Initial development of Supportive care Assessment, Prioritization and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK), a symptom screening and management application

Healthcare professional perspectives following implementation of an infection management care pathway for pediatric patients with cancer: a qualitative study

PURPOSE

The Pediatric Oncology Group of Ontario (POGO) supported an effort to implement infection management care pathways based on clinical practice guidelines, to improve the consistency of infection management in pediatric cancer patients. The objective of this qualitative study was to describe the perspective of healthcare professionals (HCPs) following implementation.

METHODS

Four tertiary pediatric oncology centers in Ontario, Canada, implemented the pathways. We randomly identified three HCPs per group (clinical pharmacists; nurse case managers, educators or practitioners and physician assistants; pediatric oncology fellows; or pediatric oncology staff physicians) per site and invited them to participate in a qualitative interview. One-on-one interviews were conducted remotely, followed by thematic analysis of interview transcripts.

RESULTS

A total of 66 invitations were extended and 42 HCPs participated. Identified themes were: (1) implementation approach, (2) access and navigation, (3) engagement, (4) concerns, (5) workplace benefits, (6) reception, and (7) provincial harmonization. HCPs preferred in-person implementation strategies over e-mail communication. They identified teaching/educational utility and benefits to non-oncology departments and non-tertiary centers participating in shared care of patients. Other positive aspects related to evidence-based practice, safety, supporting oncology HCPs, and benefits to patients and families. Concerns included need to ensure users applied clinical judgement and loss of autonomy. Provincial harmonization of practice was viewed positively, although potential logistical and institutional cultural barriers were raised.

CONCLUSIONS

Following infection management care pathway implementation, HCPs described educational utility and benefits to non-oncology departments, oncology HCPs, patients, and families. Our findings may facilitate future infection management care pathway provincial harmonization.

Randomized trial of dyadic-report vs proxy-report and self-report symptom assessment for pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments

BACKGROUND

We validated different approaches to symptom assessment for pediatric cancer patients based on the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) for self-report (SSPedi and mini-SSPedi), proxy-report (proxy-SSPedi), and structured dyadic-report (co-SSPedi). The objective was to compare co-SSPedi scores vs proxy-report (proxy-SSPedi) and self-report (SSPedi or mini-SSPedi) scores for pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments.

METHODS

This was a single-center, randomized crossover study enrolling English-speaking dyads of pediatric patients with cancer or hematopoietic cell transplant recipients 4-18 years old and their guardians. Dyads were randomized to first complete the dyadic-report (co-SSPedi) or self-report (patients: SSPedi or mini-SSPedi) and proxy-report (guardians: proxy-SSPedi). Dyads then crossed over to the alternate approach. Primary analysis compared total SSPedi scores between randomized groups.

RESULTS

We enrolled 420 dyads that were randomized to co-SSPedi first (n = 213) or proxy-SSPedi and self-report SSPedi first (n = 207). Mean total SSPedi scores (± standard deviation) were co-SSPedi (9.6 ± 7.1), proxy-SSPedi (9.7 ± 7.5; P = .950 for comparison vs co-SSPedi), and self-report SSPedi (9.7 ± 8.2; P = .981 for comparison vs co-SSPedi). Co-SSPedi scores were significantly different from proxy-SSPedi for feeling disappointed or sad, feeling cranky or angry, feeling tired, mouth sores, and changes in taste. Co-SSPedi scores were significantly different from self-report SSPedi scores for problems with thinking or remembering things, feeling tired, mouth sores, tingly or numb hands or feet, and diarrhea.

CONCLUSIONS

Total co-SSPedi scores were not significantly different compared with proxy-report or self-report scores, although there were differences in specific symptom scores. If different reporter types are used during clinical implementation, specifying reporter type will be important. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT #05012917). Symptoms are common and frequently severely bothersome in pediatric patients with cancer and hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) recipients (1). To measure the extent of bothersome symptoms, the Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) suite of symptom assessment tools was developed for pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments and currently consists of multiple validated instruments. SSPedi was developed for self-report by patients 8-18 years of age (2,3). Mini-SSPedi was developed for self-report by patients 4 to 7 years of age (4). Proxy-SSPedi was developed for proxy-report by guardians of pediatric patients 2-18 years of age (5). These 3 instruments can be categorized as either self-report (SSPedi or mini-SSPedi) or proxy-report (proxy-SSPedi).

