Provider Perspectives on the Feasibility and Utility of Routine Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Heart Failure: A Qualitative Analysis

Development of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported outcome-based shared decision-making dashboard in oncology

Objectives

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) describe a patient's unique experiences with disease or treatment, yet effective use of this information during clinical encounters remains challenging. This project sought to build a PRO based dashboard within the electronic health record (EHR), prioritizing interpretability and utility of PROs for clinical decision-making.

Materials and Methods

Codesign principles were used to define the goal, features, and visualization of the data elements on the dashboard. Codesign sessions occurred between February 2019 and May 2020 and involved a diverse group of stakeholders. Pilot evaluation of dashboard usability was performed with patients and clinicians not involved in the codesign process through qualitative interviews and the Systems Usability Scale.

Results

The dashboard was placed into a single tab in the EHR and included select PROM scores, clinical data elements, and goals of care questions. Real-time data analytics and enhanced visualization of data was necessary for the dashboard to provide meaningful feedback to clinicians and patients for decision-making during clinic visits. During soft launch, the dashboard demonstrated "good" usability in patients and clinicians at 3 and 6 months (mean total SUS score >70).

Discussion

The current dashboard had good usability and made PRO scores more clinically understandable to patients and clinicians. This paper highlights the development, necessary data elements, and workflow considerations to implement this dashboard at an academic cancer center.

Conclusion

As the use of PROs in clinical care is increasing, patient- and clinician-centered tools are needed to ensure that this information is used in meaningful ways.

Physician-Reported Facilitators and Barriers for Side Effect Management of Heart Failure Medications

BACKGROUND

Physician underprescribing and patient nonadherence are major barriers to the benefits of guideline-directed medical therapy. An important contributor to both underprescribing and patient nonadherence is concern about medication-related side effects. Yet, there are few to no data on approaches used by physicians to: (1) elicit medication-related side effects, (2) attribute these side effects to specific medications, and (3) take appropriate action.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The authors conducted semistructured interviews with physicians to identify facilitators and barriers to each critical step of heart failure medication management: elicitation of side effects, attribution of side effects to a medication, and action in response to attributed side effects. Interviews were transcribed and coded using directed content analysis. For elicitation of potential side effects, limited patient communication and family discordance in reporting were key barriers, whereas guiding questions, measurement, and open channels of communication were key facilitators. For attribution of side effects, confounding from other medications, limited time for clinical encounters, and nonspecific symptoms were key barriers, whereas time-limited medication discontinuation trials and medication rechallenges were key facilitators. For taking action, challenges with weighing risks and benefits and physician fear about causing harm or interfering with other clinicians were barriers, whereas patient-physician communication and the results of a medication discontinuation trials and medication rechallenge were facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

This study generated key facilitators and barriers to 3 key aspects of heart failure medication management related to side effects that should drive future work to improve heart failure medication management.

Efficient measurement of multiple ventricular assist device patient-reported outcomes: Creation of a 20-item profile from the MCS A-QOL study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of distinct concepts are often put together into patient profile assessments. When brief, profile assessments can decrease respondent burden and increase measure completion rates. In this report, we describe the creation of 5 self-reported 4-item short forms and the Mechanical Circulatory Support: Measures of Adjustment and Quality of Life (MCS A-QOL) 20-item profile to assess PROs specific to adjustment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients who undergo left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional sample of patients (n = 620) who underwent LVAD implantation at 12 U.S. sites or participated in the MyLVAD.com support group, we created 5 4-item short forms: Satisfaction with Treatment, ventricular assist device (VAD) Team Communication, Being Bothered by VAD Self-care and Limitations, Self-efficacy Regarding VAD self-care, and Stigma, which we combined into a 20-item profile. Analyses included intercorrelations among measures, Cronbach's alpha (i.e., internal consistency reliability)/score-level-specific reliability, and construct validity.

RESULTS

The 620 patients were mean age = 57 years, 78% male, 70% White, and 56% on destination therapy LVADs. Intercorrelations among the 5 4-item measures were low to moderate (≤0.50), indicating they are associated yet largely distinct, and correlations with calibrated measures and 6-item short forms were ≥0.76, indicating their ability to reflect full-item bank scores. Internal consistency reliability for the 5 4-item short forms ranged from acceptable (≥0.70) to good (≥0.80). Construct validity was demonstrated for these measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Our 5 4-item short forms are reliable and valid and may be used individually or together as a 20-item profile to assess adjustment and HRQOL in patients who undergo LVAD implantation.

