Protocol for a type 2 hybrid effectiveness-implementation study expanding, implementing and evaluating electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom monitoring in a multisite cancer centre

A mixed methods evaluation of patient perspectives on the implementation of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program in cancer care

BACKGROUND

As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences.

METHODS

Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

Advancing survivorship at a comprehensive cancer center: integrating clinical care, education and research initiatives at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center underscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needs of increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research, and educational initiatives.

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method

BACKGROUND

Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time.

METHODS

The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study.

RESULTS

Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

Development of an Implementation Blueprint to Scale-Up Contraception Care for Adolescents with Psychiatric Conditions in a Pediatric Hospital

Implementation blueprints are comprehensive plans that describe implementation strategies, goals, timelines, and key personnel necessary for launching new interventions. Although blueprints are a foundational step in driving intervention rollout, little is known about how blueprints are developed, refined, and used in practice. The objective of this study was to describe a systematic, collaborative approach to developing, refining, and utilizing a formal implementation blueprint for scaling up the Contraception Care at Behavioral Health Pavilion (CC@BHP) intervention for adolescents hospitalized in psychiatric units within a pediatric hospital in the United States. In Stage 1 (Planning/Preparation), we assembled a Research Advisory Board (RAB) of 41 multidisciplinary members and conducted a formative evaluation to identify potential barriers to CC@BHP implementation. Barriers were mapped to implementation strategies using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) tool and used to create an initial blueprint. In Stage 2 (Development/Implementation), RAB members used activity logs to track implementation activities over the 18-month study period, which were then mapped to formal implementation strategies used to further develop the blueprint. About 30% of strategies were situated in the 'Train and Educate Stakeholders' ERIC category, 20% in 'Use Evaluative and Iterative Strategies,' and 16% in 'Develop Stakeholder Interrelationships' category. In Stage 3 (Synthesis/Refinement), the final blueprint was refined, consisting of 16 goals linked to 10 strategies for pre-implementation and 6 strategies for implementation. Feedback on the blueprint emphasized the role of the project champion in translating the blueprint into smaller, actionable steps for implementers.

Tracking dynamic changes in implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 trial of an electronic patient-reported oncology symptom and needs monitoring program

Background

Longitudinal tracking of implementation strategies is critical in accurately reporting when and why they are used, for promoting rigor and reproducibility in implementation research, and could facilitate generalizable knowledge if similar methods are used across research projects. This article focuses on tracking dynamic changes in the use of implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of an evidence-based electronic patient-reported oncology symptom assessment for cancer patient-reported outcomes in a single large healthcare system.

Methods

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategies Tracking System (LISTS), a timeline follow-back procedure for documenting strategy use and modifications, was applied to the multiyear study. The research team used observation, study records, and reports from implementers to complete LISTS in an electronic data entry system. Types of modifications and reasons were categorized. Determinants associated with each strategy were collected as a justification for strategy use and a potential explanation for strategy modifications.

Results

Thirty-four discrete implementation strategies were used and at least one strategy was used from each of the nine strategy categories from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. Most of the strategies were introduced, used, and continued or discontinued according to a prospective implementation plan. Relatedly, a small number of strategies were introduced, the majority unplanned, because of the changing healthcare landscape, or to address an emergent barrier. Despite changing implementation context, there were relatively few modifications to the way strategies were enacted, such as a change in the actor, action, or dose. Few differences were noted between the trial's three regional units under investigation.

Conclusion

This study occurred within the ambulatory oncology clinics of a large, academic medical center and was supported by the Quality team of the health system to ensure greater uptake, uniformity, and implementation within established practice change processes. The centralized nature of the implementation likely contributed to the relatively low proportion of modified strategies and the high degree of uniformity across regions. These results demonstrate the potential of LISTS in gathering the level of data needed to understand the impact of the many implementation strategies used to support adoption and delivery of a multilevel innovation.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04014751, identifier: NCT04014751.