What can I do? Recommendations for responding to issues identified by patient-reported outcomes assessments used in clinical practice

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) measures may be used as the basis for out-patient follow-up instead of fixed appointments. The patients attend follow-up from home by filling in questionnaires developed for that specific aim and patient group (telePRO). The questionnaires are handled in real time by a specific algorithm, which assigns an outcome color reflecting clinical need. The specific questionnaires and algorithms (named solutions) are constructed in a consensus process with clinicians. We aimed to describe AmbuFlex' telePRO solutions and the algorithm outcomes and variation between patient groups, and to discuss possible applications and challenges.

METHODS

TelePRO solutions with more than 100 processed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved together with data from national registers. Characteristics of patients, questionnaires and outcomes were tabulated for each solution. Graphs were constructed depicting the overall and within-patient distribution of algorithm outcomes for each solution.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2021, 29 specific telePRO solutions were implemented within 24 different ICD-10 groups. A total of 42,015 patients were referred and answered 171,268 questionnaires. An existing applicable instrument with cut-off values was available for four solutions, whereas items were selected or developed ad hoc for the other solutions. Mean age ranged from 10.7 (Pain in children) to 73.3 years (chronic kidney disease). Mortality among referred patients varied between 0 (obesity, asthma, endometriosis and pain in children) and 528 per 1000 patient years (Lung cancer). There was substantial variation in algorithm outcome across patient groups while different solutions within the same patient group varied little.

DISCUSSION

TelePRO can be applied in diseases where PRO can reflect clinical status and needs. Questionnaires and algorithms should be adapted for the specific patient groups and clinical aims. When PRO is used as replacement for clinical contact, special carefulness should be observed with respect to patient safety.

Can patient-reported outcome measures be used to predict consultation needs in patients with psoriasis?: A survey study

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are emerging tools used to capture a patient’s daily health status and enhance communication between patients and healthcare professionals. This study examined whether PROMs can be used to predict consultation needs in an outpatient clinic setting including patients diagnosed with psoriasis.

Method

We evaluated a nationally developed set of PROMs for psoriasis patients, which included a standard set of questionnaires that capture patients’ perceptions of their experience and quality of life. Patients (n = 187) answered the psoriasis PROMs prior to an in-person consultation. Their responses were evaluated alongside patient, doctor, and nurse opinions on whether the subsequent consultation was necessary. Additionally, comments about the consultations from the patient, doctor, and nurse were collected and provided insights as to why certain consultations were deemed necessary.

Results

Comparing the patient, doctor, and nurse responses addressing a need for consultation compared to the coded psoriasis PROMs results (red or green/yellow outcome), 23% of the patients with a green/yellow outcome were in need of a doctor’s consultation. Upon considering a subset of psoriasis PROMs questionnaires that reflect subjective responses (e.g., DLQI, PEST, MDI-2, and side effects), the proportion of patients that yielded a green/yellow outcome and were identified to require a doctor consultation increased to approximately 45%.

Conclusions

The preliminary results show that the psoriasis PROMs were supportive in the consultation but alone cannot sufficiently guide healthcare professionals to determine whether in-person consultations are required.

The association between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient participation in chronic care: A scoping review

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly applied in chronic care due to their many functionalities and synergies with current healthcare policies. The participatory potential of PROs is especially emphasised in the Danish context. This review scrutinises the association between PRO and patient participation in chronic care.

METHODS

This scoping review adheres to PRISMA-ScR guidelines, and the synthesis is based on narrative and thematic analyses.

RESULTS

Eighty-four articles were deemed eligible. The association between PRO and patient participation regards seven themes: PRO development, response rates and patient burden, patient empowerment and self-management, display and quality of data, patient-clinician communication, shared decision-making, and organisational and attitudinal aspects. Lack of knowledge, actor attitudes, organisational setup, and technological infrastructure act as the main barriers.

CONCLUSION

The connection between PROs and patient participation is dialectic and unfolds in three phases-before, during, and after patient-clinician consultation. Knowledge regarding the last phase is particularly scarce. Henceforth, studies should address how to include a broader segment of patients, PROs participatory effects over time and PROs impact on patients' everyday lives.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The review provides knowledge concerning the association between PROs and patient participation to enhance future chronic care, research, and discussions in the area.

Implementation of thyroid-related patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical practice to improve clinical care. Multiple studies show that systematic use of PROs can enhance communication with patients and improve patient satisfaction, symptom management and quality of life. Further, such data can be aggregated to examine health levels for patient groups, improve quality of care, and compare patient outcomes at the institutional, regional or national level. However, there are barriers and challenges that should be handled appropriately to achieve successful implementation of PROs in routine clinical practice. This paper briefly overviews thyroid-related PROs, describes unsolved quality of life issues in benign thyroid diseases, provides examples of routine collection of PROs, and summarizes key points facilitating successful implementation of thyroid-related PROs in routine clinical practice. Finally, the paper touches upon future directions of PRO research.

The Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used with Low Back Pain and the Attitude of Primary Healthcare Practitioners in Saudi Arabia toward Them

Background and objectives: The use of appropriate outcome measures can help guide multidimensional low back pain (LBP) management, elucidate the efficacy/effectiveness of interventions, and inform clinicians when selected targets have been achieved and this can be used for educational or research purposes. Aim: This study aimed to explore and describe the use, attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding patient-reported outcome measures used by healthcare practitioners practising in Saudi Arabia who are frequently involved in the healthcare of individuals with LBP. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional design was undertaken using a web-based survey. An electronic invitation to participate was sent to primary care physicians and physical therapists practising in Saudi Arabia. The survey included three sections: demographic data, a list of the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures with LBP patients, and statements regarding attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about outcome measures. Results: A total of 156 practitioners participated: 45 primary care physicians and 111 physical therapists. The numeric pain rating and visual analogue scales were the outcome measures most frequently reported as being often used by both primary care physicians and physical therapists. The majority of participants reported often using 1-2 patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). While most participants indicated that they were confident at selecting the most appropriate PROM, fewer were familiar with the concept of the minimally important clinical difference. A lack of Arabic versions of PROMs was reported as a barrier to using them to assess pain. Conclusions: This study shows that, although primary care physicians and physical therapists in Saudi Arabia frequently use patient-reported outcome measures in their clinical management of patients with LBP, there is a noticeable gap in the knowledge and use of the multidimensional outcome measures for LBP management among the participants. This highlights a need for professional training on the use of standardised outcome measures related to LBP.

Using the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) to Support Self-management of Symptoms and Functional Health: Evaluation of Hematological Patient Use of a Web-Based Patient Portal

Background

Patient portals offer the possibility to assess patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) remotely, and first evidence has demonstrated their potential benefits.

Objective

In this study, we evaluated patient use of a web-based patient portal that provides patient information and allows online completion of PROMs. A particular focus was on patient motivation for (not) using the portal. The portal was developed to supplement routine monitoring at the Department of Internal Medicine V in Innsbruck.

Methods

We included patients with multiple myeloma and chronic lymphocytic leukemia who were already participating in routine monitoring at the hospital for use of the patient portal. Patients were introduced to the portal and asked to complete questionnaires prior to their next hospital visits. We used system access logs and 3 consecutive semistructured interviews to analyze patient use and evaluation of the portal.

Results

Between July 2017 and August 2020, we approached 122 patients for participation in the study, of whom 83.6% (102/122) consented to use the patient portal. Patients were on average 60 (SD 10.4) years old. Of patients providing data at all study time points, 37% (26/71) consistently used the portal prior to their hospital visits. The main reason for not completing PROMs was forgetting to do so in between visits (25/84, 29%). During an average session, patients viewed 5.3 different pages and spent 9.4 minutes logged on to the portal. Feedback from interviews was largely positive with no patients reporting difficulties navigating the survey and 50% of patients valuing the self-management tools provided in the portal. Regarding the portal content, patients were interested in reviewing their own results and reported high satisfaction with the dynamic self-management advice, also reflected in the high number of clicks on those pages.

Conclusions

Patient portals can contribute to patient empowerment by offering sought-after information and self-management advice. In our study, the majority of our patients were open to using the portal. The low number of technical complaints and average time spent in the portal demonstrate the feasibility of our patient portal. While initial interest was high, long-term use was considerably lower and identified as the main area for improvement. In a next step, we will improve several aspects of the patient portal (eg, including a reminder to visit the portal before the next appointment and closer PROM symptom monitoring via an onconurse).

Developing theory-informed knowledge translation strategies to facilitate the use of patient-reported outcome measures in interdisciplinary low back pain clinical practices in Quebec: mixed methods study

Background

There is a growing interest among healthcare providers (HCPs) to use Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in clinical care. PROMs can help improve patient-care provider communication and may be used to inform the need for interdisciplinary care for Low Back Pain (LBP). However, PROM implementation to support clinical decision-making is complex and requires knowledge translation (KT) interventions that will overcome barriers to using PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical settings.

Objectives

to 1) identify potential barriers and enablers to using PROMs in primary care LBP clinical practice from the perspective of healthcare team members, and 2) develop a theory-based tailored KT intervention to facilitate the use of PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical practice.

Methods

We invited 25 HCPs working in an interdisciplinary team to complete a self-administered survey designed based on the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) to identify the barriers and enablers to using PROM scores in LBP clinical practice. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and included open-ended questions (qualitative). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed to estimate the frequency of barriers and enablers. Findings were then reviewed by a panel of four KT experts who mapped behaviour change techniques to barriers identified that informed the design of a KT intervention.

Results

Eighteen HCPs responded to the survey. Factors identified as likely to restrict the use of PROM scores included knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, goals, decision processes, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, behavioural regulation, and social influence. A multi-component evidence-based KT intervention was proposed by the panel of experts to address these barriers: a training workshop; educational materials; and use of PROM score reports to HCPs that were all delivered by an opinion leader.

Conclusion

The routine use of PROMs in clinical practice may optimize the quality of LBP care and improve patients’ outcomes. The proposed multi-component KT intervention is expected to be an effective strategy to increase HCPs’ ability to integrate PROMs into clinical decision-making and to engage patients in their care.

A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery

Background

Advances in peri-operative care of surgical oncology patients result in shorter hospital stays. Earlier discharge may bring benefits, but complications can occur while patients are recovering at home. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems may enhance remote, real-time symptom monitoring and detection of complications after hospital discharge, thereby improving patient safety and outcomes. Evidence of the effectiveness of ePRO systems in surgical oncology is lacking. This pilot study evaluated the feasibility of a real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery.

Methods

A pilot study in two UK hospitals included patients who had undergone cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery. Participants completed the ePRO symptom-report at discharge, twice in the first week and weekly post-discharge. Symptom-report completeness, system actions, barriers to using the ePRO system and technical performance were examined. The ePRO surgery system is an online symptom-report that allows clinicians to view patient symptom-reports within hospital electronic health records and was developed as part of the eRAPID project. Clinically derived algorithms provide patients with tailored self-management advice, prompts to contact a clinician or automated clinician alerts depending on symptom severity. Interviews with participants and clinicians determined the acceptability of the ePRO system to support patients and their clinical management during recovery.

Results

Ninety-one patients were approached, of which 40 consented to participate (27 male, mean age 64 years). Symptom-report response rates were high (range 63–100%). Of 197 ePRO completions analysed, 76 (39%) triggered self-management advice, 72 (36%) trigged advice to contact a clinician, 9 (5%) triggered a clinician alert and 40 (20%) did not require advice. Participants found the ePRO system reassuring, providing timely information and advice relevant to supporting their recovery. Clinicians regarded the system as a useful adjunct to usual care, by signposting patients to seek appropriate help and enhancing their understanding of patients’ experiences during recovery.

Conclusion

Use of the ePRO system for the real-time, remote monitoring of symptoms in patients recovering from cancer-related upper gastrointestinal surgery is feasible and acceptable. A definitive randomised controlled trial is needed to evaluate the impact of the system on patients’ wellbeing after hospital discharge.

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Symptoms and Impact Questionnaire: feasibility of utilizing one-day versus seven-day symptom reporting

Patient-reported outcomes are important measures to include in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials but are not widely utilized in clinical practice. Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension—Symptoms and Impact Questionnaire (PAH-SYMPACT) is the only pulmonary arterial hypertension-specific patient-reported outcomes instrument developed and validated in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration guidance on patient-reported outcomes development. The PAH-SYMPACT tool measures pulmonary arterial hypertension-related symptoms and impact of pulmonary arterial hypertension on daily life. Symptoms are reported each day for seven consecutive days, and the impact of pulmonary arterial hypertension over one week is recalled and reported on day 7; however, daily symptom reporting may overburden patients and healthcare resources, limiting the practicality of PAH-SYMPACT outside of clinical trials. To determine the practicability of an abridged version of PAH-SYMPACT for which all reporting is completed on one day, symptom data from the SYMPHONY trial (NCT01841762; PAH-SYMPACT validation study) were retrospectively analyzed to assess whether symptoms reported on each day correlated with the weekly average and whether one-day symptom scores were sensitive to disease severity. Correlation coefficients comparing the weekly average and individual day symptom scores were mostly high or very high regardless of the day they were measured. Findings were similar when using either Spearman's rank correlation or weighted kappa method. One-day symptom scores differentiated well between World Health Organization functional classes II and III/IV pulmonary arterial hypertension and were sensitive to change in disease severity as measured by the Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity. These data suggest that the one-day PAH-SYMPACT is feasible and appropriate for routine implementation in clinical practice.

Interpreting and Acting on PRO Results in Clinical Practice: Lessons Learned From the PatientViewpoint System and Beyond

INTRODUCTION

We have used several methods to aid in the interpretation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) scores, and to suggest recommendations for acting on them, both within the PatientViewpoint system and in work done since.

METHODS FOR INTERPRETING PRO SCORES

For identifying possibly concerning change scores, PatientViewpoint uses questionnaires' minimally important differences or score worsening >½ SD. For poor scores in absolute terms, PatientViewpoint primarily uses distributions based on normative data (eg, worst quartile, >2 SD from the mean). To advance methods for score interpretation, we explored using needs assessments to identify health-related quality-of-life scores associated with unmet needs and requiring follow-up. We also investigated the ability of PRO scores to predict patients' most bothersome issues.

METHODS FOR ADDRESSING PRO RESULTS

To develop suggestions for addressing issues identified by PRO questionnaires, we conducted a targeted literature review, interviewed experts from different disciplines, developed draft recommendations based on the literature and interviews, and finalized the recommendations in a consensus meeting with all experts.

DISCUSSION

The needs assessment method requires strongly correlated content in the needs assessment and health-related quality-of-life questionnaire. Additional research is needed to explore using the worst scores in absolute terms to identify patients' most bothersome issues. The approach described for developing suggestions for addressing PRO results focuses on local resources and is best-suited for a local context.

KEY POINTS

A combination of pragmatic solutions and exploratory research can inform interpreting and acting on PRO scores.

Symptom Care at Home: A Comprehensive and Pragmatic PRO System Approach to Improve Cancer Symptom Care

INTRODUCTION

There is growing recognition that systematically obtaining the patient's perspective on their health experience, using patient-reported outcomes (PRO), can be used to improve patient care in real time. Few PRO systems are designed to monitor and provide symptom management support between visits. Patients are instructed to contact providers between visits with their concerns, but they rarely do, leaving patients to cope with symptoms alone at home. We developed and tested an automated system, Symptom Care at Home (SCH), to address this gap in tracking and responding to PRO data in-between clinic visits. The purpose of this paper is to describe SCH as an example of a comprehensive PRO system that addresses unmet need for symptom support outside the clinic.