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

METHODS

The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates.

RESULTS

Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboard in Oncology Telemedicine Encounters: Clinician and Patient Adoption and Acceptability

PURPOSE

Telemedicine provides numerous benefits to patients, yet effective communication and symptom assessment remain a concern. The recent uptake of telemedicine provided an opportunity to use a newly developed dashboard with patient-reported outcome (PRO) information to enhance communication and shared decision making (SDM) during telemedicine appointments. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to using the dashboard during telemedicine, develop implementation strategies to address barriers, and pilot test use of this dashboard during telemedicine appointments in two practice settings to evaluate acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients and clinicians were interviewed to identify determinants to dashboard use in telemedicine. Implementation strategies were designed and refined through iterative feedback from stakeholders. A pilot study of dashboard use was conducted from March to September 2022. Acceptability, adoption, and fidelity were evaluated using mixed methods. SDM was evaluated using the collaboRATE measure.

RESULTS

One hundred two patient encounters were evaluated. Most patients (62; 60%) had completed some PRO data at the time of their telemedicine encounter. Most (82; 80%) encounters had clinician confirmation that PRO data had been reviewed; however, collaborative review of the dashboard was documented in only 27%. Degree of SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 3.40; SD, 0.11 [95% CI, 3.17 to 3.63] out of a maximum score of 4). Implementation strategies focused on patient engagement, education, and remote PRO completion. Clinician-facing strategies included education, practice facilitation, and small tests of change.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that implementation of a PRO-based dashboard into telemedicine appointments was feasible and had acceptable adoption and acceptability by patients and clinicians when several strategies were used to engage end users. Strategies targeting both patients and clinicians are needed to support routine and effective PRO integration in telemedicine.

Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center

PURPOSE

This study examines providers' and clinic staff's perspectives on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) implementation at an academic medical center.

METHODS

An anonymous and voluntary survey was administered to Henry Ford Cancer providers and clinic staff 18 months after PROs program implementation in September 2020, to obtain their feedback on perceived barriers, impact on workflows, and PROs administration frequency in routine cancer care.

RESULTS

A total of 180 providers and 40 clinic staff were invited to complete the survey; 31% and 63% completed the survey, respectively. Approximately 68% of providers reported that electronically integrated PROs scores were either beneficial or somewhat beneficial to their patients, while only 28% of the clinic staff reported that PROs were beneficial or somewhat beneficial to patients. According to the clinic staff, the most common barriers to PROs completion included lack of patients' awareness of the utility of the program with respect to their care, patients' health status at check-in, and PROs being offered too frequently.

CONCLUSION

There is favorable acceptance of the PROs program by providers, but clinic staff found it less favorable. Interventions to address barriers and improve program engagement are needed to ensure broad adoption of PROs in oncology practice.

Placing patient-reported outcomes at the centre of cardiovascular clinical practice: implications for quality of care and management

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important insights into patients' own perspectives about their health and medical condition, and there is evidence that their use can lead to improvements in the quality of care and to better-informed clinical decisions. Their application in cardiovascular populations has grown over the past decades. This statement describes what PROs are, and it provides an inventory of disease-specific and domain-specific PROs that have been developed for cardiovascular populations. International standards and quality indices have been published, which can guide the selection of PROs for clinical practice and in clinical trials and research; patients as well as experts in psychometrics should be involved in choosing which are most appropriate. Collaborations are needed to define criteria for using PROs to guide regulatory decisions, and the utility of PROs for comparing and monitoring the quality of care and for allocating resources should be evaluated. New sources for recording PROs include wearable digital health devices, medical registries, and electronic health record. Advice is given for the optimal use of PROs in shared clinical decision-making in cardiovascular medicine, and concerning future directions for their wider application.

Uptake of pediatric patient-reported outcome and experience measures and challenges associated with their implementation in Alberta: a mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Implementing Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-reported Experience Measures (PREMs) is an effective way to deliver patient- and family-centered care (PFCC). Although Alberta Health Services (AHS) is Canada's largest and fully integrated health system, PROMs and PREMs are yet to be routinely integrated into the pediatric healthcare system. This study addresses this gap by investigating the current uptake, barriers, and enablers for integrating PROMs and PREMs in Alberta's pediatric healthcare system.

METHODS

Pediatric clinicians and academic researchers with experience using PROMs and PREMs were invited to complete a quantitative survey. Additionally, key stakeholders were qualitatively interviewed to understand current challenges in implementing pediatric PROMs and PREMs within AHS. Quantitative data gathered from 22 participants were descriptively analyzed, and qualitative data from 14 participants were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Participants identified 33 PROMs and 6 PREMs showing diversity in the types of pediatric PROMs and PREMs currently being used in Alberta and their mode of administration. The qualitatively identified challenges were associated with patients, family caregivers, and clinicians. The absence of system-level support, such as integration within electronic medical records, is considered a significant system-level challenge.

CONCLUSIONS

The significant variation in the types of PROMs and PREMs used, the rationale for their use, and their mode of administration demonstrate the diverse and sporadic use of these measures in Alberta. These findings highlight the need for province-wide uniform implementation of pediatric PROMs and PREMs in Alberta. Our results could benefit healthcare organizations in developing evidence-based PROM and PREM implementation strategies in pediatrics.

Adapting and usability testing of the Kansas city cardiomyopathy questionnaire (KCCQ) in a heart failure clinic in Tanzania: the Swahili KCCQ

BACKGROUND

The integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) into health care delivery systems is being increasingly recognized as an important component of quality, person-centered care, especially for chronic illnesses like congestive heart failure (CHF). However, while PROMS are increasingly being used to follow up CHF patients in high income countries, their use in sub-Saharan Africa is still limited. We adapted the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-23), an internationally validated, CHF-specific PROM and tested its use in measuring outcomes in an outpatient CHF clinic at a cardiac referral hospital in Tanzania.

METHODS

Adaptation of the KCCQ-23 included translation into Swahili by linguistic experts, in-depth cognitive debriefing in native Swahili-speaking CHF patients, and input from Tanzanian Cardiologists, PROMS experts, and the tool developer. Using a cross-sectional design, we tested the usability and observed the results of the translated KCCQ-23 in a convenience sample of 60 CHF patients attending outpatient clinic at the Jakaya Kikwete Cardiac Institute (JKCI) in Dar es Salaam.

RESULTS

The survey was successfully completed by 59 (98.3%) of 60 enrolled participants. The mean (SD) age of participants was 54.9 (14.8) years (range 22-83), 30.5% were women and 72.2% had class 3 or 4 New York Heart Association (NYHA) symptoms at enrollment. The overall KCCQ-23 score was low, with a mean (SD) score of 21.7 (20.4) indicating generally very poor to poor patient reported outcomes in this population. The mean (SD) scores for the specific KCCQ-23 domains were 15.25 (24.2) for social limitation, 23.8 (27.4) for physical limitation, 27.1 (24.1) for quality of life and 40.7 (17.0) for self-efficacy. No socio-demographic or clinical characteristics were associated with their overall KCCQ-23 scores. Comparing the short version (KCCQ-12) with the full KCCQ-23 revealed excellent correlation between the two (r = 0.95; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

We successfully translated a validated tool, the Swahili KCCQ, for use in improving the care of patients with CHF in Tanzania and a broader population of Swahili-speaking patients. Both the Swahili KCCQ-12 and KCCQ-23 can be used, with similar outcomes. Work to expand the use of the tool in the clinic and other settings is planned.

Evaluating the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic: A Qualitative Assessment

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science.

RESULTS

Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Patient-reported outcome measures and patient engagement in heart failure clinical trials: multi-stakeholder perspectives

There are many consequences of heart failure (HF), including symptoms, impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physical and social limitations (functional status). These have a substantial impact on patients' lives, yet are not routinely captured in clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can quantify patients' experiences of their disease and its treatment. Steps can be taken to improve the use of PROs in HF trials, in regulatory and payer decisions, and in patient care. Importantly, PRO measures (PROMs) must be developed with involvement of patients, family members, and caregivers from diverse demographic groups and communities. PRO data collection should become more routine not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice. This may be facilitated by the use of digital tools and interdisciplinary patient advocacy efforts. There is a need for standardization, not only of the PROM instruments, but also in procedures for analysis, interpretation and reporting PRO data. More work needs to be done to determine the degree of change that is important to patients and that is associated with increased risks of clinical events. This 'minimal clinically important difference' requires further research to determine thresholds for different PROMs, to assess consistency across trial populations, and to define standards for improvement that warrant regulatory and reimbursement approvals. PROs are a vital part of patient care and drug development, and more work should be done to ensure that these measures are both reflective of the patient experience and that they are more widely employed.

