The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews

A protocol for the formative evaluation of the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services as part of a learning health system

BACKGROUND

Mental health conditions affect one in seven young people and research suggests that current mental health services are not meeting the needs of most children and youth. Learning health systems are an approach to enhancing services through rapid, routinized cycles of continuous learning and improvement. Patient-reported outcome measures provide a key data source for learning health systems. They have also been shown to improve outcomes for patients when integrated into routine clinical care. However, implementing these measures into health systems is a challenging process. This paper describes a protocol for a formative evaluation of the implementation of patient-reported measures in a newly operational child and adolescent mental health centre in Calgary, Canada. The purpose is to optimize the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures. Our specific objectives are to assess the implementation progress, identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, and explore patient, caregivers and clinician experiences of using these measures in routine clinical care.

METHODS

This study is a mixed-methods, formative evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants include patients and caregivers who have used the centre's services, as well as leadership, clinical and support staff at the centre. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation and sustainability of the use of patient-reported outcome measures, as well as individuals' experiences with using these measures within clinical care. The data generated by the patient-reported measures over the first five months of the centre's operation will be analyzed to understand implementation progress, as well as validity of the chosen measures for the centres' population.

DISCUSSION

The findings of this evaluation will help to identify and address the factors that are affecting the successful implementation of patient-reported measures at the centre. They will inform the co-design of strategies to improve implementation with key stakeholders, which include patients, clinical staff, and leadership at the centre. To our knowledge, this is the first study of the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services and our findings can be used to enhance future implementation efforts in similar settings.

Engaging primary care professionals in OECD's international PaRIS survey: a documentary analysis

Healthcare professionals have first-hand experience with patients in clinical practice and the dynamics in the healthcare system, which can be of great value in the design, implementation, data analysis and dissemination of research study results. Primary care professionals are particularly important as they provide first contact, accessible, coordinated, comprehensive and continuous people-focused care. However, in-depth examination of the engagement of health professionals in health system research and planning activities-how professionals are engaged and how this varies across national contexts- is limited, particularly in international initiatives. There is a need to identify gaps in the planning of engagement activities to inform the design and successful implementation of future international efforts to improve the responsiveness of health systems to the changing needs of patients and professionals. The aim of this study was to explore how primary care professionals were engaged in the design and implementation plans of an international health policy study led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The OECD's international PaRIS survey measures and disseminates information on patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) of people living with chronic conditions who are managed in primary care. A documentary analysis of 17 written national implementation plans (country roadmaps) was conducted between January and June 2023. Two reviewers independently performed the screening and data abstraction and resolved disagreements by discussion. We reported the intended target primary care professionals, phase of the study, channel of engagement, level of engagement, and purpose of engagement. All 17 countries aimed to engage primary care professionals in the execution plans for the international PaRIS survey. While organisations of primary care professionals, particularly of family doctors, were the most commonly targeted group, variation was found in the timing of engagement activities during the different phases of the study and in the level of engagement, ranging from co-development (half of the countries co-developed the survey together with primary care professionals) to one-off consultations with whom. International guidance facilitated the participation of primary care professionals. Continuous collaborative efforts at the international and national levels can foster a culture of engagement with primary care organisations and individual professionals and enhance meaningful engagement of primary care professionals.

Practical Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Kidney Disease-Associated Pruritus

Regulatory and clinical stakeholders are increasingly advocating for the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures; however, the use of PROs is still not widespread. Patient reports are often the best ways to diagnose and monitor the effect of treatment on symptoms when the symptoms are subjective, as with pruritus. While many PRO tools are available to assess the severity of pruritus and its impact on quality of life (e.g., sleep), these are not used in a consistent manner and their results may not translate into clinical action. In this article, we present an introduction to PROs and their use in the assessment of chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus, as well as a practical guide to some of the PRO tools currently available, to empower all members of the nephrology patient care team to use these tools appropriately for the benefit of the patient.

Asking questions that are "close to the bone": integrating thematic analysis and natural language processing to explore the experiences of people with traumatic brain injuries engaging with patient-reported outcome measures

Introduction

Patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are valuable tools for assessing health-related quality of life and treatment effectiveness in individuals with traumatic brain injuries (TBIs). Understanding the experiences of individuals with TBIs in completing PROMs is crucial for improving their utility and relevance in clinical practice.

Methods

Sixteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with a sample of individuals with TBIs. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using Thematic Analysis (TA) and Natural Language Processing (NLP) techniques to identify themes and emotional connotations related to the experiences of completing PROMs.

Results

The TA of the data revealed six key themes regarding the experiences of individuals with TBIs in completing PROMs. Participants expressed varying levels of understanding and engagement with PROMs, with factors such as cognitive impairments and communication difficulties influencing their experiences. Additionally, insightful suggestions emerged on the barriers to the completion of PROMs, the factors facilitating it, and the suggestions for improving their contents and delivery methods. The sentiment analyses performed using NLP techniques allowed for the retrieval of the general sentimental and emotional "tones" in the participants' narratives of their experiences with PROMs, which were mainly characterised by low positive sentiment connotations. Although mostly neutral, participants' narratives also revealed the presence of emotions such as fear and, to a lesser extent, anger. The combination of a semantic and sentiment analysis of the experiences of people with TBIs rendered valuable information on the views and emotional responses to different aspects of the PROMs.

Discussion

The findings highlighted the complexities involved in administering PROMs to individuals with TBIs and underscored the need for tailored approaches to accommodate their unique challenges. Integrating TA-based and NLP techniques can offer valuable insights into the experiences of individuals with TBIs and enhance the interpretation of qualitative data in this population.

Towards a lifelong personalized brain health program: empowering individuals to define, pursue, and monitor meaningful outcomes

Incorporating person-centered outcomes into clinical trials for neurodegenerative diseases has been challenging due to a deficiency in quantitative measures. Meanwhile, the integration of personally meaningful treatment targets in clinical practice remains qualitative, failing to truly inform evaluations, therapeutic interventions and longitudinal monitoring and support. We discuss the current advances and future directions in capturing individualized brain health outcomes and present an approach to integrate person-centered outcome in a scalable manner. Our approach stems from the evidence-based electronic Person-Specific Outcome Measure (ePSOM) program which prompts an individual to define personally meaningful treatment priorities and report level of confidence in managing items that matter to the individual the most (e.g., "Do I feel confident in my ability to contribute to a conversation?"). Deployed either as a single version (person only) or a dyad version (person and care partner), our proposed tool could be used as an endpoint in clinical trials, offering proof of meaningful intervention benefits and in clinical practice, by establishing an anchor for the therapeutic objectives sought by the individual.

Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Advanced Nursing Practice: What Are Key Considerations for Implementation and Optimized Use?

OBJECTIVE

To discuss the opportunities and challenges of implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) within advanced practice nursing services in cancer care.

METHODS

This discussion paper has been informed by an environmental scan of evidence from systematic reviews and primary studies evaluating the use and implementation of PROMs and PREMs. Literature from the contexts of cancer and chronic disease, including nursing and multidisciplinary supportive care literature, has been included.

RESULTS

Advanced practice nurses are well-positioned to evaluate and respond to PROMs and PREMs data; several studies have highlighted improved patient outcomes concerning quality of life, symptom distress, and functional status within nurse-led services. Nevertheless, the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in cancer care and nurse-led services is variable. Previous studies have highlighted implementation challenges, which can hinder comparability and generalizability of PROMs and PREMs instruments. Advanced practice nurses should consider these challenges, including ways to use standardized PROM instruments. Electronic PROMs, while efficient, may exclude individuals at risk of inequity. Complex, lengthy, and frequent administration of PROMs may also overburden people living with or after cancer, with people affected by cancer expressing preference for flexible use in some studies. Therefore, the involvement of people affected by cancer in planning for PROMs/PREMs implementation may overcome this challenge. Finally, organizational considerations in implementation should address financial investments, including initial costs for technology and training and consideration of the operationalization of PROMs within existing infrastructure for the seamless utilization of PROMs data.