METHODS FOR PRO SCORE INTERPRETATION

SCH uses pragmatic, single-item measures for assessing symptoms, which are commonly used and readily interpretable for both patients and providers. We established alerting values for PRO symptom data, which was particularly important for conserving oncology providers' time in responding to daily PRO data.

METHODS FOR DEVELOPING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ACTING ON PRO RESULTS

The SCH system provides automated, just-in-time self-management coaching tailored to the specific symptom pattern and severity levels reported in the daily call. In addition, the SCH system includes a provider decision support system for follow-up symptom assessment and intervention strategies.

DISCUSSION

SCH provides PRO monitoring, tailored automated self-management coaching, and alerts the oncology team of poorly controlled symptoms with a provider dashboard that includes evidence-based decision support for follow-up to improve individual patients' symptom care. We particularly emphasize our process for PRO selection, rationale for determining alerting thresholds, and the design of the provider dashboard and decision support. Currently, we are in the process of updating the SCH system, developing both web-based and app versions in addition to interactive voice response phone access and integrating the SCH system in the electronic health record.

Promoting effective use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: themes from a "Methods Tool kit" paper series

OBJECTIVES

"PRO-cision Medicine," using patients' reports of their symptoms, functioning, and well-being to personalize their care, is becoming more prevalent. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are assessed using standardized, validated measures. Research shows that clinicians' and patients' understanding of what the PRO scores mean and how to act on them is often suboptimal. Methods to improve interpretation of PRO scores and action based on PRO results can promote more effective use of PROs in practice.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A recent supplement to Medical Care describes various approaches to address challenges in interpreting and acting on PROs in practice and therefore serves as a "PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit." This commentary provides an overview of the supplement and identifies cross-cutting themes guided by a theoretical framework.

RESULTS

Six papers describe methods for interpreting PROs, and eight papers describe how different PRO systems address interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. Based on the theoretical framework, cross-cutting themes are described in terms of (1) providing PRO information, (2) using PRO data, (3) screening for problems and monitoring for changes, and (4) changing management and behavior.

CONCLUSIONS

The PRO-cision Medicine Methods Tool kit provides a useful resource for interpreting and acting on PRO scores to personalize patient care.

Patient-reported outcome measures in the interaction between patient and clinician - a multi-perspective qualitative study

BACKGROUND

This article addresses patient-reported outcome (PRO)-based follow-up used as a substitute for regularly scheduled follow-ups. In PRO-based follow-up, patients' PRO data filled in by the patients at home are used by clinicians as a decision aid to identify those who need clinical attention based on an automated PRO algorithm, clinical attention being either a phone call or a physical consultation. A physical consultation in the outpatient clinic prompted by the patient's PRO is termed a "PRO consultation." In this multi-perspective qualitative study, we explored the influence of patients' self-reported data on patient-clinician interaction during PRO consultations in epilepsy outpatient clinics. Interpretive description was the methodological approach, applying data from participant observations, informal interviews with clinicians, and semi-structured interviews with clinicians and patients.

RESULTS

We found that application and deliberate use of patients' PRO measures can affect patient-clinician interaction, promoting patient involvement in terms of improved communication and increased patient activation. These findings reflect the general patterns that have been reported in the literature. In addition, we found that PRO measures also may induce unmet expectations among some patients that can have a negative effect on patients' experiences of the interaction and their follow-up experience in general. We extracted two thematic patterns that represent PRO measures' potential for patient involvement in the patient-clinician interaction. The first pattern represents enablers, and the second pattern represents barriers for PRO measures to affect patient involvement.

CONCLUSIONS

Applying PRO measures in clinical practice does not automatically enhance the patient-clinician interaction. To strengthen the benefits of PRO measures, the following supplementary clinical initiatives are suggested: summarizing and reporting the PRO measures back to the patient, considering carefully which PRO measures to include, training clinicians and assuring that the patients' introduction to PRO-based follow-up clarifies expectations.

What is needed by staff to implement PROMs into routine oncology care? A qualitative study with the multi-disciplinary team

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to identify strategies to implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine oncology outpatients' clinical care.

METHODS

Qualitative focus groups were conducted with staff from multiple disciplines using a semistructured interview guide, with supporting data collected in field notes. Data were analysed using a Directed Content Analysis guided by an implementation science framework. The synthesis of the extracted data aimed to identify key requirements which correspond to intrinsic enablers and barriers for implementation.

RESULTS

52 staff members from the multi-disciplinary team participated. Data extracted showed five key themes and three key requirements regarding implementation of PROMs. Staff would consider using PROMs if there was strong research evidence that demonstrates benefits for patient outcomes, if PROM data was relevant to current clinical practice, and if applied appropriately in the specific setting. These findings add pragmatic detail and new knowledge to the current evidence on pathways to PROM implementation. This data can be used to inform implementation of PROMs into health services.

CONCLUSION

Staff have valuable tacit knowledge of what works in practice that offers a unique opportunity to increase successful implementation of a PROM intervention for patient symptom reporting.

