An explorative study on systematic assessment of QOL and care needs with the CARES-SF in the early follow-up of patients with digestive cancer
- 27 Downloads
Systematic assessment of QOL and care needs was applied in two gastroenterology departments to support “Cancer Care for the Whole Patient.”
Patients with digestive cancer were asked to complete the Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form (CARES-SF) at the start of treatment and 3 months later. Both times CARES data were processed, and summary reports on the retained insights were sent to the reference nurse for use in further follow-up of the patient. Patients’ and reference nurse’s experiences with the systematic CARES-assessment were explored with several survey questions and semi-structured interviews, respectively.
The mean age of the 51 participants was 63 years (SD11.17), 52.9% was male. With the CARES-SF, a large variety of problems and care needs was detected. Problems most frequently experienced, and most burdensome for QOL are a mix of physical complaints, side effects from treatment, practical, relational, and psychosocial difficulties. Only for a limited number of experienced problems a desire for extra help was expressed. All patients positively evaluate the timing and frequency of the CARES-assessment. The majority believes that this assessment could contribute to the discussion of problems and needs with healthcare professionals, to get more tailored care. Reference nurses experienced the intervention as an opportunity to systematically explore patients’ well-being in a comprehensive way, leading to detection and discussion of specific problems or needs in greater depth, and more efficient involvement of different disciplines in care.
Systematic QOL and needs assessment with the CARES-SF in oncology can contribute to more patient-centeredness and efficiency of care.
KeywordsDigestive cancer Systematic assessment Quality of life Care needs CARES
Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System
Cancer Rehabilitation Evaluation System-Short Form
Institute of Medicine
patient reported outcome measure
quality of life
We would like to acknowledge the gastroenterology departments who were willing to work with us for this pilot study. Also we would like to thank Limburg Sterk Merk (LSM) for funding the PhD-project of Bojoura Schouten.
Study conceptualization and design: BS, JH, DDJ, JD, MA, DW, PV.
Data collection: BS, DDJ, MA.
Study coordination, data analysis, and drafting the paper: BS.
Revision of the paper: JH, DDJ, JD, MA, DW, PV.
All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional research committees.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 1.Armes J, Crowe M, Colbourne L, Morgan H, Murrells T, Oakley C, Palmer N, Ream E, Young A, Richardson A (2009) Patients’ supportive care needs beyond the end of cancer treatment: a prospective, longitudinal survey. J Clin Oncol 27(36):6172–6179. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2009.22.5151 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 4.Ozgen Z, Ozden S, Atasoy BM et al (2015) Long-term effects of neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by sphincter-preserving resection on anal sphincter function in relation to quality of life among locally advanced rectal cancer patients: a cross-sectional analysis. Radiat Oncol (London, England) 10:168. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13014-015-0479-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Institute of Medicine (2001) Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century. National Academy Press, Washington, D.CGoogle Scholar
- 11.Schag CA, Heinrich RL (1989) Cancer rehabilitation evaluation system (CARES) manual, ed. 1. CARES Consultants, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
- 12.Schag CA, Heinrich RL (1990) Development of a comprehensive quality of life measurement tool: CARES. Oncology (Williston Park) 4(5):135–138 discussion 147Google Scholar
- 22.Schouten B, Van Hoof E, Vankrunkelsven P et al (2016) Assessing cancer patients’ quality of life and supportive care needs: translation-revalidation of the CARES in Flemish and exhaustive evaluation of concurrent validity. BMC Health Serv Res 16(1):86. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1335-4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Thalen-Lindstrom A, Glimelius B, Johansson B (2017) Development of anxiety, depression and health-related quality of life in oncology patients without initial symptoms according to the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - a comparative study. Acta Oncol (Stockh, Sweden) 56(8):1094–1102. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186x.2017.1305124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Pereira JL, Chasen MR, Molloy S et al (2016) Cancer care professionals’ attitudes toward systematic standardized symptom assessment and the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System after large-scale population-based implementation in Ontario, Canada. J Pain Symptom Manag 51(4):662–672.e8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2015.11.023 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Biddle L, Paramasivan S, Harris S, Campbell R, Brennan J, Hollingworth W (2016) Patients’ and clinicians’ experiences of holistic needs assessment using a cancer distress thermometer and problem list: a qualitative study. Eur J Oncol Nurs 23:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejon.2016.04.004 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar