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

Service Evaluation of MyChristie-MyHealth, an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Integrated Into Clinical Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are digitalized health questionnaires used to gauge patients' subjective experience of health and disease. They are becoming prevalent in cancer care and have been linked to a host of benefits including improved survival. MyChristie-MyHealth is the ePROM established at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. We conducted an evaluation of this service to understand user experiences, as well as strategies to improve its functioning.

METHODS

Data collection: Patients who had opted never to complete MyChristie-MyHealth (n = 87), and those who had completed at least one (n = 87) were identified. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, postcode, diagnosis, treatment intent, and trial status. Semistructured interviews were held with noncompleters (n = 30) and completers (n = 31) of MyChristie-MyHealth, as well as clinician users (n = 6), covering themes such as accessibility, acceptability and usefulness, and open discourse on ways in which the service could be improved.

RESULTS

Noncompleters of MyChristie-MyHealth were older (median age 72 v 66 years, P = .005), receiving treatment with curative rather than palliative intent (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .045), and less likely to be enrolled on a clinical trial (OR, 0.531; P = .011). They were less likely to own a smartphone (33% v 97%) or have reliable Internet access (45% v 100%). Satisfaction with MyChristie-MyHealth was high in both groups: 93% (n = 29) of completers and 87% (n = 26) noncompleters felt generally happy to complete. Completers of MyChristie-MyHealth wanted their results to be acknowledged by their clinicians. Clinicians wanted results to be displayed in a more user-friendly way.

CONCLUSION

We have broadly characterized noncompleters of the Christie ePROM to identify those in need of extra support or encouragement in the clinic. An action plan resulting from this review has been compiled and will inform the future development of MyChristie-MyHealth.

Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used as an assessment and monitoring tool in clinical practice. However, patient adherence to PROMs completions are typically not well documented or explained in published studies and reports. Through a collaboration between the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research (ISOQOL) Patient Engagement and QOL in Clinical Practice Special Interest Groups (SIGs) case studies were collated as a platform to explore how adherence can be evaluated and understood. Case studies were drawn from across a range of clinically and methodologically diverse PROMs activities.

RESULTS

The case studies identified that the influences on PROMs adherence vary. Key drivers include PROMs administeration methods within a service and wider system, patient capacity to engage and clinician engagement with PROMs information. It was identified that it is important to  evaluate  PROMs integration and adherence from multiple perspectives.

CONCLUSION

PROM completion rates are an important indicator of patient adherence. Future research prioritizing an understanding of PROMs completion rates by patients is needed.

Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators

PURPOSE

Symptoms can negatively impact quality of life for patients with a history of cancer. Digital, electronic health record (EHR)-integrated approaches to routine symptom monitoring accompanied by evidence-based interventions for symptom management have been explored as a scalable way to improve symptom management, particularly between clinic visits. However, little research has evaluated barriers and facilitators to implementing these approaches in real-world settings, particularly during the pre-implementation phase. Pre-implementation assessment is critical for informing the selection and sequencing of implementation strategies and intervention adaptation. Thus, this study sought to understand pre-implementation perceptions of a remote cancer symptom monitoring and management intervention that uses electronic patient-reported outcome measures for symptom assessment.

METHODS

We interviewed 20 clinical and administrative stakeholders from 4 geographic regions within an academic medical center and its affiliated health system during the months prior to initiation of a stepped-wedge, cluster randomized pragmatic trial. Transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research [CFIR] 2.0. Two study team members reviewed coded transcripts to understand how determinants were relevant in the pre-implementation phase of the trial and prepared analytic memos to identify themes.

RESULTS

Findings are summarized in four themes: (1) ability of the intervention to meet patient needs [recipient characteristics], (2) designing with care team needs in mind [innovation design and adaptability], (3) fit of the intervention with existing practice workflows [compatibility], and (4) engaging care teams early [engaging deliverers].

CONCLUSION

Attention to these aspects when planning intervention protocols can promote intervention compatibility with patients, providers, and practices thereby increasing implementation success.

