The Role of the Advanced Practitioner in a Comprehensive Lung Cancer Screening and Pulmonary Nodule Program

An Assessment of Distress Levels of Patients Undergoing Lung Cancer Treatment and Surveillance During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The purpose of this quality improvement initiative was to identify anxious/distressed lung cancer patients and address their mental health needs directly related to the COVID-19. A total of 441 patients were screened utilizing a national distress thermometer. 47% were counseled by the NP, 32% sent for referral to the social worker. Patients reported reasons for distress as fear of delaying testing, contracting the virus and changes in their lifestyle. We found that screening all patients during the pandemic, yielded a higher than normal percentage of patients who were in need of some level of mental health services.

Patient vs Clinician Perspectives on Communication About Results of Lung Cancer Screening: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

In the incidental pulmonary nodule and breast cancer screening settings, high-quality patient-centered communication can improve adherence to evaluation and mitigate patient distress. Although guidelines emphasize shared decision-making before lung cancer screening, little is known about patient-clinician communication after lung cancer screening.

RESEARCH QUESTION

How do patients and clinicians perceive communication and results notification after lung cancer screening, and are there approaches that may mitigate or exacerbate distress?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

We conducted interviews and focus groups with 49 patients who underwent lung cancer screening in the prior year and 36 clinicians who communicate screening results (primary care providers, pulmonologists, nurses), recruited from lung cancer screening programs at 4 hospitals. We analyzed transcripts using conventional content analysis.

RESULTS

Clinicians and patients diverged in their impressions of the quality of communication after lung cancer screening. Clinicians recognized the potential for patient distress and tailored their approach to disclosure based on how clinically concerning they perceived results to be. Disclosure of normal or low-risk findings usually occurred by letter; clinicians believed this process was efficient and well received by patients. Yet many patients were dissatisfied: several could not recall receiving results at all, and others reported that receiving results by letter left them confused and concerned, with little opportunity to ask questions. By contrast, patients with larger nodules typically received results during an immediate phone call or clinic visit, and both patients and clinicians agreed that these conversations represented high-quality communication that met patient needs. Regardless of their cancer risk, patients who learned their results in a conversation appreciated the opportunity to discuss both the meaning of the nodule and the evaluation plan, and to have their concerns addressed, preempting distress.

INTERPRETATION

Tension exists between clinicians' interest in efficiency of results notification by letter in low-risk cases and patients' need to understand and be reassured about screening results, their implications, and the plan for subsequent screening or nodule evaluation-even when clinicians did not perceive results as concerning. Brief conversations to discuss lung cancer screening results may improve patient understanding and satisfaction while reducing distress.

Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Shared Decision-making in Early Adopting Lung Cancer Screening Programs: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Guidelines recommend, and Medicare requires, shared decision-making between patients and clinicians before referring individuals at high risk of lung cancer for chest CT screening. However, little is known about the extent to which shared decision-making about lung cancer screening is achieved in real-world settings.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize patient and clinician impressions of early experiences with communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening and perceived barriers to achieving shared decision-making.

DESIGN

Qualitative study entailing semi-structured interviews and focus groups.

PARTICIPANTS

We enrolled 36 clinicians who refer patients for lung cancer screening and 49 patients who had undergone lung cancer screening in the prior year. Participants were recruited from lung cancer screening programs at four hospitals (three Veterans Health Administration, one urban safety net).

APPROACH

Using content analysis, we analyzed transcripts to characterize communication and decision-making about lung cancer screening. Our analysis focused on the recommended components of shared decision-making (information sharing, deliberation, and decision aid use) and barriers to achieving shared decision-making.

KEY RESULTS

Clinicians varied in the information shared with patients, and did not consistently incorporate decision aids. Clinicians believed they explained the rationale and gave some (often purposely limited) information about the trade-offs of lung cancer screening. By contrast, some patients reported receiving little information about screening or its trade-offs and did not realize the CT was intended as a screening test for lung cancer. Clinicians and patients alike did not perceive that significant deliberation typically occurred. Clinicians perceived insufficient time, competing priorities, difficulty accessing decision aids, limited patient comprehension, and anticipated patient emotions as barriers to realizing shared decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Due to multiple perceived barriers, patient-clinician conversations about lung cancer screening may fall short of guideline-recommended shared decision-making supported by a decision aid. Consequently, patients may be left uncertain about lung cancer screening's rationale, trade-offs, and process.

Patient navigation for lung cancer screening in an urban safety-net system: Protocol for a pragmatic randomized clinical trial

The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated improved lung cancer mortality with annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) screening, leading to lung cancer screening endorsement by the United States Preventive Services Task Force and coverage by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid. Adherence to annual CT screens in that trial was 95%, which may not be representative of real-world, particularly medically underserved populations. This pragmatic trial will determine the effect of patient-focused, telephone-based patient navigation on adherence to CT-based lung cancer screening in an urban safety-net population. 340 adults who meet standard eligibility for lung cancer screening (age 55-77years, smoking history≥30 pack-years, quit within 15years if former smoker) are referred through an electronic medical record-based order by physicians in community- and hospital-based primary care settings within the Parkland Health and Hospital System in Dallas County, Texas. Eligible patients are randomized to usual care or patient navigation, which addresses adherence, patient-reported barriers, smoking cessation, and psycho-social concerns related to screening completion. Patients complete surveys and semi-structured interviews at baseline, 6-month, and 18-month follow-ups to assess attitudes toward screening. The primary endpoint of this pragmatic trial is adherence to three sequential, prospectively defined steps in the screening protocol. Secondary endpoints include self-reported tobacco use and other patient-reported outcomes. Results will provide real-world insight into the impact of patient navigation on adherence to CT-based lung cancer screening in a medically underserved population. This study was registered with the NIH ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02758054) on April 26, 2016.