Abstract
Study Goal
The aim of the study was to evaluate The Patient Assessment, Care and Education (PACE) System™—an electronic patient symptom screening and reporting system for oncology. Specifically, the study determined provider and patient opinions of The PACE System™ and documented evidence as to whether symptom assessment rates increased after this system was implemented.
Materials and methods
Ninety-two providers (i.e., physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants) at 16 community oncology clinics were surveyed about their experiences with The PACE System™. In addition, 100 patients at two community oncology clinics were surveyed about their perceptions of The PACE System™. Finally, at two oncology clinics, 100 patient charts were abstracted in the year before implementation of The PACE System™, and 100 patient charts were abstracted in the year after its implementation to evaluate changes in symptom assessment rates.
Main results
Providers seemed to value the system. In particular, they reported that the screening and reporting system helped them to identify, track, and document the patients’ most important symptoms. The patient survey indicated that the majority of patients at the two sites found the system easy to use and generally helpful and would recommend it to others. The chart review indicated that assessment rates for depression, fatigue, and pain increased after The PACE System™ was implemented.
Conclusions
The PACE System™ appears to be a promising approach to addressing the widespread problem of under-identification and under-treatment of symptoms in patients receiving cancer treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, Wever LD, Aaronson NK (2002) Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 288:3027–3034
Fortner B, Baldwin S, Schwartzberg L, Houts AC (2006) Validation of the cancer care monitor items for physical symptoms and treatment side effects using expert oncology nurse evaluation. J Pain Symptom Manage 31:207–214
Fortner B, Okon T, Schwartzberg L, Tauer K, Houts AC (2003) The cancer care monitor: psychometric content evaluation and pilot testing of a computer administered system for symptom screening and quality of life in adult cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manage 26:1077–1092
McLachlan SA, Allenby A, Matthews J, Wirth A, Kissane D, Bishop M, Beresford J, Zalcberg J (2001) (Randomized trial of coordinated psychosocial interventions based on patient self-assessments versus standard care to improve the psychosocial functioning of patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol 19:4117–4125
Patrick DL, Ferketich SL, Frame PS, Harris JJ, Hendricks CB, Levin B, Link MP, Lustig C, McLaughlin J, Reid LD, Turrisi AT 3rd, Unutzer J, Vernon SW (2004) National Institutes of Health State-of-the-Science Conference Statement: symptom management in cancer: pain, depression, and fatigue, July 15-17, 2002. J Natl Cancer Inst 9-16
Ruland CM, White T, Stevens M, Fanciullo G, Khilani SM (2003) Effects of a computerized system to support shared decision making in symptom management of cancer patients: preliminary results. J Am Med Inform Assoc 10:573–579
Taenzer P, Bultz BD, Carlson LE, Speca M, DeGagne T, Olson K, Doll R, Rosberger Z (2000) Impact of computerized quality of life screening on physician behaviour and patient satisfaction in lung cancer outpatients. Psychooncology 9:203–213
Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, Brown PM, Lynch P, Brown JM, Selby PJ (2004) Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. Clin Oncol 22:714–724
Acknowledgments
This research was funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation through a Health e-technologies grant.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mark, T.L., Fortner, B. & Johnson, G. Evaluation of a tablet PC technology to screen and educate oncology patients. Support Care Cancer 16, 371–378 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0312-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00520-007-0312-1