Barriers and facilitators of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (e-PROMs) for patients in home palliative cancer care: a qualitative study of healthcare professionals' perceptions

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes in palliative care enable early monitoring and management of symptoms that most impact patients' daily lives; however, there are several barriers to adopting electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures (e-PROMs) in daily practice. This study explored the experiences of health care professionals (HCPs) regarding potential barriers and facilitators in implementing e-PROMs in palliative cancer care at home.

METHODS

This was a qualitative descriptive study. The data were collected from two focus groups structured according to the conceptual framework of Grol. HCPs involved in home palliative cancer care of Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori of Milan were enrolled. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 245 codes were generated, 171 for the first focus group and 74 for the second focus group. The results were subdivided into subthemes according to Grol's themes: Innovation, Individual professional, Patient, Social context, Organizational context, except Economic Political context. Nine HCPs attended the first focus group, and ten attended the second. According to these participants, e-PROMs could be integrated into clinical practice after adequate training and support of HCPs at all stages of implementation. They identified barriers, especially in the social and organizational contexts, due to the uniqueness of the oncological end-of-life setting and the intangible care interventions, as well as many facilitators for the innovation that these tools bring and for improved communication with the patient and the healthcare team.

CONCLUSIONS

e-PROMs are perceived by HCPs as adding value to patient care and their work; however, barriers remain especially related to the fragility of these patients, the adequacy of technological systems, lack of education, and the risk of low humanization of care.

Perceived Barriers and Facilitators in Using Patient-Reported Outcome Systems for Cancer Care: Systematic Mapping Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer is a major global health problem. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) systems have been developed to support the treatment of patients with cancer. Although clear evidence of the benefits of the routine use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) exists, engaging physicians in using these systems has been challenging.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to identify and analyze what is currently known about health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators that exist and influence the use of ePRO systems for cancer care.

METHODS

We carried out a systematic mapping study by conducting searches of 3 databases (Association for Computing Machinery, PubMed, and Scopus). Eligible papers were published between 2010 and 2021, and they described HCPs' perspectives on using ePROs. The data on the included papers were extracted, a thematic meta-synthesis was performed, and 7 themes were summarized into 3 categories.

RESULTS

A total of 17 papers were included in the study. The HCPs' perceived barriers and facilitators of using ePROs can be summarized into 7 themes: clinical workflow, organization and infrastructure, value to patients, value to HCPs, digital health literacy, usability, and data visualization and perceived features. These themes can be further summarized into 3 categories: work environment, value to users, and suggested features. According to the study, ePROs should be interoperable with hospital electronic health records and adapted to the hospital workflow. HCPs should get appropriate support for their use. Additional features are needed for ePROs, and special attention should be paid to data visualization. Patients should have the option to use web-based ePROs at home and complete it at the time most valuable to the treatment. Patients' ePRO notes need attention during clinical visits, but ePRO use should not limit patient-clinician face-to-face communication.

CONCLUSIONS

The study revealed that several aspects need improvement in ePROs and their operating environments. By improving these aspects, HCPs' experience with ePROs will enhance, and thus, there will be more facilitating factors for HCPs to use ePROs than those available today. More national and international knowledge about using ePROs is still needed to cover the need for information to develop them and their operating environments to meet the needs of HCPs.

Using Implementation Science in Nursing Research

OBJECTIVES

Clinical research continues to build knowledge that can potentially improve clinical and health service outcomes; however, integrating evidence into routine care is challenging, resulting in a knowledge practice gap. The field of implementation science is a resource available for nurses to translate evidence into their practice. This article aims to provide nurses with an overview of implementation science, illustrate its value integrating evidence into practice, and show how it can be applied with high rigor in nursing research practice.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative synthesis of the implementation science literature was conducted. A series of case studies were purposively selected to demonstrate the application of commonly used implementation theories, models, and frameworks across health care settings relevant to nursing. These case studies demonstrate how the theoretical framework was applied and how the outcomes of the work reduced the knowledge practice gap.

CONCLUSION

Implementation science theoretical approaches have been used by nurses and multidisciplinary teams to better understand the gap between knowledge and practice for better informed implementation. These can be used to understand the processes involved, identify the determinants at play, and undertake an effective evaluation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING PRACTICE

By using implementation science research practice, nurses can also build a strong foundation of evidence about nursing clinical practice. As an approach, implementation science is practical and can optimize the valuable nursing resource.