Use of patient-reported outcomes in heart failure: from clinical trials to routine practice

Heart failure (HF) is a complex syndrome that affects mortality/morbidity and acts at different levels in the patient's life, resulting in a drastic impairment in multiple aspects of daily activities (e.g. physical, mental/emotional, and social) and leading to a reduction in quality of life. The definition of disease status and symptom severity has been traditionally based on the physician assessment, while the patient's experience of disease has been long overlooked. The active participation of patients in their own care is necessary to better understand the perception of disease and the multiple aspects of life affected, and to improve adherence to treatments. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) aim to switch traditional care to a more patient-centred approach. Although PROs demonstrated precision in the evaluation of disease status and have a good association with prognosis in several randomized controlled trials, their implementation into clinical practice is limited. This review discusses the modalities of use of PROs in HF, summarizes the most largely adopted PROs in HF care, and provides an overview on the application of PROs in trials and the potential for their transition to clinical practice. By discussing the advantages and the disadvantages of their use, the reasons limiting their application in daily clinical routine, and the strategies that may promote their implementation, this review aims to foster the systematic integration of the patient's standpoint in HF care.

The patient-reported outcome measurement in heart failure clinic trial: Rationale and methods of the PRO-HF trial

BACKGROUND

Among patients with heart failure (HF), patient-reported health status provides information beyond standard clinician assessment. Although HF management guidelines recommend collecting patient-reported health status as part of routine care, there is minimal data on the impact of this intervention.

STUDY DESIGN

The Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic (PRO-HF) trial is a pragmatic, randomized, implementation-effectiveness trial testing the hypothesis that routine health status assessment via the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) leads to an improvement in patient-reported health status among patients treated in a tertiary health system HF clinic. PRO-HF has completed randomization of 1,248 participants to routine KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. Patients randomized to the KCCQ-12 arm complete KCCQ-12 assessments before each HF clinic visit with the results shared with their treating clinician. Clinicians received education regarding the interpretation and potential utility of the KCCQ-12. The primary endpoint is the change in KCCQ-12 over 1 year. Secondary outcomes are HF therapy patterns and health care utilization, including clinic visits, testing, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits. As a sub-study, PRO-HF will also evaluate the impact of routine KCCQ-12 assessment on patient experience and the accuracy of clinician-assessed health status. In addition, clinicians completed semi-structured interviews to capture their perceptions on the trial's implementation of routine KCCQ-12 assessment in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO-HF is a pragmatic, randomized trial based in a real-world HF clinic to determine the feasibility of routinely assessing patient-reported health status and the impact of this intervention on health status, care delivery, patient experience, and the accuracy of clinician health status assessment.

Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q

PURPOSE

Longitudinal, routine utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care has been challenging. The purpose of this study is to describe a quality improvement initiative to improve patient engagement with the BREAST-Q, a gold-standard PROM for breast reconstruction.

METHODS

In 2011, we implemented the BREAST-Q as part of routine care. In 2018, we began a quality improvement initiative to increase BREAST-Q patient participation. The BREAST-Q was administered at every clinic visit via an institutional patient portal or an in-clinic tablet; digital dashboard technologies were used to improve workflow integration, real-time accountability, and immediate data availability at clinic visits. High clinical staff engagement was encouraged by assigning "BREAST-Q Champions." BREAST-Q completion data and patient characteristics were examined to understand non-response to the assessment.

RESULTS

Following quality improvement, the average annual BREAST-Q completion rate increased from 42.8% in 2011-2017 to 87.6% in 2019, the last full year of our study period. High completion rates were maintained January-July 2020; however, a significantly larger proportion of BREAST-Qs were completed at home in 2020 versus the same period in 2019 (49.7 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), potentially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with non-responders, responders were younger (49.7 vs. 52.2 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be white (76.9 vs. 73.6%, p < 0.001), and had private insurance (79.4 vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Our quality improvement initiative successfully increased routine completion of the BREAST-Q. Similar implementation techniques may prove beneficial at other institutions interested in incorporating PROMs into routine care.

Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network: Summary of Results and Future Directions

Heart failure remains among the most common and morbid health conditions. The Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network (HF SFRN) was funded by the American Heart Association to facilitate collaborative, high-impact research in the field of heart failure across the domains of basic, clinical, and population research. The Network was also charged with developing training opportunities for young investigators. Four centers were funded in 2016: Duke University, University of Colorado, University of Utah, and Massachusetts General Hospital-University of Massachusetts. This report summarizes the aims of each center and major research accomplishments, as well as training outcomes from the HF SFRN.

Social and therapeutic decline earlier than physical and psychological domains after discharge in heart failure patients: A patient-reported outcome measurements of latent transition analysis

Background

Among patients with chronic heart failure (CHF), response shifts are common in assessing treatment effects. However, few studies focused on potential response shifts in these patients.

Materials and methods

Data of CHF patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were obtained from three hospitals in Shanxi, China, from 2017 to 2019. A total of 497 patients were enrolled and followed up at 1 month and 6 months after discharge. Latent transition analysis (LTA) was employed to determine the longitudinal transition trajectories of latent subtypes in CHF patients in the physiological, psychological, social, and therapeutic domains.

Results

The patients were divided into high- and low-level groups in the four domains according to the LTA. One month after discharge, the physiological and psychological domains improved, while the social and therapeutic domains remained unchanged. Six months after discharge, the former remained stable, but the latter deteriorated. The factors affecting the state transition in four domains were as follows. The influencing factor of the physiological domains are gender, age, tea consumption, smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and light diet; those of the psychological domain are gender, occupation, smoking, alcohol consumption, and physical activity; those of the social domains are age; those of the therapeutic domains are education and income.

Conclusion

The disease status of CHF patients has shifted over time. Risk factors accelerate the deterioration of patients' condition. Furthermore, the risk factors of social and therapeutic domains deteriorate patients' condition faster than those of physiological and psychological domains. Therefore, individualized intervention programs should be given for CHF patients who may be transferred to the low-level groups to maintain the treatment effect and improve the prognosis.

Surgeon Perceptions of the Integration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Practice

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs/PROM) are standardized, validated instruments used to measure the patient's perception of their own health status including their symptoms, functional wellbeing, and mental health. Although PROMs were initially developed as research tools, their use in clinical practice for shared decision-making and to assess the impact of disease and treatment on quality of life of individual patients has been increasing. There is a paucity of research exploring providers' perspectives on the clinical integration of PROMs. We sought to use a qualitative methodology to understand surgeons' perceptions of integrating PROMs into their clinical practices.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were performed from November 2019 until August 2020. All interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Thematic saturation was achieved after interviewing nine surgeons representing eight surgical specialties. Qualitative interview data were thematically analyzed using an inductive approach facilitated by Atlas.ti qualitative software.

RESULTS

Forty seven unique codes were identified that fit into 21 themes that revealed five novel insights. Key insights included: (1) PROM data can modify surgical practice on an individual and institutional level, (2) Surgeon's view PROM clinical integration as a potential method of advancing patient-centered care, (3) There are various institutional processes that must be in place, including strong leadership and an integrative platform, to enable successful clinical PROM integration, (4) Surgeons appreciate challenges of integrating PROMs into surgical practice including risks of incorrect use or interpretation, and (5) A PROM platform must be adaptable to the diversity within surgery and to unique physician workflows.

CONCLUSIONS

Surgeons perceived value from integrating PROMs into routine care to better inform patients during preoperative discussions and to help identify at-risk patients in the postoperative period. However, they also identified numerous barriers to the implementation of an integrated system for the routine use of PROMs in clinical practice and expressed concern about using PROMs to compare operative outcomes between surgeons. Based on this work, institutions that want to incorporate PROMs into surgical practice need a leadership team capable of supporting the change management necessary for effective integration and use a PROM platform that gives individual surgeons and surgical teams the ability to customize platforms for their unique practices.

