Opportunities and challenges to advance the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical care: a report from AMIA workshop proceedings

Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy

BACKGROUND

Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics.

METHODS

Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Getting ready for real-world use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) for patients with cancer: A National Comprehensive Cancer Network ePRO Workgroup paper

Electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) programs may offer advantages for patients with cancer, clinicians, health care systems, payors, and society in general; but developing and maintaining an ePRO program will require cancer centers to navigate defining meaningful problems, collecting ePROs, implementing action when those ePROs require intervention without over‐burdening clinicians, and monitoring the successes and failures of their ePRO programs. Physician informaticists from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Electronic Health Record Advisory Group offer 10 guiding principles to consider when contemplating, building, or refining an ePRO program for patients with cancer.

Seeing the person before the numbers: Personas for understanding patients' life stories when using patient-reported outcome measures in practice settings

AIMS

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being integrated into health information technologies, one challenge has been to assist clinicians in understanding how the responses to PROMs relate to patient stories for identifying and addressing the care needs of individual patients. Personas, hypothetical representations of patients, can be used as an innovative strategy to support clinicians' use of PROMs in their practice. These personas embody patients' life stories, making them a valuable tool for understanding the person when using PROMs. The aim of this project focused on cancer-related experiences to develop personas as a knowledge translation strategy to support clinicians' use of PROMs for person-centred cancer care.

METHODS

Eight older adults participated in online workshops (n = 2-3 participants/workshop; 1.5-hour sessions) to co-develop personas that reflected their collective experiences at a particular stage of their cancer journeys. Participants were asked to identify themes that focused on what the personas were thinking and feeling, what influenced how the personas acted, and the personas' overall goals. Participants subsequently completed an emotional well-being PROM from the perspective of the persona. Personas were further refined based on key themes identified during the workshop discussions.

RESULTS

Four personas representing the cumulative experiences of the workshop participants were developed to help clinicians link PROM responses to patient stories. These personas became the basis of four practice scenarios, which were examples of interactions between a clinician and each persona, to demonstrate the use of PROMs in practice.

CONCLUSION

Personas can be used to illustrate patients' life stories and contextualize PROMs data. As a knowledge translation strategy, personas can foster clinician awareness of how responses to PROMs can be used to initiate conversations to better understand patients' unique life situations.

Implementing an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome and Decision Support Tool in Early Intervention

OBJECTIVE

The aim of the study is to identify and prioritize early intervention (EI) stakeholders' perspectives of supports and barriers to implementing the Young Children's Participation and Environment Measure (YC-PEM), an electronic patient-reported outcome (e-PRO) tool, for scaling its implementation across multiple local and state EI programs.

METHODS

An explanatory sequential (quan > QUAL) mixed-methods study was conducted with EI families (n = 6), service coordinators (n = 9), and program leadership (n = 7). Semi-structured interviews and focus groups were used to share select quantitative pragmatic trial results (e.g., percentages for perceived helpfulness of implementation strategies) and elicit stakeholder perspectives to contextualize these results. Three study staff deductively coded transcripts to constructs in the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Data within CFIR constructs were inductively analyzed to generate themes that were rated by national early childhood advisors for their relevance to longer term implementation.

RESULTS

All three stakeholder groups (i.e., families, service coordinators, program leadership) identified thematic supports and barriers across multiple constructs within each of four CFIR domains: (1) Six themes for "intervention characteristics," (2) Six themes for "process," (3) three themes for "inner setting," and (4) four themes for "outer setting." For example, all stakeholder groups described the value of the YC-PEM e-PRO in forging connections and eliciting meaningful information about family priorities for efficient service plan development ("intervention characteristics"). Stakeholders prioritized reaching families with diverse linguistic preferences and user navigation needs, further tailoring its interface with automated data capture and exchange processes ("process"); and fostering a positive implementation climate ("inner setting"). Service coordinators and program leadership further articulated the value of YC-PEM e-PRO results for improving EI access ("outer setting").

CONCLUSION

Results demonstrate the YC-PEM e-PRO is an evidence-based intervention that is viable for implementation. Optimizations to its interface are needed before undertaking hybrid type-2 and 3 multisite trials to test these implementation strategies across state and local EI programs with electronic data capture capabilities and diverse levels of organizational readiness and resources for implementation.