A PRO-cision Medicine Methods Toolkit to Address the Challenges of Personalizing Cancer Care Using Patient-Reported Outcomes: Introduction to the Supplement

Patients are increasingly being asked to complete standardized, validated questionnaires with regard to their symptoms, functioning, and well-being [ie, patient-reported outcomes (PROs)] as part of routine care. These PROs can be used to inform patients' care and management, which we refer to as "PRO-cision Medicine." For PRO-cision Medicine to be most effective, clinicians and patients need to be able to understand what the PRO scores mean and how to act on the PRO results. The papers in this supplement to Medical Care describe various methods that have been used to address these issues. Specifically, the supplement includes 14 papers: 6 describe different methods for interpreting PROs and 8 describe how different PRO systems have addressed interpreting PRO scores and/or acting on PRO results. As such, this "Methods Toolkit" can inform clinicians and researchers aiming to implement routine PRO reporting into clinical practice by providing methodological fundamentals and real-world examples to promote personalized patient care.

PRO-based follow-up as a means of self-management support - an interpretive description of the patient perspective

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing focus on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to improve the quality and effectiveness of health care. PRO-based follow-up is a new model of service delivery, where the patient's PRO measures are used as the very basis for outpatient follow-up.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore how patients with epilepsy experience the use of PRO-based follow-up in three outpatient clinics in the Central Denmark Region. We also sought to explain how these experiences relate to self-management.

METHODS

Interpretive description was the methodological approach. We conducted in-depth individual interviews with 29 patients referred to PRO-based follow-up, each of whom had completed at least two PRO questionnaires. Participants were sampled based on purposive and theoretical sampling.

RESULTS

PRO-based follow-up may support patients' self-management by a) increasing awareness of psychosocial problems, b) improving communication, c) increasing understanding of symptoms, d) facilitating change in health behavior and e) strengthening autonomy. Inhibitors for PRO measures as a means of self-management support were identified as a) feelings of rejection and disconnection, b) incomprehension of purpose of PRO-based follow-up, c) PRO measures being too standardized and negative and d) lack of confidence in own ability to assess PRO questionnaires.

CONCLUSION

The findings demonstrate broad variation in the influences of PRO measures on patient's self-management in life with epilepsy. Sense of ownership may explain this variation. We suggest supplementary clinical initiatives in order to enhance the benefits from PRO-based follow-up, particularly on how patients are allocated to this health care service.

Improving Cancer Care Through the Patient Experience: How to Use Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice

Poorly controlled symptoms are common and debilitating during cancer treatment and can affect functional status and quality of life, health care resource utilization, treatment adherence, and cancer survivorship. Historically, the patient experience, including symptoms during treatment, has not been tracked or documented in the patient health record. Measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including symptoms, is an essential component to cancer care focused on the illness impact to the patient and family. PROs can be useful at the individual level for monitoring and promoting symptom care both in the clinic and remotely and at the population level for aggregating population data for use in research and quality improvement initiatives. Implementation of PROs in cancer clinical care requires a carefully thought out process to overcome challenges related to integrating PROs into existing electronic health records and clinical work flow. Issues with implementing PRO collection may include making decisions about measurement tools, modes of delivery, frequency of measurement, and interpretation that are guided by a clarification of the purpose for collecting PROs. We focus on three aspects of PRO use: (1) improving care for individual patients, (2) analyzing aggregated data to improve care and outcomes overall, and (3) considerations in implementing PRO collection.

Symptom Clusters and Quality of Life in Hospice Patients with Cancer

Background: Symptom control is an important part of palliative care and important to achieve optimal quality of life (QOL). Studies have shown that patients with advanced cancer suffer from diverse and often severe physical and psychological symptoms. The aim is to explore the influence of symptom clusters on QOL among patients with advanced cancer. Materials and Methods: 709 patients with advanced cancer were recruited to participate in a clinical trial focusing on symptom management and QOL. Patients were adults newly admitted to hospice home care in one of two hospices in southwest Florida, who could pass mental status screening. The instruments used for data collection were the Demographic Data Form, Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS), and the Hospice Quality of Life Index-14. Results: Exploratory factor analysis and multiple regression were used to identify symptom clusters and their influence on QOL. The results revealed that the participants experienced multiple concurrent symptoms. There were four symptom clusters found among these cancer patients. Individual symptom distress scores that were the strongest predictors of QOL were: feeling pain; dry mouth; feeling drowsy; nausea; difficulty swallowing; worrying and feeling nervous. Conclusions: Patients with advanced cancer reported various concurrent symptoms, and these form symptom clusters of four main categories. The four symptoms clusters have a negative influence on patients’ QOL and required specific care from different members of the hospice healthcare team. The results of this study should be used to guide health care providers’ symptom management. Proper attention to symptom clusters should be the basis for accurate planning of effective interventions to manage the symptom clusters experienced by advanced cancer patients. The health care provider needs to plan ahead for these symptoms and manage any concurrent symptoms for successful promotion of their patient’s QOL.

Patient and health care provider perceptions of cancer-related fatigue and pain

PURPOSE

In 1997, Vogelzang et al. reported that 61 % of patients with cancer indicated fatigue impacted daily life more than pain, and only 37 % of oncologists shared this perception. We provide an update to this study, which can help prioritize symptom assessment and management in the clinic. Study aims were to determine and compare perceptions of patients with cancer and health care providers (HCPs) of the impact of fatigue and pain.

