Thursday, September 26, 2002

This presentation is part of : Technological Interventions in the Patient Experience

Computerized Quality of Life Assessment in Radiation Oncology

Donna L. Berry, RN, PhD, AOCN, associate professor, Mary Galligan, RN, BSN, research nurse, Mary Monahan, RN, MN, nurse manager, Bryant T. Karras, MD, MPH, assistant professor, William Lober, MD, research assistant professor, Stephanie Martin, MSW, social worker, and Mary Austin-Seymour, MD, associate professor. Biobehavioral Nursing and Health Systems, University of WA, Seattle, WA, USA

Objective: Symptom assessment and management are of the highest priority to oncology nurse clinicians. Portable electronic technology using notebook computers has been developed recently and tested for research participant data collection. Quality of life (QoL) questionnaires are often used in clinical research but infrequently in clinical practice. The purpose of this study was to develop and test the feasibility of a computerized survey method to rapidly identify radiation oncology patients experiencing low function levels in various quality of life dimensions.

Design: Cross-sectional, descriptive

Population, sample, setting, years: Outpatients in an urban, academic, radiation oncology outpatient setting were studied from February 2001-December 2001.

Variables Studied Together: Quality of life dimensions of the SF-12: physical function, physical role, bodily pain, general health, mental health, emotional role, social function, and vitality.

Methods: Each participant used a touch screen notebook computer to complete the SF-12 within the first week of treatment. The patient-generated data was automatically entered and archived in an Access database. Once the questionnaire was completed, the computer program generated a colored graphic report of items, flagging those items that were scored above an arbitrary level set by the nursing staff. Copies of the printed output were given to the primary clinicians and one copy was archived in a chronological notebook, accessible to nurses and other care givers.

Findings: One hundred fourteen patients agreed to complete the electronic questionnaire and 84 (74%) agreed to participate in the research database. Of these, 74 participants (36 women and 38 men) with a mean age of 54.7 years (SD=13.9) were able to complete the SF-12. Failure to complete the survey was due primarily to clinic time constraints. Responses above the preset cut levels were flagged in red on the computer-generated graph. The SF-12 items with the highest incidence of flagging included: ‘accomplished less due to physical health,’ ‘limited in work or other activities due to physical health,’ ‘accomplished less due to emotional problems’ and ‘didn’t do work or other activities due to emotional problems.’ Nurses utilized the graphic output to focus further assessment and interventions.

Conclusions: Electronic QoL assessment is feasible in a busy oncology outpatient setting. To increase completion rates, time must be set aside for routine survey administration prior to the appointment time in the clinic. With the use of this technology, the staff nurses were able to more rapidly identify problems than with prior standard practice.

Implications: Use of this technology could be a time saving strategy for nurses and other caregivers. Patient generated information becomes readily visible, which allows for prompt intervention when indicated. This has great implications for care in that nurses can be better prepared to meet the needs of patients with timely teaching and intervention.

Back to Technological Interventions in the Patient Experience
Back to The Advancing Nursing Practice Excellence: State of the Science