The development and initial validation of the PROMIS®+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is a common and morbid condition impacting multiple health domains. We previously reported the development of the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (PROMIS+HF) profile measure, including universal and HF-specific items. To facilitate use, we developed shorter, PROMIS+HF profiles intended for research and clinical use.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Candidate items were selected based on psychometric properties and symptom range coverage. HF clinicians (n = 43) rated item importance and clinical actionability. Based on these results, we developed the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles with summary scores (0-100) for overall, physical, mental, and social health. In a cross-sectional sample (n = 600), we measured internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Spearman-Brown), test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient; n = 100), known-groups validity via New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and convergent validity with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. In a longitudinal sample (n = 75), we evaluated responsiveness of baseline/follow-up scores by calculating mean differences and Cohen's d and comparing with paired t-tests. Internal consistency was good to excellent (α 0.82-0.94) for all PROMIS+HF-27 scores and acceptable to good (α/Spearman-Brown 0.60-0.85) for PROMIS+HF-10 scores. Test-retest intraclass coefficients were acceptable to excellent (0.75-0.97). Both profiles demonstrated known-groups validity for the overall and physical health summary scores based on NYHA class, and convergent validity for nearly all scores compared with KCCQ scores. In the longitudinal sample, we demonstrated responsiveness for PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 overall and physical summary scores. For the PROMIS+HF overall summary scores, a group-based increase of 7.6-8.3 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.40-0.42). For the PROMIS+HF physical summary scores, a group-based increase of 5.0-5.9 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.29-0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated good psychometric characteristics with evidence of responsiveness for overall and physical health. These new measures can facilitate patient-centred research and clinical care, such as improving care quality through symptom monitoring, facilitating shared decision-making, evaluating quality of care, assessing new interventions, and monitoring during the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy.

Patients' preferences regarding the digital capturing of patient-reported outcomes: planning the future follow-up in a prospective heart failure registry

Aims

Digital health technologies have the potential to improve patient care sustainably. A digital capturing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) could facilitate patients' surveillance and endpoint assessment within clinical trials especially in heart failure (HF) patients. However, data regarding the availability of digital infrastructure and patients' willingness to use digital health solutions are scarce. Therefore, we conducted a survey as part of a digital-based HF registry.

Methods and results

The Helios Heart registry (H2-registry) has been introduced as a prospective registry being based on digitally augmented processes throughout the whole trial conduction from patients' selection to data collection and follow-up (FU). Patient-reported outcome measures are captured paper-based at recruitment, but patients are offered two digital solutions for FU. Overall, 125 patients (mean age 67.8 years, 34.4% female) were included in the single-centre run-in phase of 16 weeks. Of them, 52.0% were not interested in any digital contact as part of the FU. If digital PROM capturing was conceivable, a web-based solution (70.0%) was preferred to an application-based approach (30.0%). Discrepancies occurred regarding the availability of email accounts and smartphones. Patients in the non-digital group were older (72.0 years vs. 63.2 years, P < 0.01) and more frequently female (female sex, non-digital vs. digital group: 47.7% vs. 20.0%, P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Our survey illustrated difficulties of implementing a digital FU to record PROMs in a contemporary HF cohort in particular among older patients. Further research is required to specify reasons in case of patients' unwillingness and to better tailor digital health solutions to patients' specific needs.

Developing an e-learning course on the use of PRO measures in oncological practice: health care professionals' preferences for learning content and methods

Purpose

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical routine requires knowledge and competences regarding their use. In order to facilitate implementation, an e-learning course for health care professionals (HCPs) on the utilisation of European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) PROMs in oncological clinical practice is being developed. This study aimed to explore future users’ educational needs regarding content and learning methods.

Methods

The sequential mixed methods approach was applied. A scoping literature review informed the guideline for qualitative interviews with HCPs with diverse professional backgrounds in oncology and cancer advocates recruited using a purposive sampling strategy. An international online survey was conducted to validate the qualitative findings.

Results

Between December 2019 and May 2020, 73 interviews were conducted in 9 countries resulting in 8 topic areas (Basic information on PROs in clinical routine, Benefits of PRO assessments in clinical practice, Implementation of PRO assessments in clinical routine, Setup of PRO assessments for clinical application, Interpretation of PRO data, Integration of PROs into the communication with patients, Use of PROs in clinical practice, Self-management recommendations for patients based on PROs) subsequently presented in the online survey. The online survey (open between 3 June and 19 July 2020) was completed by 233 HCPs from 33 countries. The highest preference was indicated for content on interpretation of PRO data (97%), clinical benefits of assessing PRO data (95.3%) and implementation of routine PRO data assessment (94.8%). Regarding learning methods, participants indicated a high preference for practical examples that use a mixed approach of presentation (written, audio, video and interactive).

Conclusion

Educational needs for an integration of PROs in communication in clinical care and coherent implementation strategies became evident. These results inform the development of an e-learning course to support HCPs in the clinical use of EORTC PRO measures.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00520-021-06676-x.

