Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures in melanoma clinical quality registries: a systematic review

Systematic development of a patient-reported ONCOlogical-ROUTinE-Screening (ONCO-ROUTES) procedure at the University Cancer Center Regensburg

PURPOSE

The evaluation of treatment success and progression in oncology patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is playing an increasingly important role. Meanwhile, PROs are a component of the certification requirements of the German Cancer Society for oncology centers. PROs are used to provide supportive therapy. There is currently no instrument that fully covers the requirements. At the University Hospital Regensburg (UKR), a digital ONCOlogical-ROUTinE-Screening (ONCO-ROUTES) procedure was developed in order to assess the need for supportive therapy in a standardized way and to provide patients with supportive interventions tailored to their needs.

METHODS

On the basis of current requirements and guidelines, the development of ONCO-ROUTES was supported by experts in focus groups and interviews, and digitalization was carried out in connection with the IT infrastructure.

RESULTS

A Needs-based, Quality-of-life (QoL) and Symptoms Screening (NQS2) tool already established in the routine at the UKR was further developed into ONCO-ROUTES, which is made up of the domains therapy phase, nutrition, tobacco use, alcohol use, quality of life, general condition/functional status, physical activity, psychooncology, social services, and further support needs. By linking the digitized questionnaire to the hospital information system, the results are available for immediate use in routine operations and thus for the referral of patients for further supportive therapy.

CONCLUSION

The digital PRO application ONCO-ROUTES is designed to involve patients in monitoring additional supportive needs and thus, improves supportive interdisciplinary treatment.

Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, 'change champions' to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.

Collecting routine and timely cancer stage at diagnosis by implementing a cancer staging tiered framework: the Western Australian Cancer Registry experience

BACKGROUND

Current processes collecting cancer stage data in population-based cancer registries (PBCRs) lack standardisation, resulting in difficulty utilising diverse data sources and incomplete, low-quality data. Implementing a cancer staging tiered framework aims to improve stage collection and facilitate inter-PBCR benchmarking.

OBJECTIVE

Demonstrate the application of a cancer staging tiered framework in the Western Australian Cancer Staging Project to establish a standardised method for collecting cancer stage at diagnosis data in PBCRs.

METHODS

The tiered framework, developed in collaboration with a Project Advisory Group and applied to breast, colorectal, and melanoma cancers, provides business rules - procedures for stage collection. Tier 1 represents the highest staging level, involving complete American Joint Committee on Cancer (AJCC) tumour-node-metastasis (TNM) data collection and other critical staging information. Tier 2 (registry-derived stage) relies on supplementary data, including hospital admission data, to make assumptions based on data availability. Tier 3 (pathology stage) solely uses pathology reports.

FINDINGS

The tiered framework promotes flexible utilisation of staging data, recognising various levels of data completeness. Tier 1 is suitable for all purposes, including clinical and epidemiological applications. Tiers 2 and 3 are recommended for epidemiological analysis alone. Lower tiers provide valuable insights into disease patterns, risk factors, and overall disease burden for public health planning and policy decisions. Capture of staging at each tier depends on data availability, with potential shifts to higher tiers as new data sources are acquired.

CONCLUSIONS

The tiered framework offers a dynamic approach for PBCRs to record stage at diagnosis, promoting consistency in population-level staging data and enabling practical use for benchmarking across jurisdictions, public health planning, policy development, epidemiological analyses, and assessing cancer outcomes. Evolution with staging classifications and data variable changes will futureproof the tiered framework. Its adaptability fosters continuous refinement of data collection processes and encourages improvements in data quality.

Learning health systems and evidence ecosystems: a perspective on the future of evidence-based medicine and evidence-based guideline development

Despite forming the cornerstone of modern clinical practice for decades, implementation of evidence-based medicine at scale remains a crucial challenge for health systems. As a result, there has been a growing need for conceptual models to better contextualise and pragmatize the use of evidence-based medicine, particularly in tandem with patient-centred care. In this commentary, we highlight the emergence of the learning health system as one such model and analyse its potential role in pragmatizing both evidence-based medicine and patient-centred care. We apply the learning health system lens to contextualise the key activity of evidence-based guideline development and implementation, and highlight how current inefficiencies and bottlenecks in the evidence synthesis phase of evidence-based guideline development threaten downstream adherence. Lastly, we introduce the evidence ecosystem as a complementary model to learning health systems, and propose how innovative developments from the evidence ecosystem may be integrated with learning health systems to better enable health impact at speed and scale.