Association of Function, Symptoms, and Social Support Reported in Standardized Outpatient Clinic Questionnaires With Subsequent Hospital Discharge Disposition and 30-Day Readmissions

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient-reported information, routinely collected in an outpatient setting, is associated with readmission within 30 days of discharge and/or the need for post-acute care after a subsequent hospital admission.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. Six domains of patient-reported information collected in the outpatient setting (psychological distress, respiratory symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, family support, mobility, and activities of daily living [ADLs]) were linked to electronic health record hospitalization data. Mixed effects logistic regression models with random intercepts were used to identify the association between the 6 domains and outcomes.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics and hospitals in a Midwestern health system.

PARTICIPANTS

7671 patients who were hospitalized 11,445 times between May 2004 and May 2014 (N=7671).

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

30-day hospital readmission and discharge home vs facility.

RESULTS

Domains were significantly associated with 30-day readmission and placement in a facility. Specifically, mobility (odds ratio [OR]=1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16, 1.46), ADLs (OR=1.27; 95% CI, 1.13, 1.42), respiratory symptoms (OR=1.26; 95% CI, 1.12, 1.41), and psychological distress (OR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.35) had the strongest associations with 30-day readmission. The ADL (OR=2.52; 95% CI, 2.26, 2.81), mobility (OR=2.35; 95% CI, 2.10, 2.63), family support (OR=2.28; 95% CI, 1.98, 2.62), and psychological distress (OR=1.38; 95% CI, 1.25, 1.52) domains had the strongest associations with discharge to an institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported function, symptoms, and social support routinely collected in outpatient clinics are associated with future 30-day readmission and discharge to an institutional setting. Whether these data can be leveraged to guide interventions to address patient needs and improve outcomes requires further research.

Managing Critical Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Oncology Settings: System Development and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring programs based on the collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are being increasingly adopted in oncology practices. Although PROs are a great source of patient data, the management of critical PRO data is not discussed in detail in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This first-of-its-kind study aimed to design, describe, and evaluate a closed-loop alerting and communication system focused on managing PRO-related alerts in cancer care.

METHODS

We designed and developed a novel solution using an agile software development methodology by incrementally building new capabilities. We evaluated these new features using participatory design and the Fit between Individuals, Task, and Technology framework.

RESULTS

A total of 8 questionnaires were implemented using alerting features, resulting in an alert rate of 7.82% (36,838/470,841) with 13.28% (10,965/82,544) of the patients triggering at least one alert. Alerts were reviewed by 501 staff members spanning across 191 care teams. All the alerts were reviewed with a median response time of 1 hour (SD 185 hours) during standard business hours. The most severe (red) alerts were documented 56.83% (2592/4561) of the time, whereas unlabeled alerts were documented 27.68% (1298/4689) of the time, signaling clinician concordance with the alert thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

A PRO-based alert and communication system has some initial benefits in reviewing clinically meaningful PRO data in a reasonable amount of time. We have discussed key system design considerations, workflow integration, and the mitigation of potential impact on the burden of care teams. The introduction of a PRO-based alert and communication system provides a reliable mechanism for care teams to review and respond to patient symptoms quickly. The system was standardized across many different oncology settings, demonstrating system flexibility. Future studies should focus on formally evaluating system usability through qualitative methods.

Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes by Health Systems and Physician Practices in the USA

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) can help clinicians adjust treatments and deliver patient-centered care, but organizational adoption of PROs remains low.

OBJECTIVE

This study examines the extent of PRO adoption among health systems and physician practices nationally and examines the organizational capabilities associated with more extensive PRO adoption.

DESIGN

Two nationally representative surveys were analyzed in parallel to assess health system and physician practice capabilities associated with adoption of PROs of disability, pain, and depression.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 323 US health system and 2,190 physician practice respondents METHODS: Multivariable regression models separately estimated the association of health system and physician practice capabilities associated with system-level and practice-level adoption of PROs.

MAIN MEASURES

Health system and physician practice adoption of PROs for depression, pain, and disability.

KEY RESULTS

Pain (50.6%) and depression (43.8%) PROs were more commonly adopted by all hospitals and medical groups within health systems compared to disability PROs (26.5%). In adjusted analyses, systems with more advanced health IT functions were more likely to use disability (p<0.05) and depression (p<0.01) PROs than systems with less advanced health IT. Practice-level advanced health IT was positively associated with use of depression PRO (p<0.05), but not disability or pain PRO use. Practices with more chronic care management processes, broader medical and social risk screening, and more processes to support patient responsiveness were more likely to adopt each of the three PROs. Compared to independent physician practices, system-owned practices and community health centers were less likely to adopt PROs.

