Development and prospective evaluation of CAPLET, a cancer ambulatory patient physical function longitudinal evaluation tool for routine clinical practice

Self-reported MeasUrement of Physical and PsychosOcial Symptoms Response Tool (SUPPORT-dialysis): systematic symptom assessment and management in patients on in-centre haemodialysis - a parallel arm, non-randomised feasibility pilot study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients with kidney failure experience symptoms that are often under-recognised and undermanaged. These symptoms negatively impact health-related quality of life and are associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Regular symptom assessment, using electronic patient reported outcomes measure (ePROMs) linked to systematic symptom management, could improve such outcomes. Clinical implementation of ePROMs have been successful in routine oncology care, but not used for patients on dialysis. In this study, we describe a pilot study of ePROM-based systematic symptom monitoring and management intervention in patients treated with in-centre haemodialysis.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This is a parallel-arm, controlled pilot of adult patients receiving in-centre maintenance haemodialysis. Participants in the intervention arm will complete ePROMs once a month for 6 months. ePROMs will be scored real time and the results will be shared with participants and with the clinical team. Moderate-severe symptoms will be flagged using established cut-off scores. Referral options for those symptoms will be shared with the clinical team, and additional symptom management resources will also be provided for both participants and clinicians. Participants in the control arm will be recruited at a different dialysis unit, to prevent contamination. They will receive usual care, except that they will complete ePROMs without the presentation of results to participants of the clinical team. The primary objectives of the pilot are to assess (1) the feasibility of a larger, randomised clinical effectiveness trial and (2) the acceptability of the intervention. Interviews conducted with participants and staff will be assessed using a content analysis approach.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for this study was obtained from the University Health Network (REB#21-5199) and the William Osler Health System (#23-0005). All study procedures will be conducted in accordance with the standards of University Health Network research ethics board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Results of this study will be shared with participants, patients on dialysis and other stakeholders using lay language summaries, oral presentations to patients and nephrology professionals. We will also be publishing the results in a peer-reviewed journal and at scientific meetings.

PROTOCOL VERSION

4 (16 November 2022).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05515991.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care: preliminary insights from a multinational scoping survey of oncology practitioners

Background

There exists scant evidence on the optimal approaches to integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice. This study gathered oncology practitioners’ experiences with implementing PROs in cancer care.

Methods

Between December 2019 and June 2020, we surveyed practitioners who reported spending > 5% of their time providing clinical care to cancer patients. Respondents completed an online survey describing their experiences with and barriers to using PROs in clinical settings.

Results

In total, 362 practitioners (physicians 38.7%, nurses 46.7%, allied health professionals 14.6%) completed the survey, representing 41 countries (Asia–Pacific 42.5%, North America 30.1%, Europe 24.0%, others 3.3%). One quarter (25.4%) identified themselves as “high frequency users” who conducted PRO assessments on > 80% of their patients. Practitioners commonly used PROs to facilitate communication (60.2%) and monitor treatment responses (52.6%). The most commonly reported implementation barriers were a lack of technological support (70.4%) and absence of a robust workflow to integrate PROs in clinical care (61.5%). Compared to practitioners from high-income countries, more practitioners in low-middle income countries reported not having access to a local PRO expert (P < .0001) and difficulty in identifying the appropriate PRO domains (P = .006). Compared with nurses and allied health professionals, physicians were more likely to perceive disruptions in clinical care during PRO collection (P = .001) as an implementation barrier.

Conclusions

Only a quarter of the surveyed practitioners reported capturing PROs in routine clinical practice. The implementation barriers to PRO use varied across respondents in different professions and levels of socioeconomic resources. Our findings can be applied to guide planning and implementation of PRO collection in cancer care.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06545-7.