'Do you feel well or unwell?' A study on children's experience of estimating their nausea using the digital tool PicPecc

Research with childhood cancer has progressed greatly in recent years, resulting in much improved treatment that is more intensive. However, with this new treatment children often experience negative symptoms, and research shows that nausea is a symptom that most affects them. Pictorial support in person-centred care for children (PicPecc) is a digital picture-based tool for children who undergo treatment due to their cancer diagnosis and helps them more effectively communicate and self-report their symptoms and emotions. The aim of the study was to investigate children's experience of (i) using mHealth in nausea management and (ii) their acceptability of using an application (App). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight children aged five to fifteen years. Data were analysed with qualitative content analysis. The findings were presented in three categories: 1) Communicating feelings, 2) Playfulness generated in motivation and 3) App adaptable to children's capabilities. Using an App contributed to new opportunities for the children to participate in their care. They experienced their treatment in different ways and used different strategies to manage and distract themselves from their symptoms. Using the PicPecc App can increase healthcare staff's understanding of how children experience nausea when they undergo chemotherapy.

Chemo assist for children mobile health application to manage chemotherapy-related symptoms in acute leukemia in Indonesia: a user-centered design approach

BACKGROUND

A mobile health (mHealth) application can encourage parents and pediatric patients to be involved in caring for their child's health condition by providing the ability to identify and actively manage chemotherapy-related symptoms in their child. Several monitoring systems available today are diverse in features and system basis. This study aimed to develop and trial the Chemo Assist for Children (CAC) mHealth application for symptom management in children with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL).

METHODS

In this study, the development of the CAC application went through multiple phases and methods. Study phases included: (1) development of the application's feature based on the need assessment, (2) creation of content of application based on literature review, (3) develop prototyping of CAC, (4) expert review and feedback on the application content, (5) usability testing by targeted end-user.

RESULTS

Based on need assessment, it was determined that parents with leukemia children were interested in symptom management of chemotherapy and preferred mobile applications. Therefore, a mHealth application was designed to include features to identify symptoms and provide recommendation strategies to manage the symptom. Usability evaluation by end-user revealed that mHealth is a valid, accessible, and appropriate application for users.

CONCLUSIONS

The CAC mHealth application developed can meet the needs of technology users to identify symptoms and manage chemotherapy-related symptoms in children with ALL. The CAC mHealth application can accommodate data not recorded at out-of-hospital care, increase the independence of symptom management, and improve communication between parents of children with ALL and health workers.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Pediatric Patients With Cancer

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reported directly by the patients about their own health. The objective of this article was to provide an overview of PROs in pediatric cancer, to describe how PROs can be incorporated into pediatric cancer clinical trials, and to discuss how PROs can guide symptom management treatment choices in pediatric oncology. Pediatric patient self-report provides a distinct voice in describing their experience compared with family caregiver or clinician report. Thus, every effort should be made to allow children to self-report symptoms, functioning, and other quality-of-life impacts and to use that data to inform treatment decision making. In addition to its incorporation into routine clinical care, it is also important to incorporate PROs into clinical trials to understand the patient experience of treatment toxicities and their impact on quality of life. Key considerations include clearly articulated PRO aims, selection of outcomes, choice of PRO measures, and frequency of PRO assessments. Once PROs are integrated into routine clinical care, it will be important to enable evidence-based symptom management. Strategies should be based on clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Development and adaptation of care pathways on the basis of CPGs is one approach to standardize evidence-based symptom management at individual institutions. PROs are important to pediatric patients with cancer and their families. Self-report should be emphasized wherever possible. Approaches to enable PRO reporting into routine clinical care and enable preventative and therapeutic actions for symptom management are important. These efforts will optimize quality of life for pediatric patients with cancer.

Symptom management care pathway adaptation process and specific adaptation decisions

BACKGROUND

There is substantial heterogeneity in symptom management provided to pediatric patients with cancer. The primary objective was to describe the adaptation process and specific adaptation decisions related to symptom management care pathways based on clinical practice guidelines. The secondary objective evaluated if institutional factors were associated with adaptation decisions.

METHODS

Fourteen previously developed symptom management care pathway templates were reviewed by an institutional adaptation team composed of two clinicians at each of 10 institutions. They worked through each statement for all care pathway templates sequentially. The institutional adaptation team made the decision to adopt, adapt or reject each statement, resulting in institution-specific symptom management care pathway drafts. Institutional adaption teams distributed the 14 care pathway drafts to their respective teams; their feedback led to care pathway modifications.

RESULTS

Initial care pathway adaptation decision making was completed over a median of 4.2 (interquartile range 2.0-5.3) weeks per institution. Across all institutions and among 1350 statements, 551 (40.8%) were adopted, 657 (48.7%) were adapted, 86 (6.4%) were rejected and 56 (4.1%) were no longer applicable because of a previous decision. Most commonly, the reason for rejection was not agreeing with the statement (70/86, 81.4%). Institutional-level factors were not significantly associated with statement rejection.