Response rates in clinical quality registries and databases that collect patient reported outcome measures: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are being increasingly introduced in clinical registries, providing a personal perspective on the expectations and impact of treatment. The aim of this study was to describe response rates (RR) to PROMs in clinical registries and databases and to examine the trends over time, and how they change with the registry type, region and disease or condition captured.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping literature review of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, in addition to Google Scholar and grey literature. All English studies on clinical registries capturing PROMs at one or more time points were included. Follow up time points were defined as follows: baseline (if available), < 1 year, 1 to < 2 years, 2 to < 5 years, 5 to < 10 years and 10 + years. Registries were grouped according to regions of the world and health conditions. Subgroup analyses were conducted to identify trends in RRs over time. These included calculating average RRs, standard deviation and change in RRs according to total follow up time.

RESULTS

The search strategy yielded 1,767 publications. Combined with 20 reports and four websites, a total of 141 sources were used in the data extraction and analysis process. Following the data extraction, 121 registries capturing PROMs were identified. The overall average RR at baseline started at 71% and decreased to 56% at 10 + year at follow up. The highest average baseline RR of 99% was observed in Asian registries and in registries capturing data on chronic conditions (85%). Overall, the average RR declined as follow up time increased.

CONCLUSION

A large variation and downward trend in PROMs RRs was observed in most of the registries identified in our review. Formal recommendations are required for consistent collection, follow up and reporting of PROMs data in a registry setting to improve patient care and clinical practice. Further research studies are needed to determine acceptable RRs for PROMs captured in clinical registries.

Measuring the quality of skin cancer management in primary care: A scoping review

Skin cancer is a growing global problem and a significant health and economic burden. Despite the practical necessity for skin cancer to be managed in primary care settings, little is known about how quality of care is or should be measured in this setting. This scoping review aimed to capture the breadth and range of contemporary evidence related to the measurement of quality in skin cancer management in primary care settings. Six databases were searched for relevant texts reporting on quality measurement in primary care skin cancer management. Data from 46 texts published since 2011 were extracted, and quality measures were catalogued according to the three domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process and outcome). Quality measures within each domain were inductively analysed into 13 key emergent groups. These represented what were deemed to be the most relevant components of skin cancer management as related to structure, process or outcomes measurement. Four groups related to the structural elements of care provision (e.g. diagnostic tools and equipment), five related to the process of care delivery (e.g. diagnostic processes) and four related to the outcomes of care (e.g. poor treatment outcomes). A broad range of quality measures have been documented, based predominantly on articles using retrospective cohort designs; systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were limited.

Carer-reported measures for a dementia registry: A systematic scoping review and a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Informal carers play a critical role in supporting people with dementia. We conducted a scoping review and a qualitative study to inform the identification and development of carer-reported measures for a dementia clinical quality registry.

METHODS

Phase 1-Scoping review: Searches to identify carer-reported health and well-being measures were conducted in three databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Embase). Data were extracted to record how the measures were administered, the domains of quality-of-life addressed and whether they had been used in a registry context. Phase 2-Qualitative study: Four focus groups were conducted with carers to examine the acceptability of selected measures and to identify outcomes that were important but missing from these measures.

RESULTS

Phase 1: Ninety-nine carer measures were identified with the top four being the Zarit Burden Interview (n = 39), the Short-Form12/36 (n = 14), the Brief Coping Orientation to Problems Experienced scale and the Sense of Coherence scale (both n = 9). Modes of administration included face-to-face (n = 50), postal (n = 11), telephone (n = 8) and online (n = 5). No measure had been used in a registry context. Phase 2: Carers preferred brief measures that included both outcome and experience questions, reflected changes in carers' circumstances and included open-ended questions.

CONCLUSIONS

Carer-reported measures for a dementia clinical quality registry need to include both outcome and experience questions to capture carers' perceptions of the process and outcomes of care and services. Existing carer-reported measures have not been used in a dementia registry context and adaption and further research are required.

Impact of glycaemic technologies on quality of life and related outcomes in adults with type 1 diabetes: A narrative review

AIMS

To explore the association between the use of glycaemic technologies and person-reported outcomes (PROs) in adults with type 1 diabetes (T1D).

METHODS

We included T1D and technology publications reporting on PROs since 2014. Only randomised controlled trials and cohort studies that used validated PRO measures (PROMs) were considered.