CONCLUSION

Despite the potential of advanced practice nursing services to enhance patient-reported outcomes and experiences, variability in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs poses challenges. Use of validated measures, electronic or paper-based instruments, and the preferences of people affected by cancer for the use of PROMs and PREMs must be carefully considered in consultation with end users for successful implementation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

In planning for the implementation of PROMs and PREMs within nurse-led services, implementation risks may be mitigated through establishing clear guidelines for their use, investment in the development of the required infrastructure, user education, and rigorous implementation processes, including patient involvement in PROMs/PREMs selection.

Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during severe asthma patient follow-up.

METHODS

Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic literature review, a focus group with patients, and a nominal group with experts. It assessed PROs' relevance and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of PROMs using a Likert scale (1=totally agree; 9=totally disagree). The consensus was established when ≥75% of participants agreed (1-3) or disagreed (7-9).

RESULTS

Sixty-three professionals (25 hospital pharmacists, 14 allergists, 13 pulmonologists, and 11 nurses) and 5 patients answered the Delphi questionnaire. A consensus was reached on all PROs regarding their relevance. Experts agreed on the use of ACT (A:95.24%; F:95.24%), mini AQLQ (A:93.65; F:79.37%), mMRC dyspnea scale (A:85.71%; F:85.71%), TAI (A:92.06%; F:85.71%), MMAS (A:75.40%; F:82%), and the dispensing register (A:96.83%; F:92.06%). Also considered suitable were: SNOT-22 (A:90.48%; F:73.80%), PSQI (A:82.54; F:63.90%), HADS (A:82.54; F:64%), WPAI (A:77.78%; F:49.20%), TSQM-9 (A:79.37; F:70.50%) and knowledge of asthma questionnaire (A:77%; F:68.80%); however, their use in clinical practice was considered unfeasible. Panelists also agreed on the appropriateness of EQ-5D, which was finally included despite being considered unfeasible (A: 84.13%; F:67.20%) in clinical practice. Agreement was reached on using ACT, TAI, mMRC, and a dispensing register every three months; mini-AQLQ and MMAS every six months; and EQ-5D every twelve months.

CONCLUSION

This consensus paves the way toward patient-centered care, promoting the development of strategies supporting routine assessment of PROs in severe asthma management.

Perceived Barriers Toward Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation in Cancer Care: An International Scoping Survey

PURPOSE

Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) collection is an important priority in cancer care. We examined perceived barriers toward implementing PRO collection between centers with and without PRO infrastructure and administrators and nonadministrators.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We performed a multinational survey of oncology practitioners on their perceived barriers to PRO implementations. Multivariable regression models evaluated for differences in perceived barriers to PRO implementation between groups, adjusted for demographic and institutional variables.

RESULTS

Among 358 oncology practitioners representing six geographic regions, 31% worked at centers that did not have PRO infrastructure and 26% self-reported as administrators. Administrators were more likely to perceive concerns with liability issues (aOR, 2.00 [95% CI, 1.12 to 3.57]; P = .02) while having nonsignificant trend toward less likely perceiving concerns with disruption of workflow (aOR, 0.58 [95% CI, 0.32 to 1.03]; P = .06) and nonadherence of PRO reporting (aOR, 0.53 [95% CI, 0.26 to 1.08]; P = .08) as barriers. Respondents from centers without PRO infrastructure were more likely to perceive that not having access to a local PRO expert (aOR, 6.59 [95% CI, 3.81 to 11.42]; P < .001), being unsure how to apply PROs in clinical decisions (aOR, 4.20 [95% CI, 2.32 to 7.63]; P < .001), and being unsure about selecting PRO measures (aOR, 3.36 [95% CI, 2.00 to 5.66]; P < .001) as barriers. Heat map analyses identified the largest differences between participants from centers with and without PRO infrastructure in agreed-upon barriers were (1) not having a local PRO expert, (2) being unsure about selecting PRO measures, and (3) not recognizing the role of PROs at the institutional level.

CONCLUSION

Perceived barriers toward PRO implementation differ between administrators and nonadministrators and practitioners at centers with and without PRO infrastructure. PRO implementation teams should consider as part of a comprehensive strategy including frontline clinicians and administrators and members with PRO experience within teams.

A Taxonomy for Health Information Systems

The health sector is highly digitized, which is enabling the collection of vast quantities of electronic data about health and well-being. These data are collected by a diverse array of information and communication technologies, including systems used by health care organizations, consumer and community sources such as information collected on the web, and passively collected data from technologies such as wearables and devices. Understanding the breadth of IT that collect these data and how it can be actioned is a challenge for the significant portion of the digital health workforce that interact with health data as part of their duties but are not for informatics experts. This viewpoint aims to present a taxonomy categorizing common information and communication technologies that collect electronic data. An initial classification of key information systems collecting electronic health data was undertaken via a rapid review of the literature. Subsequently, a purposeful search of the scholarly and gray literature was undertaken to extract key information about the systems within each category to generate definitions of the systems and describe the strengths and limitations of these systems.

Implementing paper-based patient-reported outcome collection within outpatient integrative health and medicine

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the feasibility of pre- and post-encounter patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure collection within an outpatient integrative health and medicine (IHM) clinic and to characterize factors associated with successful completion.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective review of 27,464 outpatient IHM encounters including 9,520 chiropractic; 8,237 acupuncture; 5,847 massage; 2,345 IHM consultation; and 1,515 osteopathic manipulation treatment encounters at four clinics offering IHM over 18 months. Patients were asked to complete paper questionnaires rating pain, anxiety, and stress from 0-10 immediately pre- and post-encounter. Generalized linear mixed effect regression models were used to examine the relationship between demographic, clinical, and operational covariates and completing (1) pre-encounter and (2) paired (i.e., pre and post) PROs.

RESULTS

Patients (N = 5587, mean age 49 years, 74% white, 77% female) generally presented for musculoskeletal conditions (81.7%), with a chief complaint of pain (55.1%). 21,852 (79.6%) encounters were among patients who completed pre-encounter PROs; 11,709/21,852 (53.6%) completed subsequent post-encounter PROs. Odds of PRO completion were more impacted by provider, operational, and clinical-level factors than patient factors. Covariates associated with increased odds of pre-encounter PRO completion included being female, having additional IHM encounters, and having a pain or anxiety complaint. Covariates associated with increased odds of paired PRO completion included being aged 31-40 vs. 51-60 years and having additional IHM encounters.

CONCLUSION

Implementing a paper-based PRO collection system in outpatient IHM is feasible; however, collecting post-encounter PROs was challenging. Future endeavors should leverage the electronic health record and patient portals to optimize PRO collection and engage patients and clinical providers.

Development and validation of clinical implementation methods for patient-reported outcomes in Japanese multi-center palliative care units

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) are recommended for use in clinical oncology. However, they are not routinely used in professional palliative care practices in Japan. The reasons include both patient and healthcare provider factors and the implementation of PROs. This study aimed to develop and validate clinical implementation methods for PROs in Japanese palliative care units.

METHODS

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was conducted with four palliative care units in Japan. The study was conducted in six steps: unit assessment, development and implementation of a PRO implementation plan, PRO post-implementation survey and analysis of its utilization, a review of the PRO implementation process, creation of a PRO implementation method in a palliative care unit, and use and verification of the implementation method. Steps 1-5 were the development phase, and step 6 was the verification phase.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with healthcare providers prior to PRO implementation. Intervention characteristics, patient needs in the palliative care unit, and factors related to the organization were identified as barriers. The implementation plan was developed, and the core members were selected. The implementation procedures were created in the above mentioned steps. PROs were used in the palliative care units. The same was true in the validation phase.

