Evaluation of a Routine Psychosocial Screening for Patients Receiving Inpatient Specialist Palliative Care: Feasibility and Outcomes.

Anneke Ullrich, Said Bahloul, Carsten Bokemeyer, Karin Oechsle
{"title":"Evaluation of a Routine Psychosocial Screening for Patients Receiving Inpatient Specialist Palliative Care: Feasibility and Outcomes.","authors":"Anneke Ullrich,&nbsp;Said Bahloul,&nbsp;Carsten Bokemeyer,&nbsp;Karin Oechsle","doi":"10.1080/15524256.2022.2139336","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This prospective one-year cohort study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of a routine psychosocial screening at patients' admittance to specialist inpatient palliative care. Patients admitted to an academic palliative care ward were routinely screened for self-reported distress and psychological morbidity, psychosocial stress factors, and subjective need for help from psychosocial professions. Cognitive impairments were the most common patient barrier to screening. Screenings were completed in 138 of 428 patients (32%). Based on established cutoffs, distress was indicated in 89%, depression in 51%, and anxiety in 50% of these patients. The burden on next-of-kin emerged as the most prevalent stress factor (73%). One-half of the patients disclosed a subjective need for help (53%). Possible depression (<i>p</i> = .023), anxiety (<i>p</i> < .001), and subjective need for help (<i>p</i> < .001) correlated positively with a higher amount of time spent by psychologists and creative arts-based therapists with small to moderate effects. Patients who completed the screening were attributed with a higher amount of time by social workers than patients who did not (<i>p</i> = .004), but there were no relationships between screening results and social work. Results suggest the potential of screenings for the allocation of specialist psychosocial care during specialist palliative care; however, barriers to screening do exist.</p>","PeriodicalId":45992,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care","volume":"19 1","pages":"33-52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15524256.2022.2139336","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This prospective one-year cohort study aimed to assess the feasibility and outcomes of a routine psychosocial screening at patients' admittance to specialist inpatient palliative care. Patients admitted to an academic palliative care ward were routinely screened for self-reported distress and psychological morbidity, psychosocial stress factors, and subjective need for help from psychosocial professions. Cognitive impairments were the most common patient barrier to screening. Screenings were completed in 138 of 428 patients (32%). Based on established cutoffs, distress was indicated in 89%, depression in 51%, and anxiety in 50% of these patients. The burden on next-of-kin emerged as the most prevalent stress factor (73%). One-half of the patients disclosed a subjective need for help (53%). Possible depression (p = .023), anxiety (p < .001), and subjective need for help (p < .001) correlated positively with a higher amount of time spent by psychologists and creative arts-based therapists with small to moderate effects. Patients who completed the screening were attributed with a higher amount of time by social workers than patients who did not (p = .004), but there were no relationships between screening results and social work. Results suggest the potential of screenings for the allocation of specialist psychosocial care during specialist palliative care; however, barriers to screening do exist.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
对住院专科姑息治疗患者进行常规心理筛查的评估:可行性和结果。
这项为期一年的前瞻性队列研究旨在评估在接受专科姑息治疗的患者入院时进行常规心理社会筛查的可行性和结果。入院学术姑息治疗病房的患者例行筛查自我报告的痛苦和心理疾病,心理社会压力因素,以及对心理社会专业人员帮助的主观需求。认知障碍是筛查中最常见的障碍。428例患者中有138例(32%)完成了筛查。根据确定的临界值,89%的患者表现为痛苦,51%的患者表现为抑郁,50%的患者表现为焦虑。近亲的负担成为最普遍的压力因素(73%)。一半的患者(53%)表示主观需要帮助。可能是抑郁(p = 0.023),焦虑(p = 0.004),但筛查结果与社会工作之间没有关系。结果表明,在专科姑息治疗期间,筛查可能会分配专科社会心理护理;然而,筛查的障碍确实存在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
28
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care, now affiliated with the Social Work in Hospice and Palliative Care Network, explores issues crucial to caring for terminally ill patients and their families. Academics and social work practitioners present current research, articles, and continuing features on the "state of the art" of social work practice, including interdisciplinary interventions, practice innovations, practice evaluations, end-of-life decision-making, grief and bereavement, and ethical and moral issues. The Journal of Social Work in End-of-Life & Palliative Care combines theory and practice to facilitate an understanding of the multi-level issues surrounding care for those in pain and suffering from painful, debilitating, and/or terminal illness.
期刊最新文献
A Phenomenological Study of Clinical Stillbirth Management for Grieving Mothers. How Tangible is an Advance Care Planning Document in Reality? Still Ship at Sea. Disbelief, Distress, & Distrust: Trending Institution Related Emotional Distress During COVID-19. Always Politically Correct: Supporting Seriously Ill Older Populations and Their Families.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1