RESULTS

T1D studies reported on a broad range of validated PROMs, mainly as secondary outcome measures. Most studies examined continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), intermittently scanned CGM (isCGM), and the role of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion (CSII), including sensor-augmented CSII and closed loop systems. Generally, studies demonstrated a positive impact of technology on hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific PROs, including reduced fear of hypoglycaemia and diabetes distress, and greater satisfaction with diabetes treatment. In contrast, generic PROMs (including measures of health/functional status, emotional well-being, depressive symptoms, and sleep quality) were less likely to demonstrate improvements associated with the use of glycaemic technologies. Several studies showed contradictory findings, which may relate to study design, population and length of follow-up. Differences in PRO findings were apparent between randomised controlled trials and cohort studies, which may be due to different populations studied and/or disparity between trial and real-world conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

PROs are usually assessed as secondary outcomes in glycaemic technology studies. Hypoglycaemia-specific and diabetes-specific, but not generic, PROs show the benefits of glycaemic technologies, and deserve a more central role in future studies as well as routine clinical care.

Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice.

METHODS

Medline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results.

RESULTS

Electronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors.

CONCLUSION

Results can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

Developing an Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR): a protocol paper

INTRODUCTION

Australia has the highest incidence of melanoma in the world with variable care provided by a diverse range of clinicians. Clinical quality registries aim to identify these variations in care and provide anonymised, benchmarked feedback to clinicians and institutions to improve patient outcomes. The Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR) aims to collect population-wide, clinical-level data for the early management of cutaneous melanoma and provide anonymised feedback to healthcare providers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A modified Delphi process will be undertaken to identify key clinical quality indicators for inclusion in the MelCOR pilot. MelCOR will prospectively collect data relevant to these quality indicators, initially for all people over the age of 18 years living in Victoria and Queensland with a melanoma diagnosis confirmed by histopathology, via a two-stage recruitment and consent process. In stage 1, existing State-based cancer registries contact the treating clinician and provide an opportunity for them to opt themselves or their patients out of direct contact with MelCOR. After stage 1, re-identifiable clinical data are provided to the MelCOR under a waiver of consent. In stage 2, the State-based cancer registry will approach the patient directly and invite them to opt in to MelCOR and share identifiable data. If a patient elects to opt in, MelCOR will be able to contact patients directly to collect patient-reported outcome measures. Aggregated data will be used to provide benchmarked, comparative feedback to participating institutions/clinicians.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Following the successful collection of pilot data, the feasibility of an Australia-wide roll out will be evaluated. Key quality indicator data will be the core of the MelCOR dataset, with additional data points added later. Annual reports will be issued, first to the relevant stakeholders followed by the public. MelCOR is approved by the Alfred Ethics Committee (58280/127/20).

Surgeon Engagement with Patient-Reported Measures in Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Practices

PURPOSE

Patient-reported measures are an important emerging metric in outcome monitoring; however, they remain ill-defined and underutilized in bariatric clinical practice. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of patient-reported measures employed in bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand, including barriers to their implementation and to what extent clinicians are receptive to their use.

METHODS

An online survey was distributed to all bariatric surgeons actively contributing to the Australian and Aotearoa New Zealand Bariatric Surgery Registry (n = 176). Participants reported their use of patient-reported measures and identified the most important and useful outcomes of patient-reported data for clinical practice.

RESULTS

Responses from 64 participants reported on 120 public and private bariatric practices across Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. Most participants reported no collection of any patient-reported measure (39 of 64; 60.9%), citing insufficient staff time or resources as the primary barrier to the collection of both patient-reported experience measures (34 of 102 practices; 33.3%) and patient-reported outcome measures (30 of 84 practices; 35.7%). Participants indicated data collection by the Registry would be useful (47 of 57; 82.5%), highlighting the most valuable application to be a monitoring tool, facilitating increased understanding of patient health needs, increased reporting of symptoms, and enhanced patient-physician communication.

CONCLUSION

Despite the current lack of patient-reported measures, there is consensus that such data would be valuable in bariatric practices. Widespread collection of patient-reported measures by registries could improve the collective quality of the data, while avoiding implementation barriers faced by individual surgeons and hospitals.

Effectiveness of registered nurses on patient outcomes in primary care: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Globally, registered nurses (RNs) are increasingly working in primary care interdisciplinary teams. Although existing literature provides some information about the contributions of RNs towards outcomes of care, further evidence on RN workforce contributions, specifically towards patient-level outcomes, is needed. This study synthesized evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care.