Amplifying the Patient Voice: A Survey of Practitioners' Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Across Radiotherapy Providers in England

AIMS

The NHS England Radiotherapy Service Specification calls for routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, barriers exist at patient, healthcare professional and service levels. The aim of the present study was to determine the current use of PROMs within radiotherapy services in England. The current attitudes, barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs in radiotherapy practice were evaluated and practical recommendations to inform future implementation were developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was adopted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data. An online questionnaire was developed and disseminated to all radiotherapy operational delivery network managers across England. The questionnaire consisted of 12 open and closed questions relating to PROMs use, with the option to provide free-text responses. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on free-text comments, whereas descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data.

RESULTS

In total, 182 responses were received from 40 of the 50 radiotherapy providers, resulting in a response rate of 84%. The current use of PROMs was analysed, including rationale for use, tools used, format of PROMs collection and timing within the radiotherapy pathway. Most respondents indicated that PROMs were used in the context of clinical trials only. Through thematic analysis, four identical key themes were identified relating to both barriers and enablers to PROMs use; these included IT infrastructure, time, human/financial resources and training/education. A fifth theme, standardisation, was identified as a key enabler to PROMs use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that outside of clinical trials, PROMs are not routinely used in radiotherapy services due to barriers identified at professional and service levels. Here we provide recommendations to mitigate the barriers identified and implement PROMs in radiotherapy, including training for healthcare professionals and standardisation of PROMs tools and storage. This study provides a key first step in driving PROMs implementation within radiotherapy services across England.

'Why should I fill out this questionnaire?' A qualitative study of cancer patients' perspectives on the integration of e-PROMs in routine clinical care

PURPOSE

There is increasing interest in integrating electronic patient-reported outcomes (e-PROs) into clinical routines in cancer settings. However, little is known about patients' experiences with and perceptions of e-PRO measures (e-PROMs). This study examines patients' experiences with e-PROMS, particularly their perspectives about its usefulness and its implications for the clinical encounter with their doctors.

METHOD

A total of 19 individual in-person interviews with cancer patients at a Comprehensive Cancer Center in northern Italy conducted in 2021 inform this study.

RESULTS

The findings suggested that, overall, patients had positive attitudes towards data collection using e-PROMs. On the one hand, most patients found the integration of e-PROMs into routine clinical practice as beneficial in treating patients with cancer. The main benefits of e-PROMs according to this group of patients were that: they promoted patient-centred care; could be used to tailor and improve the quality of care through a holistic approach; supported early detection of problematic symptoms; increased patient self-awareness; and contributed to clinical research. On the other hand, many patients did not fully understand the purpose of e-PROMs and some patients were also sceptical about their usefulness in routine clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings have several practical implications for ensuring the successful implementation of e-PROMs in routine clinical practice. These include the following preconditions: patients are informed about the purposes of data collection; physicians provide feedback to patients about the e-PROMs' results; and that hospital administrators allocate sufficient time for clinical interactions to integrate e-PROMs into routine clinical practice.

Facing the challenges of PROM implementation in Dutch dialysis care: Patients' and professionals' perspectives

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in routine clinical practice to facilitate patients in sharing and discussing health-related topics with their clinician. This study focuses on the implementation experiences of healthcare professionals and patients during the early implementation phase of the newly developed Dutch set of dialysis PROMs and aims to understand the process of early implementation of PROMs from the users' perspectives.

METHODS

This is a qualitative study among healthcare professionals (physicians and nursing staff: n = 13) and patients (n = 14) of which 12 were receiving haemodialysis and 2 peritoneal dialysis. Semi-structured interviews were used to understand the barriers and facilitators that both professionals and patients encounter when starting to implement PROMs.

RESULTS

The early PROM implementation process is influenced by a variety of factors that we divided into barriers and facilitators. We identified four barriers: patient´s indifference to PROMs, scepticism on the benefits of aggregated PROM data, the limited treatment options open to doctors and organizational issues such as mergers, organizational problems and renovations. We also describe four facilitators: professional involvement and patient support, a growing understanding of the use of PROMs during the implementation, quick gains from using PROMs such as receiving instant feedback and a clear ambition on patient care such as a shared view on patient involvement and management support.

