Patient reported outcomes measures in gynecologic oncology: A primer for clinical use, part I

Feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures into routine breast cancer care delivery using a novel collection and reporting platform

Objectives

imPROVE is a new Health Information Technology platform that enables systematic patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) collection through a mobile phone application. The purpose of this study is to describe our initial experience and approach to implementing imPROVE among breast cancer patients treated in breast and plastic surgery clinics.

Materials and Methods

We describe our initial implementation in 4 phases between June 2021 and February 2022: preimplementation, followed by 3 consecutive implementation periods (P1, P2, P3). The Standards for Reporting Implementation Studies statement guided this study. Iterative Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles supported implementation, and success was evaluated using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework.

Results

Qualitative interviews conducted during the preimplementation phase elicited 4 perceived implementation barriers. Further feedback collected during each phase of implementation resulted in the development of brochures, posters in clinic spaces, and scripts for clinic staff to streamline discussions with patients, and the resolution of technical issues concerning patient login capabilities, such as compatibility with cell phone software and barriers to downloading imPROVE. Feedback also generated ideas for facilitating provider interpretation of PROM results. By the end of P3, 2961 patients were eligible, 1375 (46.4%) downloaded imPROVE, and 1070 (36.1% of those eligible, 78% of those who downloaded) completed at least 1 PROM.

Discussion and Conclusion

Implementation efforts across 2 surgical departments at 2 academic teaching hospitals enabled collaboration across clinical specialties and longitudinal PROM reporting for patients receiving breast cancer care; the implementation effort also highlighted patient difficulties with mobile app-based PROM collection, particularly around initial engagement.

Does sentinel node mapping impact morbidity and quality of life in endometrial cancer?

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of post-operative complications and quality of life (QoL) related to sentinel lymph node (SLN) biopsy vs systematic lymphadenectomy in endometrial cancer.

METHODS

A prospective cohort included women with early-stage endometrial carcinoma who underwent lymph node staging, grouped as follows: SLN group (sentinel lymph node only) and SLN+LND group (sentinel lymph node biopsy with addition of systematic lymphadenectomy). The patients had at least 12 months of follow-up, and QoL was assessed by European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cervical Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire 30 (EORTC-QLQ-C30) and EORTC-QLQ-Cx24. Lymphedema was also assessed by clinical evaluation and perimetry.

RESULTS

152 patients were included: 113 (74.3%) in the SLN group and 39 (25.7%) in the SLN+LND group. Intra-operative surgical complications occurred in 2 (1.3%) cases, and all belonged to SLN+LND group. Patients undergoing SLN+LND had higher overall complication rates than those undergoing SLN alone (33.3% vs 14.2%; p=0.011), even after adjusting for confound factors (OR=3.45, 95% CI 1.40 to 8.47; p=0.007). The SLN+LND group had longer surgical time (p=0.001) and need for admission to the intensive care unit (p=0.001). Moreover, the incidence of lymphocele was found in eight cases in the SLN+LND group (0 vs 20.5%; p<0.001). There were no differences in lymphedema rate after clinical evaluation and perimetry. However, the lymphedema score was highest when lymphedema was reported by clinical examination at 6 months (30.1 vs 7.8; p<0.001) and at 12 months (36.3 vs 6.0; p<0.001). Regarding the overall assessment of QoL, there was no difference between groups at 12 months of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a higher overall rate of complications for the group undergoing systematic lymphadenectomy, as well as higher rates of lymphocele and lymphedema according to the symptom score. No difference was found in overall QoL between SLN and SLN+LND groups.

How to make PROMs work: qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs

PURPOSE

Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).

RESULTS

According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success.

CONCLUSION

Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.

One report, multiple aims: orthopedic surgeons vary how they use patient-reported outcomes with patients

PURPOSE

We conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with surgeons to assess their goals for incorporating a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM)-based shared decision report into discussions around surgical and non-surgical treatment options for osteoarthritis of the knee and hip.

METHODS

Surgeons actively enrolling patients into a study incorporating a standardized PROM-based shared decision report were invited to participate in a semi-structured interview lasting 30 min. Open-ended questions explored how the surgeon used report content, features that were helpful, confusing, or could be improved, and how use of the report fit into the surgeon's workflow. We used a conventional content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Of the 16 eligible surgeons, 11 agreed to participate with 9 completing the interview and 2 withdrawing due to work demands. We identified 8 themes related to PROM-based report use: Acceptability, Patient Characteristics, Communication Goals, Useful Content, Not Useful Content, Challenges, Training Needs, and Recommended Improvements. Additional sub-themes emerged for Communication Goals (7) and Challenges (8). All surgeons shared positive feedback about using the report as part of clinical care. Whereas surgeons described the use of the report to achieve different goals, the most common uses related to setting expectations for post-surgical outcomes (89%) and educating patients (100%).