METHODS

A systematic review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute methodology. A comprehensive search of databases (CINAHL, MEDLINE Complete, PsycINFO, Embase) was performed using applicable subject headings and keywords. Additional literature was identified through grey literature searches (ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, MedNar, Google Scholar, websites, reference lists of included articles). Quantitative studies measuring the effectiveness of a RN-led intervention (i.e., any care/activity performed by a primary care RN) that reported related outcomes were included. Articles were screened independently by two researchers and assessed for bias using the Integrated Quality Criteria for Review of Multiple Study Designs tool. A narrative synthesis was undertaken due to the heterogeneity in study designs, RN-led interventions, and outcome measures across included studies.

RESULTS

Forty-six patient outcomes were identified across 23 studies. Outcomes were categorized in accordance with the PaRIS Conceptual Framework (patient-reported experience measures, patient-reported outcome measures, health behaviours) and an additional category added by the research team (biomarkers). Primary care RN-led interventions resulted in improvements within each outcome category, specifically with respect to weight loss, pelvic floor muscle strength and endurance, blood pressure and glycemic control, exercise self-efficacy, social activity, improved diet and physical activity levels, and reduced tobacco use. Patients reported high levels of satisfaction with RN-led care.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides evidence regarding the effectiveness of RNs on patient outcomes in primary care, specifically with respect to satisfaction, enablement, quality of life, self-efficacy, and improvements in health behaviours. Ongoing evaluation that accounts for primary care RNs' unique scope of practice and emphasizes the patient experience is necessary to optimize the delivery of patient-centered primary care.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION ID

PROSPERO: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. 2018. ID=CRD42 018090767 .

Development of melanoma clinical quality indicators for the Australian melanoma clinical outcomes registry (MelCOR): A modified Delphi study

BACKGROUND

Clinical quality registries aim to identify significant variations in care and provide anonymised feedback to institutions to improve patient outcomes. Thirty-six Australian organisations with an interest in melanoma, raised funds through three consecutive Melanoma Marches, organised by Melanoma Institute Australia, to create a national Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR). This study aimed to formally develop valid clinical quality indicators for the diagnosis and early management of cutaneous melanoma as an important step in creating the registry.

METHODS

Potential clinical quality indicators were identified by examining the literature, including Australian and international melanoma guidelines, and by consulting with key melanoma and registry opinion leaders. A modified two-round Delphi survey method was used, with participants invited from relevant health professions routinely managing melanoma as well as relevant consumer organisations.

RESULTS

Nineteen participants completed at least one round of the Delphi process. 12 of 13 proposed clinical quality indictors met the validity criteria. The clinical quality indicators included acceptable biopsy method, appropriate excision margins, standardised pathology reporting, indications for sentinel lymph node biopsy, and involvement of multidisciplinary care and referrals.

CONCLUSION

This study provides a multi-stakeholder consensus for important clinical quality indicators that define optimal practice that will now be used in the Australian Melanoma Clinical Outcomes Registry (MelCOR).

Health-related quality of life using the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with malignant melanoma: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Since there are no formal definition of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) there may be a lack of coherence and understanding of how to interpret HRQOL-data. The aim of this study is to summarize HRQOL-results that have used the FACT-M questionnaire in patients with melanoma, and specifically to summarize FACT-M between tumor stage.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

original studies on cutaneous melanoma between 2005 and 2020, written in English, containing "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Melanoma" OR "Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy M" OR FACT-M OR FACT/M OR FACTM OR "FACT M" OR FACT-melanoma OR "FACT Melanoma" together with FACT-M numbered data and basic patient characteristics, using the databases Scopus, Web of Science, PubMed and PsycINFO.

RESULTS

16 articles describing 14 patient cohorts published 2008-2020 were included. The majority of the studies did not report subscale scores in accordance with FACT-M guidelines. The results did indicate that FACT-M total scores were inversely correlated with AJCC stage. Subscale analysis demonstrated varying degrees of correlation with AJCC stage. The Melanoma Surgery Subscale score was lowest in stage III patients, probably reflecting more advanced surgical procedures in this group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Though this review is based on a questionnaire limited to the assessment of melanoma patients, it highlights the universal need for clinical studies to describe their selected HRQOL-questionnaires, its definition of HRQOL and its dimensions, as well as comply with the questionnaire's guidelines when reporting HRQOL-data.