CONCLUSIONS

This study guided PROs in specialized palliative care unit in a clinical setting. The method was developed and validated for the implementation of PROs in the palliative care unit. In the PRO implementation process, it was important to assess the unit, address the barriers to implementation, and reduce the burden on healthcare providers. Furthermore, healthcare providers had to be supported by the champion, a person responsible for the implementation of PROs in the palliative care unit.

Healthcare consumer acceptability of routine use of the EQ-5D-5L in clinical care: a cross-sectional survey

PURPOSE

Patient reported outcome measures, such as the EQ-5D-5L, provide a measure of self-perceived health status or health-related quality of life. Understanding the consumer acceptability of a patient reported outcome measure can help to decide about its implementation across a healthcare organisation and possibly increase the likelihood of its use in clinical care. This study established the acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L from the perspective of clients receiving healthcare, and determined if acceptability varied by client sub-types.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey explored clients' experience of the EQ-5D-5L. Eligible clients were aged ≥ 18 years and completed the EQ-5D-5L on admission and discharge to one of two multi-disciplinary community health services. Likert scale items explored acceptability, and open-ended questions determined if the EQ-5D-5L reflects experience of illness. Associations between acceptability and client characteristics were established using χ2 test. Open-ended questions were analysed using content analysis.

RESULTS

Most of the 304 clients (mean age 70 years, SD 16) agreed that the EQ-5D-5L: was easy to use/understand (n = 301, 99%) and useful (n = 289, 95%); improved communication with their therapist (n = 275, 90%); and made them feel more in control of their health (n = 276, 91%). Most clients also agreed that they wished to continue using the EQ-5D-5L (n = 285, 93%). Clients aged ≥ 60 years reported lower acceptability. Clients noted that the EQ-5D-5L did not capture experience of illness related to fatigue, balance/falls, cognition, and sleep.

CONCLUSION

The EQ-5D-5L is acceptable for use in care but does not capture all aspects of health relevant to clients, and acceptability varies by subgroup.

Exploring patients' experience using PROMs within routine post-discharge follow-up assessment after stroke: a mixed methods approach

BACKGROUND

Patient Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) are being used increasingly to measure health problems in stroke clinical practice. However, the implementation of these PROMs in routine stroke care is still in its infancy. To understand the value of PROMs used in ischemic stroke care, we explored the patients' experience with PROMs and with the consultation at routine post-discharge follow-up after stroke.

METHODS

In this prospective mixed methods study, patients with ischemic stroke completed an evaluation questionnaire about the use of PROMs and about their consultation in two Dutch hospitals. Additionally, telephone interviews were held to gain in-depth information about their experience with PROMs.

RESULTS

In total, 63 patients completed the evaluation questionnaire of which 10 patients were also interviewed. Most patients (82.2-96.6%) found completing the PROMs to be feasible and relevant. Half the patients (49.2-51.6%) considered the PROMs useful for the consultation and most patients (87.3-96.8%) reported the consultation as a positive experience. Completing the PROMs provided 51.6% of the patients with insight into their stroke-related problems. Almost 75% of the patients found the PROMs useful in giving the healthcare provider greater insight, and 60% reported discussing the PROM results during the consultation. Interviewed patients reported the added value of PROMs, particularly when arranging further care, in gaining a broader insight into the problems, and in ensuring all important topics were discussed during the consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

Completing PROMs appears to be feasible for patients with stroke attending post-discharge consultation; the vast majority of patients experienced added value for themselves or the healthcare provider. We recommend that healthcare providers discuss the PROM results with their patients to improve the value of PROMs for the patient. This could also improve the willingness to complete PROMs in the future.

Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In Denmark, outpatient follow-up for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is changing from in-hospital visits toward more remote health care delivery. The nonuse of remote patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a well-known challenge, and it can be difficult to explain which mechanisms of interventions influence the outcome. Process evaluation may, therefore, be used to answer important questions on how and why interventions work, aiming to enhance the implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide insight into the intervention process by evaluating (1) the representativity of the study population, (2) patient and physician use patterns, (3) patient adherence to the intervention, and (4) clinical engagement.

METHODS

A process evaluation determining the reach, dose, fidelity, and clinical engagement was carried out, alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). We developed and implemented an intervention using PRO measures to monitor outpatients remotely. Data were collected for the PRO intervention arms in the RCT from 4 sources: (1) PRO data from the participants to determine personal factors, (2) the web-based PRO system to identify key usage intervention patterns, (3) medical records to identify clinical factors relating to the use of the intervention, and (4) semistructured interviews conducted with involved physicians.

RESULTS

Of the 320 patients invited, 152 (47.5%) accepted to participate. The study population reflected the target population. The mean adherence rate to the PRO intervention arms was 82% (95% CI 76-87). The questionnaire response rate was 539/544 (99.1%). A minority of 13 (12.9%) of 101 patients needed assistance to complete study procedures. Physicians assessed 477/539 (88.5%) of the questionnaires. Contact was established in 417/539 (77.4%) of the cases, and 122/539 (22.6%) of the patients did not have contact. Physicians initiated 288/417 (69.1%) and patients requested 129/417 (30.9%) of all the contacts. The primary causes of contact were clinical data (242/417, 58%), PRO data (92/417, 22.1%), and medication concerns and precautionary reasons (83/417, 19.9%). Physicians found the use of PRO measures in remote follow-up beneficial for assessing the patient's health. The inclusion of self-reported clinical data in the questionnaire motivated physicians to assess patient responses. However, some barriers were emphasized, such as loss of a personal relationship with the patient and the risk of missing important symptoms in the absence of a face-to-face assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the importance and practical use of remote monitoring among patients with CKD. Overall, the intervention was implemented as intended. We observed high patient adherence rates, and the physicians managed most questionnaires. Some physicians worried that distance from the patients made it unfeasible to use their "clinical glance," posing a potential risk of overlooking crucial patients' symptoms. These findings underscore key considerations for the implementation of remote follow-up. Introducing a hybrid approach combining remote and face-to-face consultations may address these concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03847766; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03847766.

Implementing strategies to improve uptake of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: a mixed-methods implementation study

IMPORTANCE

The Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) is an evidence-based resource, which was developed in response to international calls for improved patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation in gender-affirming care. The PG-PROM-GAC has the potential to improve PROM implementation; however, its real-world effectiveness has not yet been investigated.

OBJECTIVE

Investigate effectiveness and fidelity of three implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC in a real-world gender clinic setting.

DESIGN

Interrupted time series mixed-methods study investigating response rates to a PROM deployed alongside implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC; and open-ended feedback on the fidelity and effectiveness of implementation strategies.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from a National Health Service (NHS) gender clinic.

PARTICIPANTS

Eligible participants were being seen at an NHS gender clinic for an appointment during the study period, and were invited to participate in this study via email.

INTERVENTION

Three implementation strategies from the PG-PROM-GAC deployed alongside a PROM.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Response rates were calculated at 2-week intervals, in line with the deployment of each implementation strategy. Open-ended responses were thematically analysed by two researchers following guidance from implementation science and interpretation from Normalisation Process Theory.

RESULTS

A total of 28 participants were included in this study with a mean (SD) age of 39 (17) years. In general, participants rated education material for PROMs as the most important for PROM implementation, and accessibility options for PROMs as the second most important. Response rates to PROM completion dropped as the study progressed, as the burden of reviewing implementation strategies increased. Results were used to construct recommendations for future PROM implementation efforts.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PG-PROM-GAC and implementation strategy materials developed from this study (ie, educational video on PROMs co-developed with key stakeholders) can be used by clinicians, researchers and policymakers to lead PROM implementation efforts in gender-affirming care.

Using natural language processing to analyze unstructured patient-reported outcomes data derived from electronic health records for cancer populations: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs; symptoms, functional status, quality-of-life) expressed in the 'free-text' or 'unstructured' format within clinical notes from electronic health records (EHRs) offer valuable insights beyond biological and clinical data for medical decision-making. However, a comprehensive assessment of utilizing natural language processing (NLP) coupled with machine learning (ML) methods to analyze unstructured PROs and their clinical implementation for individuals affected by cancer remains lacking.