CONCLUSIONS

Chronic care management programs, routine screening, and patient-centered care initiatives can enable PRO adoption at the practice level. Developing these practice-level capabilities may improve PRO adoption more than solely expanding health IT functions.

The technical landscape for patient-centered CDS: progress, gaps, and challenges

Supporting healthcare decision-making that is patient-centered and evidence-based requires investments in the development of tools and techniques for dissemination of patient-centered outcomes research findings via methods such as clinical decision support (CDS). This article explores the technical landscape for patient-centered CDS (PC CDS) and the gaps in making PC CDS more shareable, standards-based, and publicly available, with the goal of improving patient care and clinical outcomes. This landscape assessment used: (1) a technical expert panel; (2) a literature review; and (3) interviews with 18 CDS stakeholders. We identified 7 salient technical considerations that span 5 phases of PC CDS development. While progress has been made in the technical landscape, the field must advance standards for translating clinical guidelines into PC CDS, the standardization of CDS insertion points into the clinical workflow, and processes to capture, standardize, and integrate patient-generated health data.

Clinical Outcome Assessment in Cancer Rehabilitation and the Central Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Simple Summary

After completion of acute cancer treatment, it is important to support patients in recovering physically and psychologically and to help them regain their social life. This is the goal of cancer rehabilitation. If we want to know which rehabilitation interventions are helpful, we must measure their effects. This can be done by asking clinicians, testing patients’ performance, observing their behaviors, or by asking patients directly about their experience. This paper focuses on reports from the patients. We give an overview of available questionnaires and offer advice regarding their use. Furthermore, we discuss how to integrate them into clinical practice and research. The most promising way to collect such data are electronic systems, which offer many advantages. The goal of assessing the patient perspective is to help patients, clinicians, and health insurance providers to decide which rehabilitation interventions suit patients’ needs, and therefore, which ones should be chosen and reimbursed.

Abstract

The aim of cancer rehabilitation is to help patients regain functioning and social participation. In order to evaluate and optimize rehabilitation, it is important to measure its outcomes in a structured way. In this article, we review the different types of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), including Clinician-Reported Outcomes (ClinROs), Observer-Reported Outcomes (ObsROs), Performance Outcomes (PerfOs), and Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). A special focus is placed on PROs, which are commonly defined as any direct report from the patient about their health condition without any interpretation by a third party. We provide a narrative review of available PRO measures (PROMs) for relevant outcomes, discuss the current state of PRO implementation in cancer rehabilitation, and highlight trends that use PROs to benchmark value-based care. Furthermore, we provide examples of PRO usage, highlight the benefits of electronic PRO (ePRO) collection, and offer advice on how to select, implement, and integrate PROs into the cancer rehabilitation setting to maximize efficiency.

A learning health systems approach to integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes across the health care organization

INTRODUCTION

Foundational to a learning health system (LHS) is the presence of a data infrastructure that can support continuous learning and improve patient outcomes. To advance their capacity to drive patient-centered care, health systems are increasingly looking to expand the electronic capture of patient data, such as electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measures. Yet ePROs bring unique considerations around workflow, measurement, and technology that health systems may not be poised to navigate. We report on our effort to develop generalizable learnings that can support the integration of ePROs into clinical practice within an LHS framework.

METHODS

Guided by action research methodology, we engaged in iterative cycles of planning, acting, observing, and reflecting around ePRO use with two primary goals: (1) mobilize an ePRO community of practice to facilitate knowledge sharing, and (2) establish guidelines for ePRO use in the context of LHS practice. Multiple, emergent data collection activities generated generalizable guidelines that document the tangible best practices for ePRO use in clinical care. We organized guidelines around thematic areas that reflect LHS structures and stakeholders.

RESULTS

Three core thematic areas (and 24 guidelines) emerged. The theme of governance reflects the importance of leadership, knowledge management, and facilitating organizational learning around best practice models for ePRO use. The theme of integration considers the intersection of workflow, technology, and human factors for ePROs across areas of care delivery. Lastly, the theme of reporting reflects critical considerations for curating data and information, designing system functions and interactions, and presentation of ePRO data to support the translation of knowledge to action.