METHODS

A random sample of patients with cancer was recruited in the USA by Harris Poll Online and Schlesinger Associates. Oncology HCPs were recruited by Food and Drug Research, Inc. and Toluna, Inc.

RESULTS

From June to November 2012, 550 of 1122 eligible patients (49 %), 400 of 533 eligible oncologists (75 %), and 400 of 617 eligible oncology nurses (65 %) completed a survey. Of patients, 58 % reported that fatigue affected their daily lives more than pain while undergoing treatment with chemotherapy versus 29 % of oncologists and 25 % of oncology nurses that had this perception. Ninety-eight percent of patients reported experiencing fatigue, whereas 72 % of oncologists and 84 % of oncology nurses thought this was the case. Eighty-six percent of patients reported pain while undergoing treatment with chemotherapy, whereas 36 % of oncologists and 51 % of oncology nurses believed this occurred. Nausea and vomiting felt by HCPs were the most concerning symptoms for patients (88 %).

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the importance of assessing symptoms by direct patient report during chemotherapy treatment. HCPs continue to underestimate the prevalence and importance of fatigue and pain for patients with cancer, a finding that may alter the management of treatment-related symptoms and may influence the development of patient symptom management plans.

EAPC White Paper on outcome measurement in palliative care: Improving practice, attaining outcomes and delivering quality services - Recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Task Force on Outcome Measurement

BACKGROUND

Outcome measurement plays an increasing role in improving the quality, effectiveness, efficiency and availability of palliative care.

AIM

To provide expert recommendations on outcome measurement in palliative care in clinical practice and research.

METHODS

Developed by a European Association for Palliative Care Task Force, based on literature searches, international expert workshop, development of outcome measurement guidance and international online survey. A subgroup drafted a first version and circulated it twice to the task force. The preliminary final version was circulated to wider expert panel and 28 international experts across 20 European Association for Palliative Care member associations and the European Association for Palliative Care Board of Directors and revised according to their feedback. The final version was approved by the European Association for Palliative Care Board for adoption as an official European Association for Palliative Care position paper.

RESULTS

In all, 12 recommendations are proposed covering key parameters of measures, adequate measures for the task, introduction of outcome measurement into practice, and national and international outcome comparisons and benchmarking. Compared to other recommendations, the White Paper covers similar aspects but focuses more on outcome measurement in clinical care and the wider policy impact of implementing outcome measurement in clinical palliative care. Patient-reported outcome measure feedback improves awareness of unmet need and allows professionals to act to address patients' needs. However, barriers and facilitators have been identified when implementing outcome measurement in clinical care that should be addressed.

CONCLUSION

The White Paper recommends the introduction of outcome measurement into practice and outcomes that allow for national and international comparisons. Outcome measurement is key to understanding different models of care across countries and, ultimately, patient outcome having controlled for differing patients characteristics.

Pragmatic characteristics of patient-reported outcome measures are important for use in clinical practice

OBJECTIVES

Measures for assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) that may have initially been developed for research are increasingly being recommended for use in clinical practice as well. Although psychometric rigor is essential, this article focuses on pragmatic characteristics of PROs that may enhance uptake into clinical practice.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Three sources were drawn on in identifying pragmatic criteria for PROs: (1) selected literature review including recommendations by other expert groups; (2) key features of several model public domain PROs; and (3) the authors' experience in developing practical PROs.

RESULTS

Eight characteristics of a practical PRO include: (1) actionability (i.e., scores guide diagnostic or therapeutic actions/decision making); (2) appropriateness for the relevant clinical setting; (3) universality (i.e., for screening, severity assessment, and monitoring across multiple conditions); (4) self-administration; (5) item features (number of items and bundling issues); (6) response options (option number and dimensions, uniform vs. varying options, time frame, intervals between options); (7) scoring (simplicity and interpretability); and (8) accessibility (nonproprietary, downloadable, available in different languages and for vulnerable groups, and incorporated into electronic health records).

CONCLUSION

Balancing psychometric and pragmatic factors in the development of PROs is important for accelerating the incorporation of PROs into clinical practice.

Symptom management in the older adult: 2015 update

This article updates the 2002 Jamie von Roenn article about "the palliation of commonly observed symptoms in older patients, including pain, neuropsychiatric, gastrointestinal, and respiratory symptoms." When palliative care was last covered in Clinics in Geriatric Medicine, President George W. Bush had just signed the No Child Left Behind Act, Homeland Security was being established, Michael Jackson won the Artist of the Century Award at the American Music Awards, and gas cost $1.61 a gallon. What has changed in the last decade and a half?

Use of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures at Group and Patient Levels: Experiences From the Generic Integrated PRO System, WestChronic

Background

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures may be used at a group level for research and quality improvement and at the individual patient level to support clinical decision making and ensure efficient use of resources. The challenges involved in implementing PRO measures are mostly the same regardless of aims and diagnostic groups and include logistic feasibility, high response rates, robustness, and ability to adapt to the needs of patient groups and settings. If generic PRO systems can adapt to specific needs, advanced technology can be shared between medical specialties and for different aims.

