Annals of Oncology Advance Access originally published online on July 17, 2009
Annals of Oncology 2009 20(12):1929-1935; doi:10.1093/annonc/mdp287
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
supportive and palliative care |
Clinician versus nurse symptom reporting using the National Cancer Institute—Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events during chemotherapy: results of a comparison based on patient's self-reported questionnaire
1 Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale ‘Sacro Cuore - Don Calabria’ Negrar (Verona)
2 Unit of Epidemiology and Medical Statistics, Department of Medicine and public Health, University of Verona, Italy
* Correspondence to: Dr M. Venturini, Department of Medical Oncology, Ospedale ‘Sacro Cuore - Don Calabria’, Via Sempreboni 1, Negrar (Verona), Italy. Tel: +00390456013472; Fax: +00390456013411; E-mail: venturini.m{at}gmail.com
Background: Monitoring adverse events during chemotherapy by clinicians is a standard practice but clinicians may report fewer side-effects or lower symptom severity than patients. Our aim was to compare symptoms self-reported by patients with symptoms registered by clinicians and nurses, to assess validity of a nurse reporting.
Methods: From April to August 2007, a double-blind questionnaire with 13 common items graduated according to the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events was completed by clinicians and nurses for outpatients undergoing chemotherapy at our Medical Oncology Day Hospital Unit. Patients completed a modified questionnaire with simplified terms. They were requested to specify seriousness of symptoms with a subjective scale varying from 1 to 4. Every patient–nurse–clinician questionnaire was registered for the statistical analysis. Agreement was evaluated by Cohen's kappa coefficient.
Results: Eighty-five paired questionnaires were completed. Patients, nurses and clinicians agreed on most symptoms and toxicity grade. Agreements between patients and nurses were stronger than those between patients and physicians for the six most common symptoms: asthenia (kappa 75% versus 37%), constipation (83% versus 45%), neuropathy (82% versus 55%), mucositis (78% versus 46%) and diarrhoea (90% versus 77%). These differences mainly reflected differences in the proportion of positive agreement: nurses were more able to detect symptoms self-reported by patients than physicians. The only exception was nausea, as kappa coefficient was very good for both health professionals (91% versus 89%). When considering the different grade of toxicity by the weighted kappa coefficient, we scored again the highest agreement between patient and nurse, with weighted kappa ranging from 55% (asthenia) to 86% (diarrhoea), and the lowest agreement between patient and physician, with weighted kappa ranging from 32% (asthenia) to 74% (nausea). The agreement between physician and nurse slightly improved, with weighted kappa ranging from 41% (constipation) to 77% (nausea).
Conclusion: Our results support the validity of nurse toxicity reporting and that the nurse staff could be successfully employed in collecting toxicity data because of a greater ability to elicit information from patients than the medical staff.
Key words: agreement, nurse, patient-related outcome, questionnaire, toxicity
Received for publication November 30, 2008. Revision received April 15, 2009. Accepted for publication April 20, 2009.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  E. Basch Patient-reported outcomes in drug safety evaluation Ann. Onc., December 1, 2009; 20(12): 1905 - 1906. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|