Patient-reported outcomes collected in ambulatory oncology practices: Feasibility, patterns, and correlates

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs.

METHODS

We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

Drivers of Emergency Department Use Among Oncology Patients in the Era of Novel Cancer Therapeutics: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Patients diagnosed with cancer are frequent users of the emergency department (ED). While many visits are unavoidable, a significant portion may be potentially preventable ED visits (PPEDs). Cancer treatments have greatly advanced, whereby patients may present with unique toxicities from targeted therapies and are often living longer with advanced disease. Prior work focused on patients undergoing cytotoxic chemotherapy, and often excluded those on supportive care alone. Other contributors to ED visits in oncology, such as patient-level variables, are less well-established. Finally, prior studies focused on ED diagnoses to describe trends and did not evaluate PPEDs. An updated systematic review was completed to focus on PPEDs, novel cancer therapies, and patient-level variables, including those on supportive care alone.

METHODS

Three online databases were used. Included publications were in English, from 2012-2022, with sample sizes of ≥50, and reported predictors of ED presentation or ED diagnoses in oncology.

RESULTS

45 studies were included. Six studies highlighted PPEDs with variable definitions. Common reasons for ED visits included pain (66%) or chemotherapy toxicities (69.1%). PPEDs were most frequent amongst breast cancer patients (13.4%) or patients receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy (20%). Three manuscripts included immunotherapy agents, and only one focused on end-of-life patients.

CONCLUSION

This updated systematic review highlights variability in oncology ED visits during the last decade. There is limited work on the concept of PPEDs, patient-level variables and patients on supportive care alone. Overall, pain and chemotherapy toxicities remain key drivers of ED visits in cancer patients. Further work is needed in this realm.

Development and Evaluation of a Data-Driven, Interactive Workshop to Facilitate Communication and Teamwork in Ambulatory Medical Oncology Settings

Background

While adverse events and toxicities related to cancer drug therapy in the ambulatory oncology setting are common and often rooted in communication challenges, few studies have examined the problems of communication or tested tools to improve communication in this unique, high-risk setting.

Objective

To determine the feasibility and acceptability of a virtual interdisciplinary communication Workshop designed to strengthen communication across ambulatory oncology teams members.

Methods

Surveys of patients and clinicians in one ambulatory oncology clinic were analyzed and informed the communication intervention: an interdisciplinary virtual Workshop. Workshop evaluation included an implementation survey measure and a structured debrief with Workshop attendees.

Results

87 patients and 56 clinicians participated in pre-workshop surveys that revealed patient satisfaction with timely care and information, yet a range of rating communication experiences with the clinical team, and clinicians perceiving a high amount of organizational safety, yet rated discussion of alternatives to normal work processes low. Survey results guided reflection and discussion within the Workshop. Six clinicians participated in the interactive Workshop. Feasibility and acceptability of the virtual Workshop were supported by formative and summative data, along with suggestions for improvement.

Conclusions

The patient and clinician surveys coupled with an interactive virtual Workshop were feasible and acceptable.

Implications for Practice

The Workshop identified opportunities for individual- and system-level improvements in clinical team communication. This promising strategy requires replication in larger, diverse practice samples.

Foundational

Clinicians accepted an interactive workshop that incorporated clinic-specific data and communication strategies. The program is feasible and acceptable in ambulatory oncology settings.

Supportive care practice: do we need guidelines?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To review the role of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines in promoting the quality and consistency of supportive care in oncology to meet the needs of practitioners and patients.

RECENT FINDINGS

To maintain quality, guidelines must be regularly updated in terms of content as new treatment modalities like immunotherapy are introduced, adapted to new methodologies such as the application of artificial intelligence, adoption of multiple symptoms or orphan symptoms and capture new endpoints such a patient-reported outcomes. This helps prevent a major barrier to implementation; negative attitudes of practitioners towards guidelines. Digital guidelines provide greater opportunities for dissemination, ease of updating and can be linked to education modules. The quality must be assured by critically appraising the literature and then grading the level of evidence of the guidelines. The benefits of supportive care guidelines include guidance for clinical decision-making in a changing field, continuing professional development of practitioners, a source of information for patients and in highlighting the gaps where further research is necessary.

SUMMARY

The implications are that guidelines are required for supportive care in cancer but they must be constantly updated and evolve in their structure, the rigour of appraisal and content to promote quality care.

Patient-reported outcomes collected in ambulatory oncology practices: Feasibility, patterns, and correlates

OBJECTIVE

To examine the feasibility of soliciting outcomes from adults who received chemotherapy treatment for cancer and describe the patterns and correlates of patient-reported toxicities.

DATA SOURCES

Patient survey data from 29 Michigan ambulatory oncology practices collected in 2017.

STUDY DESIGN

Secondary analysis of patient survey data. Descriptive statistics were generated at the patient and practice levels. Thematic analysis of open-text comments identified clusters of frequently reported toxicities.

DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Patients completed 11 items from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Using a 5-point Likert scale, patients rated the frequency of nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and pain; the severity of nausea, vomiting, constipation, numbness/tingling, and pain; and how much numbness/tingling and pain interfered with usual or daily activities. Patients could also report two toxicities in open-text comments. Finally, patients reported unplanned health care service for toxicity or side effect management.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

Of 3565 eligible patients, 2245 participated (63%) and 457 (20%) rated at least one toxicity as severe/very severe. Across practices, the proportion of patients who reported at least one severe/very severe toxicity ranged from 8% to 50%. Troubling toxicities included pain frequency (mean 2.3, SD 1.3), pain severity (2.1, 1.1), and diarrhea frequency (1.9, 1.0). From completed assessments, 1653 (74%) reported at least one toxicity in open-text comments; fatigue (n = 182), stomach discomfort (n = 53), and skin/nail changes (n = 41) were most frequently reported. Regarding consequences, 156 patients (7%) reported unplanned health care service use: 41 (26%) visited an emergency department and 32 (21%) were admitted to a hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Querying patients on chemotherapy treatment experiences and toxicities was feasible. Toxicity rates varied across practices, which informed quality improvement. Toxicity severity and service use incidence exceed previously published trial data, particularly for pain, fatigue, and gastrointestinal issues. Open-text questions enabled exploration with newer treatment regimens.