AREAS COVERED

This study aimed to systematically review published studies that used NLP techniques to extract and analyze PROs in clinical narratives from EHRs for cancer populations. We examined the types of NLP (with and without ML) techniques and platforms for data processing, analysis, and clinical applications.

EXPERT OPINION

Utilizing NLP methods offers a valuable approach for processing and analyzing unstructured PROs among cancer patients and survivors. These techniques encompass a broad range of applications, such as extracting or recognizing PROs, categorizing, characterizing, or grouping PROs, predicting or stratifying risk for unfavorable clinical results, and evaluating connections between PROs and adverse clinical outcomes. The employment of NLP techniques is advantageous in converting substantial volumes of unstructured PRO data within EHRs into practical clinical utilities for individuals with cancer.

Barriers and enablers to the implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs/PREMs): protocol for an umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) are evidence-based, standardized questionnaires that can be used to capture patients' perspectives of their health and health care. While substantial investments have been made in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs, their use remains fragmented and limited in many settings. Analysis of multi-level barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs and PREMs has been hampered by the lack of use of state-of-the-art implementation science frameworks. This umbrella review aims to consolidate available evidence from existing quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews covering factors that influence the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings.

METHODS

An umbrella review of systematic and scoping reviews will be conducted following the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods reviews of studies focusing on the implementation of PROMs and/or PREMs in all healthcare settings will be considered for inclusion. Eight bibliographical databases will be searched. All review steps will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Included reviews will be appraised and data will be extracted in four steps: (1) assessing the methodological quality of reviews using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist; (2) extracting data from included reviews; (3) theory-based coding of barriers and enablers using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) 2.0; and (4) identifying the barriers and enablers best supported by reviews using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. Findings will be presented in diagrammatic and tabular forms in a manner that aligns with the objective and scope of this umbrella review, along with a narrative summary.

DISCUSSION

This umbrella review of quantitative, qualitative, and mixed-methods systematic and scoping reviews will inform policymakers, researchers, managers, and clinicians regarding which factors hamper or enable the adoption and sustained use of PROMs and PREMs in healthcare settings, and the level of confidence in the evidence supporting these factors. Findings will orient the selection and adaptation of implementation strategies tailored to the factors identified.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42023421845.

Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system

PURPOSE

Limited examples exist of successful Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) implementation across an entire healthcare organisation. The aim of this study was to use a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a PROM collection system, which will inform implementation of routine collection of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation.

METHODS

Co-design comprised semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 11) and workshops/surveys with consumers (n = 320). The interview guide with clinicians focused on their experience using PROMs, preferences for using PROMs, and facilitators/barriers to using PROMs. Co-design activities specific to consumers focused on: (1) how PROMs will be administered (mode), (2) when PROMs will be administered (timing), (3) who will assist with PROMs collection, and (4) how long a PROM will take to complete. Data were analysed using a manifest qualitative content analysis approach.

RESULTS

Core elements identified during the co-design process included: PROMs collection should be consumer-led and administered by someone other than a clinician; collection at discharge from the healthcare organisation and at 3-6 months post discharge would be most suitable for supporting comprehensive assessment; PROMs should be administered using a variety of modes to accommodate the diversity of consumer preferences, with electronic as the default; and the time taken to complete PROMs should be no longer than 5-10 min.

CONCLUSION

This study provides new information on the co-design of a healthcare organisation-wide PROM collection system. Implementing a clinician and patient informed strategy for PROMs collection, that meets their preferences across multiple domains, should address known barriers to routine collection.

Using Implementation Science Frameworks to Guide the Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Symptom Monitoring in Routine Cancer Care

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.

Suicide Risk Screening for Head and Neck Cancer Patients: An Implementation Study

OBJECTIVES

 There is limited research on suicide risk screening (SRS) among head and neck cancer (HNC) patients, a population at increased risk for suicide. To address this gap, this single-site mixed methods study assessed oncology professionals' perspectives about the feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness of an electronic SRS program that was implemented as a part of routine care for HNC patients.

METHODS

Staff who assisted with SRS implementation completed (e.g., nurses, medical assistants, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers) a one-time survey (N = 29) and interview (N = 25). Quantitative outcomes were assessed using previously validated feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness measures. Additional qualitative data were collected to provide context for interpreting the scores.

RESULTS

 Nurses and medical assistants, who were directly responsible for implementing SRS, reported low feasibility, acceptability, and appropriateness, compared with other team members (e.g., physicians, social workers, advanced practice providers). Team members identified potential improvements needed to optimize SRS, such as hiring additional staff, improving staff training, providing different modalities for screening completion among individuals with disabilities, and revising the patient-reported outcomes to improve suicide risk prediction.

CONCLUSION

 Staff perspectives about implementing SRS as a part of routine cancer care for HNC patients varied widely. Before screening can be implemented on a larger scale for HNC and other cancer patients, additional implementation strategies may be needed that optimize workflow and reduce staff burden, such as staff training, multiple modalities for completion, and refined tools for identifying which patients are at greatest risk for suicide.

Multilingual Framework for Risk Assessment and Symptom Tracking (MRAST)

The importance and value of real-world data in healthcare cannot be overstated because it offers a valuable source of insights into patient experiences. Traditional patient-reported experience and outcomes measures (PREMs/PROMs) often fall short in addressing the complexities of these experiences due to subjectivity and their inability to precisely target the questions asked. In contrast, diary recordings offer a promising solution. They can provide a comprehensive picture of psychological well-being, encompassing both psychological and physiological symptoms. This study explores how using advanced digital technologies, i.e., automatic speech recognition and natural language processing, can efficiently capture patient insights in oncology settings. We introduce the MRAST framework, a simplified way to collect, structure, and understand patient data using questionnaires and diary recordings. The framework was validated in a prospective study with 81 colorectal and 85 breast cancer survivors, of whom 37 were male and 129 were female. Overall, the patients evaluated the solution as well made; they found it easy to use and integrate into their daily routine. The majority (75.3%) of the cancer survivors participating in the study were willing to engage in health monitoring activities using digital wearable devices daily for an extended period. Throughout the study, there was a noticeable increase in the number of participants who perceived the system as having excellent usability. Despite some negative feedback, 44.44% of patients still rated the app's usability as above satisfactory (i.e., 7.9 on 1-10 scale) and the experience with diary recording as above satisfactory (i.e., 7.0 on 1-10 scale). Overall, these findings also underscore the significance of user testing and continuous improvement in enhancing the usability and user acceptance of solutions like the MRAST framework. Overall, the automated extraction of information from diaries represents a pivotal step toward a more patient-centered approach, where healthcare decisions are based on real-world experiences and tailored to individual needs. The potential usefulness of such data is enormous, as it enables better measurement of everyday experiences and opens new avenues for patient-centered care.

Outcome measures for young people with adolescent idiopathic scoliosis: A qualitative exploration of healthcare professionals' perceptions and practices

BACKGROUND

Limited knowledge exists on current use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and performance measures for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS), as well as health care professionals' (HCPs) perceived barriers and facilitators towards their use. This study's objectives were: 1) to explore current practice of HCPs when assessing outcomes for AIS 2) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use PROMs 3) to understand perceived barriers and facilitators of HCPs to use performance measures.

METHODS

A qualitative study recruited a purposive sample of HCPs from a tertiary hospital in the United Kingdom. Mean years of experience managing individuals with AIS was 11.8 years; and included surgeons, physiotherapists and nurses, educated at Bachelor, Masters and Doctoral level. Consent to participate and demographic information were collected in advance of the interviews. In-depth, virtual semi-structured interviews were informed by a topic guide based on current evidence. Interviews of approximately 45 minutes were audio and video recorded and transcribed verbatim alongside written field notes. Data were coded and analysed using inductive thematic analysis, involving researchers with topic and methodological expertise and input from a patient representative.