CONCLUSION

Surgeons tailor their use of a PROM-based report with individual patients to achieve a range of aims. This study suggests multiple opportunities to further our understanding of the ways PROMs can be used in clinical practice. The way PROM information is visually displayed and multi-component reports are assembled can facilitate diverse aims.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patients in the United States

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly in routine clinical care and inform policies, reimbursements, and quality improvement. Less is known regarding PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations.

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to identify studies of PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations, elucidate representation of clinical specialties, assess implementation outcomes, and synthesize patient needs, concerns, and preferences.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched September 2021 for studies aiming to study PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations within the United States. Studies were screened and data extracted by three independent reviewers. Implementation outcomes were assessed according to Proctor et al. taxonomy. A descriptive analysis of data was conducted.

RESULTS

The search yielded 8,687 records, and 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority were observational cohort studies (n = 21, 75%) and conducted in primary care (n = 10, 36%). Most studies included majority female (n = 19, 68%) and non-White populations (n = 15, 54%), while fewer reported socioeconomic (n = 11, 39%) or insurance status (n = 9, 32.1%). Most studies assessed implementation outcomes of feasibility (n = 27, 96%) and acceptability (n = 19, 68%); costs (n = 3, 11%), penetration (n = 1, 4%), and sustainability (n = 1, 4%) were infrequently assessed.

CONCLUSION

PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations is generally feasible and acceptable. Research is lacking in key clinical specialties. Further work is needed to understand how health disparities drive PRO implementation outcomes.

A Review of PROM Implementation in Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current state of PROM implementation and collection in routine surgical practice through a review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant in the delivery of high quality, individualized patient care. For surgeons, PROMs can provide valuable insight into changes in patient quality of life before and after surgical interventions. Despite consensus within the surgical community regarding the promise of PROMs, little is known about their real-world implementation.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for studies published after 2012. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the current state of implementation of PROs across all sizes and types of surgical practices. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients ≥18 years 2) routine surgical practice, (3) use of a validated PRO instrument in the peri-operative period to report on general or disease-specific health-related quality of life, (4) primary or secondary outcome was implementation. Two independent reviewers screened 1524 titles and abstracts.

FINDINGS

16 studies were identified that reported on the implementation of PROMs for surgical patients. Sample size ranged from 41 patients in a single-center pilot study to 1324 patients in a study across 17 institutions. PROs were collected pre-operatively in 3 studies, post-operatively in 10, and at unspecified times in 4. The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (12) and feasibility (11). Less than half of studies analyzed nonrespondents. All studies concluded that collection of PROMs was successful based on outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies suggest that implementation metrics including minimum standards of collection pre- and postintervention, reporting for response rates in the context of patient eligibility and analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, in addition to transparency regarding the resources utilized and cost, can facilitate adoption of PROMs in clinical care and accountability for surgical outcomes.

Patient reported outcome measures among patients with vulvar cancer at various stages of treatment, recurrence, and survivorship

OBJECTIVE

Our goal was to pragmatically describe patient reported outcomes (PROs) in a typical clinic population of vulvar cancer patients, as prior studies of vulvar cancer PROs have examined clinical trial participants.

METHODS

A prospective PRO program was implemented in the Gynecologic Oncology clinic of a tertiary academic institution in January 2018. Vulvar cancer patients through September 2019 were administered the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire, the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Instrumental and Emotional Support Scales, and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Vulvar questionnaire. Binary logistic regressions were performed to determine adjusted odds ratios for adverse responses to individual questions by insurance, stage, age, time since diagnosis, recurrence, radiation, and surgical radicality.

RESULTS

Seventy vulvar cancer patients responded to PROs (85.4% response rate). Seventy-one percent were > 1 year since diagnosis, 61.4% had stage I disease, and 28.6% recurred. Publicly insured women had less support and worse quality of life (QOL, aOR 4.15, 95% CI 1.00-17.32, p = 0.05). Women who recurred noted more interference with social activities (aOR 4.45, 95% CI 1.28-15.41, p = 0.019) and poorer QOL (aOR 5.22 95% CI 1.51-18.10, p = 0.009). There were no major differences by surgical radicality. Those >1 year since diagnosis experienced less worry (aOR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.63, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Surgical radicality does not affect symptoms or QOL in vulvar cancer patients, whereas insurance, recurrence, and time since diagnosis do. This data can improve counseling and awareness of patient characteristics that would benefit from social services referral.