CONCLUSIONS

Acceptability of the 14 care pathways was evident by most statements being adopted or adapted. The adaptation process was accomplished over a relatively short timeframe. Future work should focus on evaluation of care pathway compliance and determination of the impact of care pathway-consistent care on patient outcomes.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

clinicaltrials.gov, NCT04614662. Registered 04/11/2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04614662?term=NCT04614662&draw=2&rank=1 .

Feasibility of three times weekly symptom screening in pediatric cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

Primary objective was to determine the feasibility of three times weekly symptom reporting by pediatric cancer patients for eight weeks.

METHODS

We included English-speaking patients 8-18 years of age with cancer. Patients were sent reminders by text or email to complete Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) three times weekly for eight weeks. When patients reported at least one severely bothersome symptom, the symptom report was emailed to the primary healthcare team. Patient-reported outcomes were obtained at baseline, week 4 ± 1 and week 8 ± 1. Symptom documentation, intervention provision for symptoms and unplanned healthcare encounters were determined by chart review at weeks 4 and 8. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as at least 75% patients achieving adherence with at least 60% of SSPedi evaluations. We planned to enroll successive cohorts until this threshold was met.

RESULTS

Two cohorts consisting of 30 patients (cohort 1 (n = 20) and cohort 2 (n = 10)) were required to meet the feasibility threshold. In cohort 1, 11/20 (55%) met the SSPedi completion threshold. Interventions applied after cohort 1 included engaging parents to facilitate pediatric patient self-report, offering mechanisms to remember username and password and highlighting potential benefits of symptom feedback to clinicians. In cohort 2, 9/10 (90%) met the SSPedi completion threshold and thus feasibility was met. Patient-reported outcomes and chart review outcomes were obtained for all participants in cohort 2.

CONCLUSIONS

Three times weekly symptom reporting by pediatric patients with cancer for eight weeks was feasible. Mechanisms to enhance three times weekly symptom reporting were identified and implemented. Future studies of longitudinal symptom screening can now be planned.

Creating and adapting an infection management care pathway in pediatric oncology

PURPOSE

While care pathways based upon clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important, little is known about optimal approaches to development and adaptation in pediatric oncology. Objectives were to develop care pathway templates for pediatric cancer supportive care that are based upon CPGs and to adapt an infection management care pathway for use at a single institution.

METHODS

Study phases were as follows: (1) creation of care pathway templates across multiple supportive care topics; (2) refinement of the infection management care pathway template by interviewing pediatric oncology clinicians at a single institution; and (3) adaptation of the infection management care pathway template for use at a different institution.

RESULTS

Informed by seven CPGs, an initial iteration of the infection management care pathway template was created. This template was then refined based upon 20 interviews with pediatric oncology clinicians. Adaptation of the infection management care pathway template for use at a different institution required many changes to improve its clinical usability. Specificity and additional information not considered by the source CPGs were incorporated.

CONCLUSION

We developed a process to create care pathway templates across multiple supportive care topics in pediatric oncology and to refine and adapt the infection management care pathway. While we found that the process was feasible, we also identified the need to substantially modify the care pathway during the adaptation process to consider scenarios not addressed by the source CPGs. Future work should measure implementation success.

Barriers to symptom management care pathway implementation in pediatric Cancer

BACKGROUND

Objectives were to describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation.

METHODS

We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators prior to randomization to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree.

RESULTS

Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P = 0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic may not be a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology.

Readiness to Implement Symptom Management Care Pathways in Pediatric Cancer

Background: To describe barriers to pediatric cancer symptom management care pathway implementation and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research evaluating their implementation. Methods: We included 25 pediatric oncology hospitals in the United States that supported a grant submission to perform a cluster randomized trial in which the intervention encompassed care pathways for symptom management. A survey was distributed to site principal investigators to measure contextual elements related to care pathway implementation. Questions included the inner setting measures of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), study-specific potential barriers and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on clinical research. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare characteristics of institutions that agreed that their department supported the implementation of symptom management care pathways vs. institutions that did not agree. Results: Of the 25 sites, one withdrew because of resource constraints and one did not respond, leaving 23 institutions. Among the seven CFIR constructs, the least supported was implementation climate; 57% agreed there was support, 39% agreed there was recognition and 39% agreed there was prioritization for symptom management care pathway implementation at their institution. Most common barriers were lack of person-time to create care pathways and champion their use (35%), lack of interest from physicians (30%) and lack of information technology resources (26%). Most sites reported no negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic across research activities. Sites with fewer pediatric cancer patients were more likely to agree that staff are supported to implement symptom management care pathways (P=0.003). Conclusions: The most commonly reported barriers to implementation were lack of support, recognition and prioritization. The COVID-19 pandemic was not a major barrier to clinical research activities in pediatric oncology. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT04614662.