RESULTS

Two themes emerged regarding current practice of using PROMs routine practice and personal evaluations. Four themes emerged as barriers to using PROMs for individuals with AIS: priority and support (e.g., HCPs focus on providing care), practical challenges (e.g., inadequate PROMs), patient-related challenges (e.g., patient preferences) and knowledge, education, and perceived value. Two themes emerged as facilitators: quality existing measure (e.g., sufficient psychometric properties), and priority and support (e.g., research department/culture). Themes for barriers to use performance measures were practicality (e.g., need physical space) and perceived value and knowledge (e.g., PROMs are more important), while the one theme for facilitators was practical consideration (e.g., acceptability).

CONCLUSIONS

Although HCPs perceived the value of using outcome measures, current practice indicates limited use for individuals with AIS. The findings revealed different barriers and facilitators to implement PROMs in practice. Adopting performance measure are limited due to lack of knowledge and perceived value alongside the practicality, while considering practical factors can improve the use of these measures in practice.

A pre-implementation examination of barriers and facilitators of an electronic prospective surveillance model for cancer rehabilitation: a qualitative study

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.

The use of outcome data in patient consultations from the healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on the use of outcome data in consultations and to understand which aggregated outcomes patients find important.

METHODS

This study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of two steps: RESULTS: HCPs indicated that aggregated outcome data are not routinely used in consultations. They pointed out various barriers to using outcome data, e.g., low response rates of PROMs, and suggested actions to address these barriers, including training of HCPs in outcome data usage. Patients rated the majority of aggregated outcomes as important, although preferences differed between the studied health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Both HCPs and patients underscored the importance of discussing outcome data in consultations. Nevertheless, HCPs encountered several barriers to using outcome data. Furthermore, patients with different health conditions have somewhat different information needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study identified several actionable steps to enhance the collection and application of outcome data in consultations.

Involving Patients and Clinicians in the Design of Wireframes for Cancer Medicines Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Care: Mixed Methods Study

BACKGROUND

Cancer treatment is a key component of health care systems, and the increasing number of cancer medicines is expanding the treatment landscape. However, evidence of the impact on patients has been focused more on chemotherapy toxicity and symptom control and less on the effect of cancer medicines more broadly on patients' lives. Evolving electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) presents the opportunity to secure early engagement of patients and clinicians in shaping the collection of quality-of-life metrics and presenting these data to better support the patient-clinician decision-making process.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to obtain initial feedback from patients and clinicians on the wireframes of a digital solution (patient app and clinician dashboard) for the collection and use of cancer medicines ePROMs.

METHODS

We adopted a 2-stage, mixed methods approach. Stage 1 (March to June 2019) consisted of interviews and focus groups with cancer clinicians and patients with cancer to explore the face validity of the wireframes, informed by the technology acceptance model constructs (perceived ease of use, perceived usefulness, and behavioral intention to use). In stage 2 (October 2019 to February 2020), the revised wireframes were assessed through web-based, adapted technology acceptance model questionnaires. Qualitative data (stage 1) underwent a framework analysis, and descriptive statistics were performed on quantitative data (stage 2). Clinicians and patients with cancer were recruited from NHS Greater Glasgow & Clyde, the largest health board in Scotland.

RESULTS

A total of 14 clinicians and 19 patients participated in a combination of stage 1 interviews and focus groups. Clinicians and patients indicated that the wireframes of a patient app and clinician dashboard for the collection of cancer medicines ePROMs would be easy to use and could focus discussions, and they would be receptive to using such tools in the future. In stage 1, clinicians raised the potential impact on workload, and both groups identified the need for adequate IT skills to use each technology. Changes to the wireframes were made, and in stage 2, clinicians (n=8) and patients (n=16) indicated it was "quite likely" that the technologies would be easy to use and they would be "quite likely" to use them in the future. Notably, clinicians indicated that they would use the dashboard to enable treatment decisions "with around half" of their patients.

CONCLUSIONS

This study emphasizes the importance of consulting both patients and clinicians in the design of digital solutions. The wireframes were perceived positively by patients and clinicians who were willing to use such technologies if available in the future as part of routine care. However, challenges were raised, and some differences were identified between participant groups, which warrant further research.

The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.

CONCLUSION

PROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.

Engaging clinical end users in the development of an outcome measurement protocol for paediatric communicative health systems

PURPOSE

To develop a conceptual framework of the factors likely to influence clinicians' use of a new participation-focused outcome measurement protocol in a large paediatric speech-language pathology program.

METHOD

A convenience sample of 27 end users (clinicians, managers) were recruited from Ontario, Canada's Preschool Speech and Language Program. Participants engaged in one virtual concept mapping session in groups of five to six during which they learned about the new protocol, and generated statements in response to a prompt asking them to identify factors that would influence their use of the protocol. Following all sessions, participants asynchronously sorted and rated all statements, and data were analysed using multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analyses.

RESULT

Six themes were identified: (1) response from families; (2) use of resources; (3) feasibility and clinical utility; (4) relevance and value-added for clinicians; (5) streamlining policies and guidelines; and (6) delivery, administration, and modification of tool. Response from families, feasibility and clinical utility, and use of resources received the highest importance ratings.

CONCLUSION

Concept mapping methodology was used to engage clinicians and managers to identify the barriers to a new implementation protocol for outcome measurement. Results will support future research and implementation efforts.

Patient Reported Outcome and Experience Measures (PROMs and PREMs) in substance use disorder treatment services: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Substance use disorders (SUD) pose significant challenges for healthcare systems, and there is a need to monitor the provision of effective, individualized care to persons accessing treatment. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are increasingly used in healthcare services to measure treatment outcomes and quality of care as perceived by patients, and to guide service improvement.

OBJECTIVES

This review aims to identify and characterize international developments regarding the use and systematic implementation of PROMs and PREMs in SUD treatment services.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted searching multiple databases to identify studies on the use and routine implementation of PROMs and PREMs in SUD treatment services.

RESULTS

23 articles were selected, all dating from 2016 onwards. There was large variation in the patient-reported measures that were used, how they were developed and how and when patient-reported data were collected. Treatment providers identified leadership support, the presence of an integrated electronic patient record, and regular feedback to be the most important facilitators of successful implementation of patient-reported measures into clinical practice, whilst treatment dropout and burden to staff and patients were the most important barriers to consider.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs and PREMs are increasingly used in SUD treatment services, but guidance is needed to support researchers and clinicians in selecting and implementing valid, meaningful, and comparable measures if we want to understand the effects of PROM and PREM data collection and feedback on treatment quality and results.

Facilitators and barriers to implementation of a patient and staff reported measure for screening of palliative concerns of patients with heart failure: a qualitative analysis using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

Background

Screening patients with patient-reported outcome measures allows identification of palliative care concerns. The Integrated Palliative Care Outcome Scale (IPOS) was developed in the United Kingdom for this purpose. Tools developed in another setting might not be readily usable locally. We previously evaluated the validity and reliability of the IPOS in our cardiology setting. However, it remains uncertain what factors would influence the subsequent implementation of IPOS for routine screening of patients with advanced heart failure in future practice.

Objectives

This study aimed to identify the factors that could affect the IPOS implementation for patients with advanced heart failure.

Design

This was a qualitative study conducted at the National Heart Centre Singapore.

Methods

Patients with advanced heart failure who participated in our previous IPOS validation study were purposively recruited for semi-structured interviews. Healthcare workers caring for these patients and involved in the testing of the IPOS tool were also invited for interviews. The interviews were analyzed thematically and mapped to the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Our analysis identified six potential facilitators and six potential barriers to implementation across five major domains of the CFIR (intervention characteristics, inner setting, outer setting, individual characteristics, and process). Facilitators include: (i) perception of utility, (ii) perception of minimal complexity, (iii) perception of relatability, (iv) conducive culture, (v) dedicated resources, and (vi) advocates for implementation. Barriers include: (i) need for adaptation, (ii) mindsets/role strains, (iii) resource constraints, (iv) cultural concerns, (v) individual needs, and (vi) change process.