CONCLUSIONS

The guidelines produced from this work highlight the complex, multidisciplinary nature of implementing change within LHS contexts, and the value of action research approaches to enable rapid, iterative learning that leverages the knowledge and experience of communities of practice.

Lessons learned about virtual cancer care and distress screening in the time of COVID-19

Purpose

Cancer-related biopsychosocial distress is highly prevalent across the cancer care continuum. The implementation of screening patients for biopsychosocial distress has become a standard of practice in cancer care. With the presence of COVID-19, clinical care has shifted from in-person care to virtual care in many instances. One of the realities of COVID-19 is the significant decrease in screening patients for biopsychosocial symptom burden.

Methods

Given that screening for distress has become an accreditation standard in many cancer programs, in the province of Alberta, Canada, all patients are screened for distress with every visit to the cancer centre. Given the presence of COVID-19, much of cancer care has shifted to being delivered virtually (through mediums such as Zoom). In this paper, we present pre- and post-COVID data on the frequency of distress screening and its impact on patient care.

Results

A review of pre- and post-COVID-19 screening for distress questionnaires revealed that patients who received virtual care were less satisfied in the areas of emotional support and received less resources and referrals to supportive care.

Conclusion

The rapid integration of virtual care without the inclusion of a standardized distress screening tool was akin to a natural experiment, as two groups (virtual and in-person clinic patients) received different levels of care and interventions. Without the inclusion of distress screening, the clinical conversation around symptoms is less likely to occur and results in fewer referrals to best practices in supportive care services. Lessons learned about virtual cancer care without distress screening in the time of COVID-19 demonstrates significantly fewer patients being screened for distress and subsequently has resulted in less supportive care referrals. Going forward, we must find ways to ensure that virtual cancer care continues to support distress screening and best patient-centric care.

Making the Case for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Big-Data Rehabilitation Research: Implications for Optimizing Patient-Centered Care

Advances in data science and timely access to health informatics provide a pathway to integrate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical workflows and optimize rehabilitation service delivery. With the shift toward value-based care in the United States health care system, as highlighted by the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services incentive and penalty programs, it is critical for rehabilitation providers to systematically collect and effectively use PROMs to facilitate evaluation of quality and outcomes within and across health systems. This editorial discusses the potential of PROMs to transform clinical practice, provides examples of health systems using PROMs to guide care, and identifies barriers to aggregating data from PROMs to conduct health services research. The article proposes 2 priority areas to help advance rehabilitation health services research: (1) standardization of collecting PROMs data in electronic health records to facilitate comparing health system performance and quality and (2) increased partnerships between rehabilitation providers, researchers, and payors to accelerate health system learning. As health care reform continues to emphasize value-based payment strategies, it is essential for the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation to be at the forefront of demonstrating its value in the care continuum.

How do third sector organisations or charities providing health and well-being services in England implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? A qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

To identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in third sector organisations (TSOs) delivering health and well-being services.

DESIGN

A qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowballing methods. Framework analysis was used.

SETTING

TSOs including charities, community groups and not-for-profit organisations in England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

Thirty interviewees including service users, TSO front-line workers and managers, commissioners of TSOs and other stakeholders such as academic researchers.

RESULTS

TSOs primarily used PROMs because of pressures arising from the external funding context. However, organisations often struggled to implement PROMs, rarely getting the process right first time. Facilitators for implementation included having an implementation lead committed to making it work, investing resources in data management systems and support staff and taking a collaborative approach to designing the PROMs process. The latter helped to ensure an appropriate PROMs process for the specific TSO including choosing a suitable measure and planning how data would be collected, processed and used. There was a dilemma about whether TSOs should use standardised well-being measures (eg, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) or design their own PROM. Not all TSOs sustained the collection and reporting of PROMs over time because this required a change in organisational culture to view PROMs as beneficial for the TSO and PROMs becoming part of front-line workers' job specifications.

CONCLUSIONS

TSOs are trying to use PROMs because they feel they have no choice but often struggle with implementation. Having an implementation lead, designing an appropriate process, investing resources, training staff and taking mitigating action to address potential barriers can facilitate implementation. Some of the findings are consistent with the experiences of more clinical services so appear relevant to the implementation of PROMs irrespective of the specific context.