利用 PRO-CTCAE 工具改进头颈部肿瘤诊所的诊疗方法

Rose Ann Ruddy, DNP, MSN, RN, ACNP-BC, Brigit Carter, PhD, RN, CCRN, FAAN, Maryanne Giuliante, DNP, MBA, RN, GNP, ANP-C, NEA-BC, HEC-C, AnnMarie Lee Walton, PhD, RN, MPH, OCN, CHES, FAAN
{"title":"利用 PRO-CTCAE 工具改进头颈部肿瘤诊所的诊疗方法","authors":"Rose Ann Ruddy, DNP, MSN, RN, ACNP-BC, Brigit Carter, PhD, RN, CCRN, FAAN, Maryanne Giuliante, DNP, MBA, RN, GNP, ANP-C, NEA-BC, HEC-C, AnnMarie Lee Walton, PhD, RN, MPH, OCN, CHES, FAAN","doi":"10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.5.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing treatment report many side effects. Using patient-reported outcomes can assist with care management. Objectives: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to implement the patient-reported outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system, reduce patient hydration visits, and measure provider satisfaction with the PRO-CTCAE survey. Methods: Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software. Descriptive statistics for means were used to summarize the data for survey completion rate and for the provider satisfaction questionnaire. A Fisher’s exact test was used to compare hydration visits before and after implementation of the PRO-CTCAE survey. Findings: The PRO-CTCAE surveys had a response rate of 91.2% (323/354) when telehealth visits were omitted. Hydration in the presurvey group was 23.5% (150/637) and in the postsurvey group was 38.5% (165/429), a 15% absolute percentage increase (Fisher’s exact p < .001). Among providers, the positive response rate was 100% for five questions and 88.9% for two questions. Implications: The PRO-CTCAE survey allowed the patient to report their symptoms prior to discussing them with their provider. Providers were able to expedite symptom management and get information to patients in a timely manner. The PRO-CTCAE survey should be considered a part of a multidisciplinary approach to caring for patients.","PeriodicalId":17176,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Improving Practice in a Head and Neck Oncology Clinic Using the PRO-CTCAE Tool\",\"authors\":\"Rose Ann Ruddy, DNP, MSN, RN, ACNP-BC, Brigit Carter, PhD, RN, CCRN, FAAN, Maryanne Giuliante, DNP, MBA, RN, GNP, ANP-C, NEA-BC, HEC-C, AnnMarie Lee Walton, PhD, RN, MPH, OCN, CHES, FAAN\",\"doi\":\"10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.5.2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing treatment report many side effects. Using patient-reported outcomes can assist with care management. Objectives: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to implement the patient-reported outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system, reduce patient hydration visits, and measure provider satisfaction with the PRO-CTCAE survey. Methods: Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software. Descriptive statistics for means were used to summarize the data for survey completion rate and for the provider satisfaction questionnaire. A Fisher’s exact test was used to compare hydration visits before and after implementation of the PRO-CTCAE survey. Findings: The PRO-CTCAE surveys had a response rate of 91.2% (323/354) when telehealth visits were omitted. Hydration in the presurvey group was 23.5% (150/637) and in the postsurvey group was 38.5% (165/429), a 15% absolute percentage increase (Fisher’s exact p < .001). Among providers, the positive response rate was 100% for five questions and 88.9% for two questions. Implications: The PRO-CTCAE survey allowed the patient to report their symptoms prior to discussing them with their provider. Providers were able to expedite symptom management and get information to patients in a timely manner. The PRO-CTCAE survey should be considered a part of a multidisciplinary approach to caring for patients.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17176,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology\",\"volume\":\"2 5\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.5.2\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Advanced Practitioner in Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.6004/jadpro.2024.15.5.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景正在接受治疗的头颈部癌症患者报告了许多副作用。利用患者报告的结果可以帮助进行护理管理。目标:本质量改进项目旨在实施患者报告结果版不良事件通用术语标准(PRO-CTCAE)测量系统,减少患者水化就诊次数,并测量医疗服务提供者对 PRO-CTCAE 调查的满意度。方法:使用 IBM SPSS 软件进行统计分析。使用均值描述性统计来总结调查完成率和医疗服务提供者满意度问卷的数据。费舍尔精确检验用于比较实施 PRO-CTCAE 调查前后的水合次数。调查结果:当忽略远程医疗访问时,PRO-CTCAE 调查的回复率为 91.2%(323/354)。调查前组的水合率为 23.5%(150/637),调查后组的水合率为 38.5%(165/429),绝对百分比增加了 15%(费雪精确检验 p < .001)。在医疗服务提供者中,5 个问题的正面回答率为 100%,2 个问题的正面回答率为 88.9%。意义:通过 PRO-CTCAE 调查,患者可以在与医疗服务提供者讨论之前报告自己的症状。医疗服务提供者能够加快症状管理并及时向患者提供信息。PRO-CTCAE 调查应被视为多学科患者护理方法的一部分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Improving Practice in a Head and Neck Oncology Clinic Using the PRO-CTCAE Tool
Background: Patients with head and neck cancer undergoing treatment report many side effects. Using patient-reported outcomes can assist with care management. Objectives: The purpose of this quality improvement project was to implement the patient-reported outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system, reduce patient hydration visits, and measure provider satisfaction with the PRO-CTCAE survey. Methods: Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS software. Descriptive statistics for means were used to summarize the data for survey completion rate and for the provider satisfaction questionnaire. A Fisher’s exact test was used to compare hydration visits before and after implementation of the PRO-CTCAE survey. Findings: The PRO-CTCAE surveys had a response rate of 91.2% (323/354) when telehealth visits were omitted. Hydration in the presurvey group was 23.5% (150/637) and in the postsurvey group was 38.5% (165/429), a 15% absolute percentage increase (Fisher’s exact p < .001). Among providers, the positive response rate was 100% for five questions and 88.9% for two questions. Implications: The PRO-CTCAE survey allowed the patient to report their symptoms prior to discussing them with their provider. Providers were able to expedite symptom management and get information to patients in a timely manner. The PRO-CTCAE survey should be considered a part of a multidisciplinary approach to caring for patients.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in Multiple Myeloma: A Call to Action A Real-World Evidence Primer for Advanced Practice Providers: Integrating P-Reality X Into Shared Decision-Making for People With HR+/HER2− Metastatic Breast Cancer Impact of an Oncology Clinical Pharmacist Intervention on Clinical Trial Enrollment in The US Oncology Network’s MYLUNG Consortium Beyond Standard Endocrine Therapy: A New Adjuvant Treatment in High-Risk Early Breast Cancer Evaluating the User-Perceived Benefit of a Virtual Lung Cancer Patient Education and Support Community: LVNG With Lung Cancer
×
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