Conclusion

Institutions could focus on cultivating appropriate perceptions and conducive cultures, providing dedicated resources for implementation and introducing facilitators to advocate for implementation. Adaptation of IPOS to suit workflows and individual needs, consideration of change processes, and systemic changes to alleviate cultural, resource, and staff role strains would improve IPOS uptake during actual implementation in clinical services.

Trial registration

Not applicable.

Young or Old Age and Non-White Race Are Associated With Poor Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Compliance After Orthopaedic Surgery

Purpose

To investigate orthopaedic patient compliance with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and identify factors that improve response rates.

Methods

Our search strategy comprised a combination of key words and database-specific subject headings for the concepts of orthopaedic surgical procedures, compliance, and PROMs from several research databases from inception to October 11, 2022. Duplicates were removed. A total of 97 studies were included. A table was created for the remaining articles to be appraised and analyzed. The collected data included study characteristics, follow-up/compliance rate, factors that increase/decrease compliance, and type of PROM. Follow-up/compliance rate was determined to be any reported response rate. The range and average used for analysis was based on the highest or lowest number reported in the specific article.

Results

The range of compliance reported was 11.3% to 100%. The overall response rate was 68.6%. The average baseline (preoperative/previsit) response rate was 76.6%. Most studies (77%) had greater than 50% compliance. Intervention/reminder of any type (most commonly phone call or mail) resulted in improved compliance from 44.6% to 70.6%. Young and elderly non-White male patients had the lowest compliance rate. When directly compared, phone call (71.5%) resulted in a greater compliance rate than electronic-based (53.2%) or paper-based (57.6%) surveys.

Conclusions

The response rates for PROMs vary across the orthopaedic literature. Patient-specific factors, such as age (young or old) and race (non-White), may contribute to poor PROM response rate. Reminders and interventions significantly improve PROM response rates.

Clinical Relevance

PROMs are important tools in many aspects of medicine. The data generated from these tools not only provide information about individual patient outcomes but also make hypothesis-driven comparisons possible. Understanding the factors that affect patient compliance with PROMs is vital to our accurate understanding of patient outcomes and the overall advancement of medical care.

Natural language processing with machine learning methods to analyze unstructured patient-reported outcomes derived from electronic health records: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Natural language processing (NLP) combined with machine learning (ML) techniques are increasingly used to process unstructured/free-text patient-reported outcome (PRO) data available in electronic health records (EHRs). This systematic review summarizes the literature reporting NLP/ML systems/toolkits for analyzing PROs in clinical narratives of EHRs and discusses the future directions for the application of this modality in clinical care.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science for studies written in English between 1/1/2000 and 12/31/2020. Seventy-nine studies meeting the eligibility criteria were included. We abstracted and summarized information related to the study purpose, patient population, type/source/amount of unstructured PRO data, linguistic features, and NLP systems/toolkits for processing unstructured PROs in EHRs.

RESULTS

Most of the studies used NLP/ML techniques to extract PROs from clinical narratives (n = 74) and mapped the extracted PROs into specific PRO domains for phenotyping or clustering purposes (n = 26). Some studies used NLP/ML to process PROs for predicting disease progression or onset of adverse events (n = 22) or developing/validating NLP/ML pipelines for analyzing unstructured PROs (n = 19). Studies used different linguistic features, including lexical, syntactic, semantic, and contextual features, to process unstructured PROs. Among the 25 NLP systems/toolkits we identified, 15 used rule-based NLP, 6 used hybrid NLP, and 4 used non-neural ML algorithms embedded in NLP.

CONCLUSIONS

This study supports the potential utility of different NLP/ML techniques in processing unstructured PROs available in EHRs for clinical care. Though using annotation rules for NLP/ML to analyze unstructured PROs is dominant, deploying novel neural ML-based methods is warranted.

Feasibility of Symptom monitoring WIth Feedback Trial (SWIFT) for adults on hemodialysis: a registry-based cluster randomized pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Patients with kidney failure on hemodialysis (HD) experience considerable symptom burden and poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). There is limited use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in facility HD units to direct immediate care, with response rates in other studies between 36 to 70%. The aim of this pilot study was to evaluate feasibility of electronic PROMs (e-PROMs) in HD participants, with feedback 3-monthly to the participants' treating team, for severe or worsening symptoms as identified by the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS-Renal), with linkage to the Australian and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant (ANZDATA) registry, compared with usual care.

METHODS

This is a registry-based cluster-randomized controlled pilot trial involving all adults receiving HD in 4 satellite units in Australia over a 6-month period. HD units were cluster randomized 1:1 to the control (HRQoL data collection only) or intervention arm (symptom monitoring with feedback to treating team every 3 months). Feasibility was assessed by participant response rate (percentage of eligible HD participants, including new incident participants, who completed the questionnaire at each time point); retention rate (percentage of participants who completed the baseline questionnaire and all subsequent measures); and completion time. HRQoL and symptom burden scores are described.

RESULTS

There were 226 unique participants who completed the e-PROMs (mean age 62 years, 69% males, 78% White-European, median dialysis vintage 1.62 years). At 6 months, response rate and retention rate for the intervention arm were 54% and 68%, respectively, and 89% and 97% in the control arm. Median time to complete IPOS-Renal was 6.6 min (5.3, 10.1) at 3 months, and when combined with the outcome measure (EQ-5D-5L), the median time was 9.4 min (6.9, 13.6) at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Electronic symptom monitoring among HD participants with feedback to clinicians is feasible. Variations in response and retention rates could be potentially explained by the lengthier questionnaire, and higher frequency of data collection time points for participants in the intervention arm. A definitive national RCT is underway.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ACTRN12618001976279 (07/12/2018).

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on implementing patient-reported outcome measures in gender-affirming care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives are needed to develop a gender-affirming care patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation plan. We aimed to identify top considerations relevant to gender-affirming care PROM implementation from patient and healthcare professional perspectives.

DESIGN, SETTINGS AND PARTICIPANTS

This qualitative study conducted in the UK between January and April 2023 includes focus groups with a patient sample diverse in age and gender identity, and a healthcare professional sample diverse in age and role. Established methods in implementation science and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research were used to create interview guides, and analyse data. Focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed by two independent researchers. Patient and healthcare professional focus groups were conducted separately.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Patient and healthcare professional perspectives on PROM implementation were explored through focus groups and until data saturation.

RESULTS

A total of 7 virtual focus groups were conducted with 24 participants (14 patients, mean (SD) age, 43 (14.5); 10 healthcare professionals, mean (SD) age, 46 (11.3)). From patient perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were mistrust with PROMs, lack of accessibility, burden, and lack of communication on why PROMs are important and how they will help care. From healthcare professional perspectives, key barriers to PROM implementation were lack of accessibility, burden with PROM administration and scoring, costs of implementation (financial and time), and lack of communication on what PROMs are and how they benefit service provision.

CONCLUSION

Gender-affirming care PROM implementation must address: patient mistrust with PROMs, accessibility, communication on what PROMs are and how they can be used, reducing burden, and hybridised implementation. These factors may also be applicable to other clinical areas interested in implementing PROMs.

Association between PROMIS10, SF-36 and NeuroQoL in persons with multiple sclerosis

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcome measures (PROs) are considered promising tools for use in clinical settings to measure the impact of disease on physical, mental and social well-being from the patient's perspective. The Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Scale v1.1-Global Health (PROMIS-10) is a measure that is well-suited to clinical practice, but the relationships between this measure and longer PRO measures used in multiple sclerosis (MS) research are unknown.