CONCLUSIONS

In this qualitative study carried out during the early implementation phase of the Dutch dialysis PROM set, we found that patients did not yet consider the PROM set to be a useful additional tool to share information with their doctor. This was despite the professionals' primary reason for using PROMs being to improve patient-doctor communication. Furthermore, the perceived lack of intervention options was frustrating for some of the professionals. We found that nurses could be important enablers of further implementation because of their intensive relationship with dialysis patients.

Adapting an integrated care pathway for implementing electronic patient reported outcomes assessment in routine oncology care: Lessons learned from a case study

RATIONALE, AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

Details of the development and implementation of integrated care pathways (ICPs) in the context of electronic collection of patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for cancer patients are largely lacking in the literature. This study describes what, why and how decisions were made to adapt and implement an ePROs ICP for patients with lung cancer.

METHODS

A consensus process was utilized, with the implementation advisory group including multidisciplinary representation from three participating hospitals, to identify local champions and adapt and incorporate the ePRO ICP into the local contexts. Engagement meetings were documented via meeting transcripts, and detailed notes from October 2019 to November 2020 were content-analysed to identify decision-making themes based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; workflows and process maps were reviewed and modified to integrate ePROs.

RESULTS

In total, 55 engagement activities were held (24 meetings, 20 workshops 11 educational sessions), with n = 96 staff from multiple disciplines participating in the ePROs implementation through advisory meetings, process mapping, change management and staff education. Decisions were made regarding eligible patient cohorts to include, the process for onboarding patients onto the ePRO system, and follow-up and referral pathways. Rationales for decisions included alignment with existing workflows, utilizing available staff, minimizing staff and patient burden and maximizing patient engagement.

CONCLUSION

Existing resources, staff input and technical and logistical reasons often guided the ICP decisions, highlighting the need for in-depth engagement across all stakeholders for optimal implementation of ePRO ICPs. The ePRO implementation required substantial dialogue and systematic resolution to reach agreement on the final processes. Adapting the local ICP through rigorous engagement facilitated the successful implementation of ePROs as business-as-usual at all three cancer centres. Involving all relevant stakeholders is critical to the successful adaptation of ICPs before their introduction into routine care.

Knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals towards patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) at a comprehensive cancer center

BACKGROUND

Despite evidence of the positive impact of routine assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), their systematic collection is not widely implemented in cancer care.

AIM

To assess the knowledge, use and attitudes of healthcare professionals (HCPs) towards PROMs and electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs) in clinical practice and research and to explore respondent-related factors associated with the above dimensions.

METHOD

An ad hoc developed online survey was administered to all HCPs employed in clinical activity in an Italian comprehensive cancer center. The survey investigated which PROMs were known and used, as well as HCPs' opinions on the advantages and drawbacks of routine PROM assessment, including electronic assessment (ePROM). Linear and logistic regression models were used for association analyses.

RESULTS

Five Hundred Eleven of nine hundred ninety-two invited HCPs (52%) provided analyzable responses. 68% were women, 46% were nurses and 42% physicians, and 52.5% had > 20 years seniority. The average number of PROMs known was six among 17 proposed. All proved to be under-used (< 28%) except unidimensional and multidimensional pain scales (77 and 36%). Respondents expressed an overall positive attitude towards PROMs, with strengths outweighing weaknesses (mean overall scores 3.6 and 2.9, respectively, on a 1-5 scale). 67% of respondents preferred electronic collection over paper and pencil. Profession was associated with knowledge and use (physicians reported knowing more PROMs than other professionals) and with a preference for electronic collection (nurses were less likely to prefer the electronic format than physicians). Senior HCPs were slightly more critical about both PROMs and electronic administration.

CONCLUSIONS

This survey indicates an acceptable level of knowledge of common PROM tools but low usage in practice. Based on the generally positive attitude of HCPs, routine implementation of ePROMs can be promoted as long as adequate resources and training are provided.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Not registered.