Identifying patients at increased risk for poor outcomes from heart failure with reduced ejection fraction: the PROMPT-HF risk model

Aims

We aimed to develop a risk prediction tool that incorporated both clinical events and worsening health status for patients with heart failure (HF) with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). Identifying patients with HFrEF at increased risk of a poor outcome may enable proactive interventions that improve outcomes.

Methods and results

We used data from a longitudinal HF registry, CHAMP‐HF, to develop a risk prediction tool for poor outcomes over the next 6 months. A poor outcome was defined as death, an HF hospitalization, or a ≥20‐point decrease (or decrease below 25) in 12‐item Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ‐12) overall summary score. Among 4546 patients in CHAMP‐HF, 1066 (23%) experienced a poor outcome within 6 months (1.3% death, 11% HF hospitalization, and 11% change in KCCQ‐12). The model demonstrated moderate discrimination (c‐index = 0.65) and excellent calibration with observed data. The following variables were associated with a poor outcome: age, race, education, New York Heart Association class, baseline KCCQ‐12, atrial fibrillation, coronary disease, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, smoking, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure. We also created a simplified model with a 0–10 score using six variables (New York Heart Association class, KCCQ‐12, coronary disease, chronic kidney disease, prior HF hospitalization, and systolic blood pressure) with similar discrimination (c‐index = 0.63). Patients scoring 0–3 were considered low risk (event rate <20%), 4–6 were considered intermediate risk (event rate 20–40%), and 7–10 were considered high risk (event rate >40%).

Conclusions

The PROMPT‐HF risk model can identify outpatients with HFrEF at increased risk of poor outcomes, including clinical events and health status deterioration. With further validation, this model may help inform therapeutic decision making.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Cardiomyopathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As medicine strives to become more patient-centered, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often used to describe patients' symptoms, function, and quality of life. This review describes the key concepts of PROs specific to heart failure in clinical trials and their potential role in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

As the Food and Drug Administration has increasingly emphasized how it values PROs as clinical outcome assessments, including its recent qualification of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), clinical trials have increasingly used them to evaluate novel therapies. This has been enhanced by an increasing understanding of how to interpret KCCQ scores. Its use in clinical practice, including the importance of providers sharing results with their patients, is just emerging. PROs provide unique insights into the benefits of treatment from patients' perspectives and while their role in clinical care is just beginning, they offer an important opportunity to improve the patient-centeredness of care.

Comparison of New York Heart Association Class and Patient-Reported Outcomes for Heart Failure With Reduced Ejection Fraction

Importance

It is unclear how New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class compares with patient-reported outcomes among patients with heart failure (HF) in contemporary US clinical practice.

Objective

To characterize longitudinal changes and concordance between NYHA class and the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire Overall Summary Score (KCCQ-OS), and their associations with clinical outcomes.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study included 2872 US outpatients with chronic HF with reduced ejection fraction across 145 practices enrolled in the CHAMP-HF registry between December 2015 and October 2017. All patients had complete NYHA class and KCCQ-OS data at baseline and 12 months. Longitudinal changes and correlations between the 2 measure were examined. Multivariable models landmarked at 12 months evaluated associations between improvement in NYHA and KCCQ-OS from baseline to 12 months with clinical outcomes occurring from months 12 through 24. Statistical analyses were performed from March to August 2020.

Exposure

Change in health status, as defined by 12-month change in NYHA class or KCCQ-OS.

Main Outcomes and Measures

All-cause mortality, HF hospitalization, and mortality or HF hospitalization.

Results

In total, 2872 patients were included in this analysis (median [interquartile range] age, 68 [59-75] years; 872 [30.4%] were women; and 2156 [75.1%] were of White race). At baseline, 312 patients (10.9%) were NYHA class I, 1710 patients (59.5%) were class II, 804 patients (28.0%) were class III, and 46 patients (1.6%) were class IV. For KCCQ-OS, 1131 patients (39.4%) scored 75 to 100 (best health status), 967 patients (33.7%) scored 50 to 74, 612 patients (21.3%) scored 25 to 49, and 162 patients (5.6%) scored 0 to 24 (worst health status). At 12 months, 1002 patients (34.9%) had a change in NYHA class (599 [20.9%] with improvement; 403 [14.0%] with worsening) and 2158 patients (75.1%) had a change of 5 or more points in KCCQ-OS (1388 [48.3%] with improvement; 770 [26.8%] with worsening). The most common trajectory for NYHA class was no change (1870 [65.1%]), and the most common trajectory for KCCQ-OS was an improvement of at least 10 points (1047 [36.5%]). After adjustment, improvement in NYHA class was not associated with subsequent clinical outcomes, whereas an improvement of 5 or more points in KCCQ-OS was independently associated with decreased mortality (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.44-0.80; P < .001) and mortality or HF hospitalization (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.89; P = .002).

