A Case Management System for Integrating Patient-reported Outcome Assessment in Clinical Practice: The Beacon Tool

Assessing Whole-Person Outcomes During Routine Clinical Care: A Rapid Scoping Review

OBJECTIVE

To identify and describe research conducted on the implementation, validity, and utility of whole-person outcome measures administered during routine inpatient or outpatient care.

BACKGROUND

Incorporating information about patients' overall health, health-related quality of life, and global well-being into health care delivery has the potential to increase referral rates, enhance doctor-patient communication, and improve the detection of untreated symptoms. Assessment of these whole-person outcomes during routine clinical care is of broad interest to health care providers and health systems.

METHODS

We employed a scoping review design and searched Ovid MEDLINE, APA PsycINFO, and CINAHL for relevant English-language primary studies and systematic reviews published through November 13, 2023. Screening for inclusion and data abstraction were conducted by 1 investigator then checked by another. Study risks of bias and the strength of available evidence were not assessed.

RESULTS

Of 1327 potentially relevant publications, 44 primary studies and 5 systematic reviews met eligibility criteria. Assessment of global well-being was comparatively less researched than overall health or health-related quality of life. Available research provided a range of perspectives on the performance, feasibility, acceptability, implementation, and clinical utility of whole-person outcome measures. No studies reported change in patient health or disease outcomes attributed to whole person outcome assessment (directly or through changes to care delivery).

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available evidence provides insights about the performance and implementation of whole-person outcome measures during routine clinical care, but no studies are available that examine the impact of assessing whole-person outcomes on clinical or patient outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes, Digital Health, and the Quest to Improve Health Equity

The theme of the 2023 American Society of Clinical Oncology Annual Meeting is Partnering With Patients: The Cornerstone of Cancer Care and Research. As we aim to partner with patients to improve their health care, digital tools have the potential to enhance patient-centered cancer care and make clinical research more accessible and generalizable. Using electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) to collect patients' reports of symptoms, functioning, and well-being facilitates patient-clinician communication and improves care and outcomes. Early studies suggest that racial and ethnic minority populations, older patients, and patients with less education may benefit even more from ePRO implementation. Clinical practices looking to implement ePROs can refer to the resources of the PROTEUS Consortium (Patient-Reported Outcomes Tools: Engaging Users & Stakeholders). Beyond ePROs, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, cancer practices have rapidly adopted other digital tools (eg, telemedicine, remote patient monitoring). As implementation grows, we must be aware of the limitations of these tools and implement them in ways to promote optimal function, access, and ease of use. Infrastructure, patient, provider, and system-level barriers need to be addressed. Partnerships across all levels can inform development and implementation of digital tools to meet the needs of diverse groups. In this article, we describe how we use ePROs and other digital health tools in cancer care, how digital tools can expand access to and generalizability of oncology care and research, and prospects for broader implementation and use.

The impact of mastectomy and reconstruction technique on patient perceived quality of Life

BACKGROUND

We sought to evaluate the impact of mastectomy type, post-mastectomy reconstruction choice, and procedure bilaterality, on patient perceived postoperative quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Patients who underwent post-mastectomy reconstruction between 2008 and 2020 were identified in a prospective database. QoL was assessed with the BREAST-Q and the Was It Worth It (WIWI) questionnaires. The results were compared between reconstruction type, reconstruction laterality, and type of mastectomy. Responses were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square tests.

RESULTS

568 patients met inclusion criteria, and 244 patients responded (43%). QoL did not significantly vary between different reconstructions selected, procedure laterality, or mastectomy type. Patients who underwent DIEP flap were significantly more satisfied with their reconstructed breasts than implant-based reconstruction. Overall, over 85% of patients experienced improved or unchanged QoL no matter what reconstruction choices were made.

CONCLUSION

Most domains of QOL are not impacted by mastectomy type, post-mastectomy reconstruction, or laterality.

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.

Nurse Case Manager: Measurement of Care Coordination Activities and Quality and Resource Use Outcomes When Caring for the Complex Patient With Hematologic Cancer

BACKGROUND

The lack of coordination of care for complex patients in the hematology setting has prompted nurse case managers (NCMs) to coordinate that care.

OBJECTIVES

This article aimed to identify the frequency of NCM care coordination activities and quality and resource use outcomes in the complex care of patients in the hematology setting.

METHODS

NCM aggregate data from complex outpatients with hematologic cancer were retrieved from electronic health records at a comprehensive cancer center in the midwestern United States. Total volume of activities and outcomes were calculated as frequency and percentage.

FINDINGS

Care coordination activities included communicating; monitoring, following up, and responding to change; and creating a proactive plan of care. Quality outcomes included improving continuity of care and change in health behavior, and resource use outcomes most documented were patient healthcare cost savings.

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.