METHODS

Subjects enrolled in SysteMS: A Systems Biology Study of Clinical, Radiological, and Molecular Markers in Subjects with MS at the Brigham and Women's Hospital were eligible to contribute to the study. 349 subjects completed three PRO measures at study entry: PROMIS-10, Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36 (SF-36), and Quality of Life in Neurological Disorders (Neuro-QoL™). All questions and global scores from PROMIS-10 were correlated with all domain and summary component scores for SF-36 and all domain scores for Neuro-QoL using Pearson's correlation coefficient. Further, the global scores from PROMIS-10 were correlated with the expanded disability status scale (EDSS) and compared between disease categories (relapsing vs progressive MS).

RESULTS

Strong correlations were observed between PROMIS-10 questions and SF-36 domains aimed at measuring the same construct. Further, the PROMIS-10 Global Physical Health score was correlated with the Physical Component Score from the SF-36 (r = 0.798), and the PROMIS Global Mental Health score was correlated with the Mental Component Score from the SF-36 (r = 0.726). Strong correlations between PROMIS-10 questions and two Neuro-QoL domains (fatigue and lower extremity function) were observed, but other Neuro-QoL domains were not strongly correlated with PROMIS-10 questions. PROMIS-10 Global Physical Health had stronger relationship to EDSS and disease category compared to the Global Mental Health.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMIS-10 questions and global scores are highly correlated with the corresponding domains of SF-36 in PwMS. Neuro-QoL provides different information regarding HRQOL since different domains are being measured.

Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery

ABSTRACT

This forum summarizes the proceedings of the joint European Surgical Association (ESA)/American Surgical Association (ASA) symposium on Quality and Outcome Assessment for Surgery that took place in Bordeaux, France, as part of the celebrations of the 30th anniversary of the ESA. Three presentations focused on a) the main messages from the Outcome4Medicine Consensus Conference, which took place in Zurich, Switzerland, in June 2022, b) the patient perspective, and c) benchmarking were hold by ESA members and discussed by ASA members in a symposium attended by members of both associations.

Barriers and facilitators to implementation of outcome measures among physiotherapists in Nepal: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Standardised outcome measures are essential to evidence-based practice but their implementation remains a significant challenge in low- and middle-income countries. The barriers and enablers for implementation of outcome measures are likely different in these settings.

OBJECTIVES

We sought to understand barriers and facilitators to use of standardised outcome measures (e.g. patient-reported, performance-based, clinician-reported) in clinical practice among physiotherapists in Nepal.

DESIGN

Exploratory sequential mixed-method study.

METHODS

We conducted focus groups with physiotherapists in Nepal to understand factors contributing to standardised outcome measure use/non-use in depth and thematically analysed the data using Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). To triangulate the findings, we used an online survey which was distributed to practicing physiotherapists in Nepal using social media.

RESULTS

We interviewed 26 physiotherapists for the qualitative phase and 125 physiotherapists responded to our online survey. The most endorsed facilitator was mandating outcome measure use through regulations at organisational or national level, for example, submission of patient-level outcome measures to an insurance system. Major barriers were lack of time, lack of outcome measures in local languages, inability to follow-up with patients and perceived inability of patients to understand outcome measures. Challenges that had not yet been identified in previous studies were inability to follow-up with patients and organisational culture (e.g., cultural hierarchy within an institution).

CONCLUSION

The findings of our study provide an understanding of the contextual needs, and potential way forward for implementation of outcome measures in developing countries like Nepal. Future studies should focus on establishing consensus on which measures to use, the cross-cultural adaptation of these measures, and developing pathways for regulation.

Development of an implementation strategy for routine collection of generic patient reported outcome measures: a qualitative study in multidisciplinary community rehabilitation

PURPOSE

To explore staff perceptions of barriers and enablers towards implementing the EQ-5D-5L in community rehabilitation, and develop a theory-informed implementation approach for routine administration of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using implementation science frameworks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted at three sites. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation staff completed individual semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We identified and selected potentially effective behaviour change techniques using the Behavior Change Wheel. Hypothetical strategies were operationalised.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were conducted, and four themes emerged: (1) The Impact of PROMs on patient centered-care; (2) Considerations for validity of PROMs; (3) Service-level impact of embedding PROMs; (4) Practical issues of embedding PROMs within the service. Barriers and enablers were mapped to seven of the TDF domains; relating most to clinicians' "belief about consequences", "reinforcement", and "environmental context and resources". Five hypothetical strategies were developed to overcome identified barriers and strengthen enablers. Key behaviour change techniques underpinning the strategies include: restructuring the physical environment, incentivisation, persuasion and education, enablement, and, social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our implementation approach highlights the importance of automating processes, engaging site champions, routinely reporting, and using PROM data to inform service provision.

Adherence to Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring and Subsequent Clinical Interventions for Patients With Multiple Myeloma in Outpatient Care: Longitudinal Observational Study

BACKGROUND

The use of software to monitor patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve outcomes for patients with cancer receiving anticancer therapy; however, evidence from applications used in routine clinical practice is lacking.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to investigate adherence to and patient perceptions of a weekly, web-based PROM symptom monitoring program in routine clinical practice for patients with Multiple Myeloma. Moreover, we aimed to capture how clinical alerts prompted by the system influenced clinical care.

METHODS

We conducted a single-center longitudinal observational study to evaluate patient adherence to and perceptions of the PROM monitoring software in routine practice. Patients with Multiple Myeloma remotely completed weekly treatment-specific PROMs to monitor key symptoms via a dedicated web-based platform. Alarming symptoms triggered clinical alerts in the application for the treatment team, which could initiate clinical interventions. The primary outcomes were the web-based assessment completion rate and patients' perceptions of the monitoring program, as assessed by an evaluation questionnaire. Moreover, clinical alerts prompted by the system and consequential clinical interventions were analyzed.

RESULTS

Between July 2021 and June 2022, a total of 55 patients were approached for participation; 39 patients participated (24, 61% male, mean age 63.2, SD 9.2 years). The median assessment completion rate out of all weekly scheduled assessments was 70.3% (IQR 41.2%-89.6%). Most patients (77%) felt that the health care team was better informed about their health status due to the web-based assessments. Clinical alerts were triggered for 1758 of 14,639 (12%) reported symptoms. For 548 of 1758 (31.2%) alerts, the symptom had been registered before and no further action was required; for 348 of 1758 (19.9%) alerts, telephone consultation and self-management advice sufficed. Higher-level interventions were seldom needed in response to alerts: referral to a doctor or specialist (88/1758, 5% alerts), medication changes (22/1758, 1.3%), scheduling additional diagnostics (9/1758, 0.5%), or unplanned emergency visits (7/1758, 0.4%). Most patients (55%) reported the calls in response to alerts gave them "quite a bit" or "very much" of an added feeling of security during therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study shows that high adherence to regular and tailored PROM monitoring can be achieved in routine clinical care. The findings provide valuable insight into how the PROM monitoring program and the clinical alerts and resulting interventions shaped clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05036863; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05036863.

Development and Integration of Patient-Reported Measures into E-Health System: Pilot Feasibility Study

Patient-centered care is recognized as a key element in recent healthcare management strategies. However, the integrated collection of patient feedback capturing the entire journey of patients with complex medical conditions remains understudied. Herein, we aimed to describe the development of an instrument prototype for the collection of PROMs and PREMs that would encompass a whole patient journey at a single time point. We further describe the process of its integration into a hospital's information system (HIS) and the results of a pilot feasibility study in adult patients with kidney and hematological diseases. We developed an instrument consisting of original PREM and generic EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. E-questionnaires were handled with REDCap software (version 12.5.14) and integrated into the HIS. Patients refusing to use e-questionnaires (48%) were offered paper administration and were older (64 vs. 50 years). The overall response rate for e-questionnaires was 57.1% with a median completion time of 2.0 and 3.7 min for PROM and PREM, respectively. Psychological and social services and primary care setting (diagnosis establishment and involvement in continuous care) were identified as most problematic. The majority of PREM dimensions encompassing different levels of care significantly correlated with PROM responses. Our data indicate the feasibility and potential relevance of the proposed approach, although wider-scale studies in diverse settings are needed.

