, The University of Hong Kong
Study Documents (Full-Text)
None provided.More Information
Additional Information:
Publications
None provided.- UW22-645