Development of the SPARK family member web pages to improve symptom management for pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments

Background

Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK) is a web-based application that facilitates symptom screening and access to supportive care clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for children and adolescents receiving cancer treatments. Objective was to develop SPARK family member web pages for pediatric patient family members accessing: (1) proxy symptom screening and symptom reports, and (2) care recommendations for symptom management based on CPGs.

Methods

SPARK family member web pages were developed and included access to symptom screening and care recommendations sections. Care recommendations for fatigue and mucositis were created. These were iteratively refined based upon cognitive interviews with English-speaking family members ≥16 years of age until less than two participants incorrectly understood sections as adjudicated by two independent raters.

Results

A total of 100 family members were enrolled who evaluated the SPARK family member web pages (n = 40), fatigue care recommendation (n = 30) and mucositis prevention care recommendation (n = 30). Among the last 10 participants, none said that the SPARK family member web pages were hard or very hard to use, one incorrectly understood one web page, none said either care recommendation was hard to understand and none were incorrect in their understanding of the care recommendations.

Conclusions

We successfully developed SPARK web pages for use by family members of pediatric patients receiving cancer treatments. We also developed a process for translating CPG recommendations designed for healthcare professionals to lay language. The utility of SPARK family member web pages after clinical implementation could be a focus for future research.

Feasibility of a randomized controlled trial of symptom screening and feedback to healthcare providers compared with standard of care using the SPARK platform

PURPOSE

Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK) is a web-based application that enables symptom screening and access to clinical practice guidelines for symptom management. Objective was to determine the feasibility of a randomized trial of daily symptom screening for 5 days among children receiving cancer treatments.

METHODS

We included English-speaking pediatric cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) patients who were 8-18 years of age at enrollment and who were expected to be in the hospital or in clinic daily for five consecutive days. We randomized children to either undergo daily symptom screening with symptom reports provided to the healthcare team using the SPARK vs. standard of care. The primary endpoint was feasibility, defined as being able to enroll at least 30 participants within 1 year, and among those randomized to intervention, at least 75% completing symptom screening on at least 60% of on-study days.

RESULTS

From July 2018 to November 2018, we enrolled and randomized 30 participants. The median age at enrollment was 12.5 (range 8-18) years. Among the intervention group, the median number of days Symptom Screening in Pediatrics Tool (SSPedi) was completed at least once was 5 (range 4 to 5), with one participant missing 1 day of symptom screening. Among all participants, baseline and day 5 SSPedi scores were obtained in 29/30 participants.

CONCLUSION

A randomized trial of the SPARK with daily symptom screening for 5 days was feasible. It is now appropriate to proceed toward a definitive multi-center trial to test the efficacy of SPARK to improve symptom control.

Longitudinal evaluation of Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK), a symptom screening and management application

Background

Supportive care Prioritization, Assessment and Recommendations for Kids (SPARK) is a web application focused on improving symptom control. It enables pediatric cancer and hematopoietic stem cell transplant (HSCT) patients to self-report and track symptoms, and allows healthcare professionals to access guidelines for symptom management. Objective was to determine the feasibility of longitudinal collection of symptom data.

Methods

In this longitudinal, single-armed feasibility study, respondents were children 8–18 years of age with cancer or pediatric HSCT recipients. Participants completed symptom reporting daily for 5 days. Cognitive interviews were conducted on day 5. Quantitative evaluation included SPARK ease of use and understandability of SPARK reports. Qualitative feedback on facilitators and barriers to daily symptom screening was solicited. Feasibility was defined as ≥75% of participants completing symptom screening on at least 60% of on-study days during the five-day study.

Results

Among the 30 children enrolled, the median number of days SSPedi was completed at least once was 5 (range 3 to 5). Overall, 28/29 (96.6%) thought completing symptom screening using SPARK was easy or very easy. All participants understood SPARK symptom reports. Severe symptoms was the most common barrier to daily reporting while an alarm reminder system was the most commonly identified facilitator.

Conclusions

Daily completion of symptom screening using SPARK over 5 days was feasible in children aged 8 to 18 years with cancer and pediatric HSCT recipients. SPARK is now appropriate for use in randomized trials to evaluate the effect of symptom screening and symptom feedback.