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

Methods

Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

Results

Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

Conclusions

This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities.

Implication for Cancer Survivors

Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2.

Patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures

PURPOSE

To identify patient-level barriers and facilitators to completion of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in a hand and upper extremity clinic in Baltimore, Maryland.

METHODS

We conducted 12 h of direct observation of PROM completion (October-November, 2020). Ethnographic observation memos were qualitatively analyzed for barriers and facilitators using rapid thematic analysis. Informed by observation findings, we conducted 17 semi-structured interviews with mixed-literacy patients, caregivers, and clinic staff to understand the patient experience when completing PROMs (November 2020-March 2021). We identified initial themes through inductive and deductive framework analysis and validated findings through subsequent interviews with member-checking.

RESULTS

We identified nine patient-level factors that influence PROM completion: platform design, print literacy, health literacy, technology literacy, language proficiency, physical functioning, vision, cognitive functioning, and time.

CONCLUSIONS

There are multiple distinct patient-level factors that affect PROM completion. Failure to consider these factors in PROM design and implementation may lower completion rates or prevent accurate completion, undermining PROM validity. Because certain factors affect minority populations at disproportionate rates, this may also contribute to existing health disparities.

Patient preferences for using technology in communication about symptoms post hospital discharge

Background

Technology is increasingly transforming the way we interact with others and undertake activities in our daily lives. The healthcare setting has, however, not yet realised the potential of technology solutions to facilitate communication between patients and healthcare providers. While the procedural and policy requirements of healthcare systems will ultimately drive such solutions, understanding the preferences and attitudes of patients is essential to ensure that technology implemented in the healthcare setting facilitates communication in safe, acceptable, and appropriate ways. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to examine patient preferences for using technology to communicate with health service providers about symptoms experienced following discharge from the hospital.

Methods

Primary data were collected from patients admitted to a large metropolitan hospital in Australia during three consecutive months in 2018. Participants were asked about their daily use of technology including use of computers, email, phone, text messaging, mobile applications, social media, online discussion forums, and videoconference. They were then asked about their use of technologies in managing their health, and preferences for use when communicating about symptoms with health service providers following discharge from hospital.

Results

Five hundred and twenty-five patients with a wide range of differing clinical conditions and demographics participated. Patients indicated they used a range of technologies in their everyday lives and to manage their health. Almost 60% of patients would prefer to return to hospital if they were experiencing symptoms of concern. However, if patients experienced symptoms that were not of concern, over 60% would prefer to communicate with the hospital via telephone or using technology. Admitting condition, income, and age were significantly associated with preferences for communication about symptoms following hospital discharge.

Conclusions

Patients have varied preferences for communicating with their health service providers post-hospital discharge. Findings suggest that some, but not all patients, would prefer to use technology to traditional methods of communicating with the healthcare team. Health services should offer patients multiple options for communicating about their recovery to ensure individual needs are appropriately met.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06119-7.

Administration of iodinated contrast: What is the risk in cancer patients?

OBJECTIVE

Despite the association between intravenous contrast and kidney injury, few studies exist in oncology. Our objective was to estimate kidney outcomes following iodinated contrast-enhanced computed tomography (CECT) in cancer patients, and to evaluate whether self-assessment questionnaires can identify kidney injury risk factors.

METHODS

This prospective observational study included 289 patients who underwent a CECT scan between March and May 2017 in a hospital setting. All patients completed the modified European Society of Urogenital Radiology (ESUR) questionnaire and had an estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) >30 ml/min/1.73 m² on the day of the examination. Outcomes were followed for 4 months. Univariate and logistic regression analyses were carried out.

RESULTS

In the logistic regression analysis, the only variables statistically associated with deterioration in the eGFR were age, (odds ratio (OR) = 1.091, p = 0.003), female sex, (OR 0.22, p = 0.020) and arterial hypertension (AH), (OR = 3.57, p = 0.019). Regarding exitus, only the group with a worse eGFR was close to predictive statistical significance (OR = 2.48, p = 0.09).

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of iodinated contrast in cancer patients was not associated with an increase in kidney outcomes. Risk factors in these patients were age, sex and AH.