Conclusions and Relevance

Findings of this cohort study suggest that, in contemporary US clinical practice, compared with NYHA class, KCCQ-OS is more sensitive to clinically meaningful changes in health status over time. Changes in KCCQ-OS may have more prognostic value than changes in NYHA class.

Using comics and curiosity to drive pandemic research on a national scale

An independent online Public Health survey regarding the COVID-19 pandemic was conducted during an Alert Level 4 lockdown, the highest possible, in New Zealand. An illustrated and curiosity-driven public engagement campaign was designed to advertise survey participation, and performance compared with a standard approach using randomised controlled A/B Split tests. The 'Caretoon' approach featured comic illustrations, appealed to goodwill and was intended to pique curiosity. This linked to an illustrated version of the survey which, upon completion, gave a personalised comic summary showing how respondent's answers compared with national averages. The standard ad and survey were not illustrated with comics, and did not provide a personalised comic summary on completion. Both approaches were cost- and time-effective, together resulting in 18,788 responses over six days. The Caretoon approach outperformed the standard approach in terms of the number of people reached, engaged, survey link clicks, gender and ethnic diversity amongst respondents, and cost-effectiveness of advertising. This came at the expense of a small reduction in the proportion of completed surveys and male respondents. The research evidences objective value of public engagement activity, comics and curiosity as tools which can support Public Health research on a national scale.

Prioritizing symptom management in the treatment of chronic heart failure

Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a chronic, progressive disease that has detrimental consequences on a patient's quality of life (QoL). In part due to requirements for market access and licensing, the assessment of current and future treatments focuses on reducing mortality and hospitalizations. Few drugs are available principally for their symptomatic effect despite the fact that most patients' symptoms persist or worsen over time and an acceptance that the survival gains of modern therapies are mitigated by poorly controlled symptoms. Additional contributors to the failure to focus on symptoms could be the result of under‐reporting of symptoms by patients and carers and a reliance on insensitive symptomatic categories in which patients frequently remain despite additional therapies. Hence, formal symptom assessment tools, such as questionnaires, can be useful prompts to encourage more fidelity and reproducibility in the assessment of symptoms. This scoping review explores for the first time the assessment options and management of common symptoms in CHF with a focus on patient‐reported outcome tools. The integration of patient‐reported outcomes for symptom assessment into the routine of a CHF clinic could improve the monitoring of disease progression and QoL, especially following changes in treatment or intervention with a targeted symptom approach expected to improve QoL and patient outcomes.

Provider Perspectives on the Feasibility and Utility of Routine Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Heart Failure: A Qualitative Analysis

Background

Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) objectively measure health‐related quality of life and provide prognostic information. Advances in technology now allow for rapid, patient‐friendly PRO assessment and scoring, yet the adoption of PROs in clinic has been slow. We conducted a multicenter qualitative study of diverse providers to describe the barriers and facilitators of routine PRO use in heart failure clinics.

Methods and Results

Sixty heart failure providers from 5 institutions participated in 8 focus groups to explore provider perspectives on the use of heart failure‐specific and generic PROs in clinical practice. A qualitative editing approach was used to analyze the data, whereby a coding dictionary was iteratively developed and applied using the qualitative software program Altas.ti. Three main themes, supporting and impeding PRO use, emerged: (1) data collection; (2) presentation and interpretation; and (3) utility and value. For each construct, we identified perspectives that highlighted both barriers and facilitators. Providers identified burden, survey fatigue, and language/health literacy barriers as potentially impeding data collection. Optimal workflow, PRO frequency and length, use of PRO translations, and assistance of a patient's proxy were suggested as facilitators. Focus group discussions provided insight on how to display PROs to support its interpretability and sharing. Furthermore, the need to educate providers on the utility and value PROs over and above current clinical approaches emerged.

Conclusions

Overcoming the barriers and supporting facilitators of PRO adoption could potentially lead to more successful adoption of PROs in heart failure clinics.