Objective

We describe methodological, organizational, and practical experiences with a generic PRO system, WestChronic, which is in use among a range of diagnostic groups and for a range of purposes.

Methods

The WestChronic system supports PRO data collection, with integration of Web and paper PRO questionnaires (mixed-mode) and automated procedures that enable adherence to implementation-specific schedules for the collection of PRO. For analysis, we divided functionalities into four elements: basic PRO data collection and logistics, PRO-based clinical decision support, PRO-based automated decision algorithms, and other forms of communication. While the first element is ubiquitous, the others are optional and only applicable at a patient level. Methodological and organizational experiences were described according to each element.

Results

WestChronic has, to date, been implemented in 22 PRO projects within 18 diagnostic groups, including cardiology, neurology, rheumatology, nephrology, orthopedic surgery, gynecology, oncology, and psychiatry. The aims of the individual projects included epidemiological research, quality improvement, hospital evaluation, clinical decision support, efficient use of outpatient clinic resources, and screening for side effects and comorbidity. In total 30,174 patients have been included, and 59,232 PRO assessments have been collected using 92 different PRO questionnaires. Response rates of up to 93% were achieved for first-round questionnaires and up to 99% during follow-up. For 6 diagnostic groups, PRO data were displayed graphically to the clinician to facilitate flagging of important symptoms and decision support, and in 5 diagnostic groups PRO data were used for automatic algorithm-based decisions.

Conclusions

WestChronic has allowed the implementation of all proposed protocol for data collection and processing. The system has achieved high response rates, and longitudinal attrition is limited. The relevance of the questions, the mixed-mode principle, and automated procedures has contributed to the high response rates. Furthermore, development and implementation of a number of approaches and methods for clinical use of PRO has been possible without challenging the generic property. Generic multipurpose PRO systems may enable sharing of automated and efficient logistics, optimal response rates, and other advanced options for PRO data collection and processing, while still allowing adaptation to specific aims and patient groups.

Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: how to make it work?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As the benefit of early palliative care for the quality of life of patients with advanced cancer is currently receiving widespread recognition, cancer specialists increasingly inquire about the practical implications of this concept. This publication presents the available information about how to provide early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

Oncologists and other cancer specialists provide general palliative care from the time of diagnosis of incurable cancer together with the patients' family doctors. This includes basic assessment of symptoms and distress, their initial management as well as sensitive communication with the patient, including advance care planning and end-of-life issues and hope. The additional integration of a specialized palliative care team early in the care trajectory has been found to be beneficial for quality of life and survival. This concept is known as 'early palliative care' or 'early integration' and has become recommended by institutions such as the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

SUMMARY

Palliative care is warranted from the time of diagnosis of incurable cancer. From this early stage, palliative care consists of general palliative care provided by cancer specialists and family doctors and additional support of a specialized palliative care program. Guidance from different guidelines is presented alongside practical recommendations derived from our experience with an early palliative care program for comprehensive cancer care over the last 7 years.

Patient-physician communication about health-related quality-of-life problems: are non-Hodgkin lymphoma survivors willing to talk?

PURPOSE

To investigate non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) survivors' willingness to discuss health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) problems with their follow-up care physician.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Willingness to discuss HRQOL problems (physical, daily, emotional, social, and sexual functioning) was examined among 374 NHL survivors, 2 to 5 years postdiagnosis. Survivors were asked if they would bring up HRQOL problems with their physician and indicate reasons why not. Logistic regression models examined the association of patient sociodemographics, clinical characteristics, follow-up care variables, and current HRQOL scores with willingness to discuss HRQOL problems.

RESULTS

Overall, 94%, 82%, 76%, 43%, and 49% of survivors would initiate discussions of physical, daily, emotional, social, and sexual functioning, respectively. Survivors who indicated their physician "always" spent enough time with them or rated their care as "excellent" were more willing to discuss HRQOL problems (P < .05). Survivors reporting poorer physical health were less willing to discuss their daily functioning problems (P < .001). Men were more willing to discuss sexual problems than women (P < .001). One in three survivors cited "nothing can be done" as a reason for not discussing daily functioning problems, and at least one in four cited "this was not their doctor's job" and a preference to "talk to another clinician" as reasons for not discussing emotional, social, and sexual functioning.

CONCLUSION

NHL survivors' willingness to raise HRQOL problems with their physician varied by HRQOL domain. For some domains, even when survivors were experiencing problems, they may not discuss them. To deliver cancer care for the whole patient, interventions that facilitate survivor-clinician communication about survivors' HRQOL are needed.

Validity and reliability of the Swedish version of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS): an instrument for the evaluation of symptom prevalence, characteristics, and distress

CONTEXT

There are few scales in Swedish that assess symptoms in the dimensions of frequency, severity, and distress.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this study was to translate and determine the validity and reliability of the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale (MSAS) in a Swedish population of postmenopausal women newly diagnosed with primary or recurrent breast cancer.

METHODS

The original 32-item MSAS, a self-report measure for assessing symptom distress and frequency in cancer patients, was translated and administered to 206 patients (primary, n = 150 and recurrent, n = 56).

