1
|
Lai-Kwon J, Rutherford C, Jefford M, Gore C, Best S. Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20:335-349. [PMID: 38206290 DOI: 10.1200/op.23.00462] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/26/2023] [Revised: 11/02/2023] [Accepted: 11/20/2023] [Indexed: 01/12/2024] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are an evidence-based means of detecting symptoms earlier and improving patient outcomes. However, there are few examples of successful implementation in routine cancer care. We conducted a qualitative study to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). METHODS Participants were adult patients with cancer, their caregivers, or health care professionals involved in ePRO monitoring or processes. Focus groups or individual interviews were conducted using a semistructured approach informed by the CFIR. Data were analyzed deductively using the CFIR. Barriers were matched to theory-informed implementation strategies using the CFIR-Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) matching tool. RESULTS Thirty participants were interviewed: 22 females (73%), aged 31-70 years (28, 94%), comprising patients (n = 8), caregivers (n = 2), medical oncologists (n = 4), nurses (n = 4), hospital leaders (n = 6), clinic administrators (n = 2), pharmacists (n = 2), and information technology specialists (n = 2). Barriers pertaining to four CFIR domains were identified and several were novel, including the challenge of adapting ePROs for different anticancer treatments. Facilitators pertaining to all CFIR domains were identified, such as leveraging acceptability of remote care post-COVID-19 to drive implementation. Conducting consensus discussions with stakeholders to tailor ePROs to the local setting, identifying/preparing individual and group-level champions, and assessing readiness for change (including leveraging technological advances and increased confidence in using remote monitoring post-COVID-19) were the most frequently recommended implementation strategies. CONCLUSION The CFIR facilitated identification of known and novel barriers and facilitators to implementing ePRO symptom monitoring in routine cancer care. Implementation strategies summarized in a conceptual framework will be used to codesign an ePRO symptom monitoring system for immunotherapy side effects.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Julia Lai-Kwon
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claudia Rutherford
- Cancer Care Research Unit (CCRU), Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Michael Jefford
- Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Cancer Survivorship Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Claire Gore
- Department of Psychology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Stephanie Best
- Department of Health Services Research, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Department of Psychology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
- Australian Genomics, Murdoch Childrens Research Institute, Melbourne, Australia
- Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre Alliance, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lopez CJ, Jones JM, Campbell KL, Bender JL, Strudwick G, Langelier DM, Reiman T, Greenland J, Neil-Sztramko SE. A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2024; 24:17. [PMID: 38178095 PMCID: PMC10768357 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-10445-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/04/2023] [Accepted: 12/06/2023] [Indexed: 01/06/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND An electronic Prospective Surveillance Model (ePSM) uses patient-reported outcomes to monitor symptoms along the cancer pathway for timely identification and treatment. Randomized controlled trials show that ePSMs can effectively manage treatment-related adverse effects. However, an understanding of optimal approaches for implementing these systems into routine cancer care is limited. This study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators prior to the implementation of an ePSM to inform the selection of implementation strategies. METHODS A qualitative study using virtual focus groups and individual interviews was conducted with cancer survivors, oncology healthcare providers, and clinic leadership across four cancer centres in Canada. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) guided the interviews and analysis of barriers and facilitators based on five domains (intervention characteristics, individual characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, and process). RESULTS We conducted 13 focus groups and nine individual interviews with 13 patient participants and 56 clinic staff. Of the 39 CFIR constructs, 18 were identified as relevant determinants to the implementation. The adaptability, relative advantage, and complexity of an ePSM emerged as key intervention-level factors that could influence implementation. Knowledge of the system was important at the individual level. Within the inner setting, major determinants were the potential fit of an ePSM with clinical workflows (compatibility) and the resources that could be dedicated to the implementation effort (readiness for implementation). In the outer setting, meeting the needs of patients and the availability of rehabilitation supports were key determinants. Engaging various stakeholders was critical at the process level. CONCLUSIONS Improving the implementation of ePSMs in routine cancer care has the potential to facilitate early identification and management of treatment-related adverse effects, thereby improving quality of life. This study provides insight into important factors that may influence the implementation of an ePSM, which can be used to select appropriate implementation strategies to address these factors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian J Lopez
- Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada.
- Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada.
| | - Jennifer M Jones
- Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada
- Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Kristin L Campbell
- Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
| | - Jackie L Bender
- Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada
| | - Gillian Strudwick
- Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - David M Langelier
- Department of Supportive Care, Princess Margaret Cancer Centre, University Health Network, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON, M5G 2C4, Canada
- Institute of Medical Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Tony Reiman
- Department of Oncology, Saint John Regional Hospital, Saint John, Canada
- Department of Medicine, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada
| | - Jonathan Greenland
- Faculty of Medicine, Memorial University of Newfoundland, St John's, Canada
- Dr. H. Bliss Murphy Cancer Centre, Eastern Health, St. John's, Canada
| | - Sarah E Neil-Sztramko
- Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
- National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Amplifying the Patient Voice: A Survey of Practitioners' Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Across Radiotherapy Providers in England. Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol) 2023; 35:199-208. [PMID: 36443139 DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2022.11.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2022] [Revised: 09/22/2022] [Accepted: 11/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
|
4
|
Girgis A, Bamgboje-Ayodele A, Rincones O, Vinod SK, Avery S, Descallar J, Smith A‘B, Arnold B, Arnold A, Bray V, Durcinoska I, Rankin NM, Chang CF, Eifler B, Elliott S, Hardy C, Ivimey B, Jansens W, Kaadan N, Koh ES, Livio N, Lozenkovski S, McErlean G, Nasser E, Ryan N, Smeal T, Thomas T, Tran T, Wiltshire J, Delaney GP. Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2022; 6:70. [PMID: 35723827 PMCID: PMC9207870 DOI: 10.1186/s41687-022-00475-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2022] [Accepted: 06/03/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Background
To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.
Method
A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.
Results
A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).
Conclusion
This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options.
Plain English summary
Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.
Collapse
|