RESULTS

The MSAS psychological symptom subscale correlated with the emotional and cognitive functioning subscales of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30), and showed the highest correlation with the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning subscale (r = -0.78; P < 0.01). The psychological symptom subscale also correlated with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) within values for anxiety (r = 0.68; P < 0.01) and with the EORTC QLQ-C30 within cognitive functioning values (r = -0.58; P < 0.01). The Global Distress Index (GDI)-MSAS showed satisfactory correlations with the EORTC QLQ-C30 emotional functioning subscale (r = -0.75; P < 0.01), whereas the correlation between the GDI-MSAS and the EORTC QLQ-C30 cognitive functioning subscale was somewhat lower (r = -0.54; P < 0.01). Correlations between the GDI-MSAS and the HADS anxiety subscale were confirmed (r = 0.62; P < 0.01), and a correlation between the MSAS physical symptom items and symptom items in the EORTC-QLQ-C30 was evident (r = 0.60-0.85; P < 0.01). Cronbach's alpha coefficients for the MSAS and MSAS subscales based on symptom scores ranged from 0.80 to 0.89. The internal consistency at different time points was satisfactory, ranging from 0.86 (baseline) to 0.90 (follow-up).

CONCLUSION

The Swedish version of the MSAS presents as a valid and reliable measure for assessing symptom distress, severity, and frequency in Swedish patients diagnosed with primary and recurrent breast cancer.

Using patient-reported outcome measures for improved decision-making in patients with gastrointestinal cancer - the last clinical frontier in surgical oncology?

The genomic era has introduced concepts of “personalized medicine” and “targeted therapy” in the field of oncology. Medicine has become increasingly complex with a plethora of potential dilemmas in diagnosis, treatment, and management. The focus on classical outcomes for clinical decision-making is now increasingly being replaced by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs should increasingly now be in the center of patient-centered decision-making, based on valid, reliable, and clinically useful measures delivered directly by the patient to the caregiver. Surgeons’ ability to interpret and apply PROMs and quality of life results must improve by education and further research, and has an unreleased potential to contribute to a better understanding of the patients’ well-being. A number of caveats must be addressed before this can be brought to fruition; standardization for valid items; appropriate use of instruments; correct timing of the application; missing data handling, compliance, and respondent drop-outs are but a few issues to be addressed. Based on the apparent lack of use in both research and clinical work, it should call for an educational effort to address this among surgeons caring for patients with cancer.

Using the EORTC-QLQ-C30 in clinical practice for patient management: identifying scores requiring a clinician's attention

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly for individual patient management. Identifying which PRO scores require a clinician's attention is an ongoing challenge. Previous research used a needs assessment to identify EORTC-QLQ-C30 cutoff scores representing unmet needs. This analysis attempted to replicate the previous findings in a new and larger sample.

METHODS

This analysis used data from 408 Japanese ambulatory breast cancer patients who completed the QLQ-C30 and Supportive Care Needs Survey-Short Form-34 (SCNS-SF34). Applying the methods used previously, SCNS-SF34 item/domain scores were dichotomized as no versus some unmet need. We calculated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to evaluate QLQ-C30 scores' ability to discriminate between patients with no versus some unmet need based on SCNS-SF34 items/domains. For QLQ-C30 domains with AUC ≥ 0.70, we calculated the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of various cutoffs for identifying unmet needs. We hypothesized that compared to our original analysis, (1) the same six QLQ-C30 domains would have AUC ≥ 0.70, (2) the same SCNS-SF34 items would be best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores, and (3) the sensitivity and specificity of our original cutoff scores would be supported.

RESULTS

The findings from our original analysis were supported. The same six domains with AUC ≥ 0.70 in the original analysis had AUC ≥ 0.70 in this new sample, and the same SCNS-SF34 item was best discriminated by QLQ-C30 scores. Cutoff scores were identified with sensitivity ≥0.84 and specificity ≥0.54.

CONCLUSION

Given these findings' concordance with our previous analysis, these QLQ-C30 cutoffs could be implemented in clinical practice and their usefulness evaluated.

Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice

BACKGROUND

The PatientViewpoint website collects patient-reported outcomes and links them with the electronic health record to aid patient management. This pilot test evaluated PatientViewpoint's use, usefulness, and acceptability to patients and clinicians.

METHODS

This was a single-arm prospective study that enrolled breast and prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment and the clinicians who managed them. Patients completed patient-reported outcomes every 2 weeks, and clinicians could access the results for patient visits. Scores that were poor relative to norms or substantially worse than the previous assessment were highlighted. After three on-study visits, we assessed patient and clinician perspectives on PatientViewpoint using close-ended and open-ended questions.

RESULTS

Eleven out of 12 eligible clinicians (92%) and 52/76 eligible patients (68%) enrolled. Patients completed a median of 71% of assigned questionnaires; clinicians reported using the information for 79% of patients, most commonly as a source of additional information (51%). At the median, score reports identified three potential issues, of which 1 was discussed during the visit. Patients reported the system was easy to use (92%), useful (70%), aided recall of symptoms/side effects (72%), helped them feel more in control of their care (60%), improved discussions with their provider (49%), and improved care quality (39%). Patients and clinicians desired more information on score interpretation and minor adjustments to site navigation.

CONCLUSIONS

These results support the feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint. An ongoing study is using a continuous quality improvement approach to further refine PatientViewpoint. Future studies will evaluate its impact on patient care and outcomes.