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic patient reported outcome measure from the perspective of healthcare staff: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a measure of self-perceived health status or health-related quality of life. They have been used to support provider-patient decisions, healthcare delivery, and value-based healthcare models. A barrier to routine collection of PROMs is the perception that PROMs lack clinical utility. As such, it is important to establish clinicians' acceptability of the PROM prior to large-scale implementation. This study explored the acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic PROM in healthcare services from the perspective of healthcare staff.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were completed from September 2020 to March 2021 with 26 staff from two multi-disciplinary community healthcare services in Melbourne, Australia. Interviews explored their experiences of using the EQ-5D-5L in their routine care. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed according to a framework approach, using inductive and deductive techniques.

RESULTS

Participants discussed the acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L with reference to four themes: practicalities of use; holistic nature; influence on client care; and influence on health service. Participants found the EQ-5D-5L quick and easy to administer, and appreciated that it measured multiple domains of health that were relevant to their clients' care. They believed the EQ-5D-5L helped to identify client problems, and inform service delivery. They also reported features that were less acceptable, including a lack of item specificity to some healthcare disciplines. Participants reported the challenge of managing conflict between their assessment of the client's health and the client's perspective of their own health, leading some to question whether the client could provide an accurate reflection of their own health.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-5D-5L has several features that healthcare staff viewed as acceptable for routine collection and use in healthcare. Training on the validity of the patient reported perspective and broadening the scope of PROMs collection beyond the EQ-5D-5L should be considered to facilitate large-scale implementation.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Colorectal Surgery

Given the increased life expectancy and improvements in the treatment of colorectal patients, the success of a treatment course can no longer be determined only by objective outcomes. Health care providers ought to take into consideration the impact an intervention will have on the quality of life of patients. Endpoints that take into account the patient's perspective are defined as patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are assessed through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), usually in the form of questionnaires. PROs are especially important in colorectal surgery, whose procedures can often be associated with some degree of postoperative functional impairment. Several PROMs are available for colorectal surgery patients. However, while some scientific societies have offered recommendations, there is no standardization in the field and PROMs are seldom implemented in clinical practice. The routine use of validated PROMs can guarantee that functional outcomes are followed over time; this way, they can be addressed in case of worsening. This review will provide an overview of the most commonly used PROMs in colorectal surgery, both generic and disease specific, as well as a summary of the available evidence in support of their routine utilization.

Oncology Providers' and Professionals' Experiences With Suicide Risk Screening Among Patients With Head and Neck Cancer: A Qualitative Study

PURPOSE

There has been limited study of the implementation of suicide risk screening for patients with head and neck cancer (HNC) as a part of routine care. To address this gap, this study assessed oncology providers' and professionals' perspectives about barriers and facilitators of implementing a suicide risk screening among patients with HNC.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

All patients with HNC with an in-person visit completed a suicide risk screening on an electronic tablet. Patients reporting passive death wish were then screened for active suicidal ideation and referred for appropriate intervention. Interviews were conducted with 25 oncology providers and professionals who played a key role in implementation including nurses, medical assistants, patient access representatives, advanced practice providers, physicians, social workers, and informatics staff. The interview guide was based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Interviews were transcribed and analyzed for themes.

RESULTS

Participants identified multilevel implementation barriers, such as intervention level (eg, patient difficulty with using a tablet), process level (eg, limited nursing engagement), organizational level (eg, limited clinic Wi-Fi connectivity), and individual level (eg, low clinician self-efficacy for interpreting and acting upon patient-reported outcome scores). Participants noted facilitators, such as effective care coordination across nursing and social work staff and the opportunity for patients to be screened multiple times. Participants recommended strengthening patient and clinician education and providing patients with other modalities for data entry (eg, desktop computer in the waiting room).

CONCLUSION

Participants identified important intervention modifications that may be needed to optimize suicide risk screening in cancer care settings.

Patient and clinician-reported experiences of using electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) as part of routine cancer care

BACKGROUND

Cancer and its treatment can have significant impacts on health status, quality of life and functioning of patients. Direct information from patients regarding these aspects can be collected via electronic platforms in the form of electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs). Research has shown that the use of ePROMS in cancer care leads to improved communication, better symptom control, prolonged survival and a reduction in hospital admissions and emergency department attendance. Acceptability and feasibility of routine ePROM collection has been reported by both patients and clinicians but to date their use has predominantly been limited to clinical trials. MyChristie-MyHealth is an initiative from a UK comprehensive cancer centre The Christie NHS Foundation Trust which incorporates the regular collection of ePROMs into routine cancer care. This study, carried out as part of a service evaluation, explores patient and clinician experiences of using the MyChristie-MyHealth ePROMs service.

RESULTS

100 patients with lung and head and neck cancers completed a Patient Reported Experience questionnaire. All patients reported that MyChristie-MyHealth was easy to understand and, almost all found it timely to complete and easy to follow. Most patients (82%) reported it improved their communication with their oncology team and helped them to feel more involved with their care (88%). A large proportion of clinicians (8/11) felt ePROMs helped communication with their patients and over half (6/10) felt they led to consultations being more patient focused. Clinicians also felt that the use of ePROMs resulted in patients being more engaged in consultations (7/11) and their cancer care in general (5/11). Five clinicians reported that the use of ePROMs altered their clinical decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Regular ePROMs collection as part of routine cancer care is acceptable to both patients and clinicians. Both patients and clinicians feel their use improved communication and increased the feeling of patient involvement with their care. Further work is needed to explore the experiences of patients that did not complete the ePROMs as part of the initiative and to continue to optimize the service for both patients and clinicians.

Seeing the person before the numbers: Personas for understanding patients' life stories when using patient-reported outcome measures in practice settings

AIMS

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being integrated into health information technologies, one challenge has been to assist clinicians in understanding how the responses to PROMs relate to patient stories for identifying and addressing the care needs of individual patients. Personas, hypothetical representations of patients, can be used as an innovative strategy to support clinicians' use of PROMs in their practice. These personas embody patients' life stories, making them a valuable tool for understanding the person when using PROMs. The aim of this project focused on cancer-related experiences to develop personas as a knowledge translation strategy to support clinicians' use of PROMs for person-centred cancer care.

METHODS

Eight older adults participated in online workshops (n = 2-3 participants/workshop; 1.5-hour sessions) to co-develop personas that reflected their collective experiences at a particular stage of their cancer journeys. Participants were asked to identify themes that focused on what the personas were thinking and feeling, what influenced how the personas acted, and the personas' overall goals. Participants subsequently completed an emotional well-being PROM from the perspective of the persona. Personas were further refined based on key themes identified during the workshop discussions.

RESULTS

Four personas representing the cumulative experiences of the workshop participants were developed to help clinicians link PROM responses to patient stories. These personas became the basis of four practice scenarios, which were examples of interactions between a clinician and each persona, to demonstrate the use of PROMs in practice.

CONCLUSION

Personas can be used to illustrate patients' life stories and contextualize PROMs data. As a knowledge translation strategy, personas can foster clinician awareness of how responses to PROMs can be used to initiate conversations to better understand patients' unique life situations.

The implementation of the 2017 national policy on patient-reported outcomes in Denmark: An overview of developments after six years

Driven by the potential values of using more patient-centred approaches in health care, the Danish government, regions and municipalities have agreed to introduce a standardised use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in all healthcare sectors in Denmark. Expecting benefits in particular at the individual patient level, the work to implement the national PRO policy is carried out under the auspices of the Ministry of Health. This highly systematic and comprehensive work elevates the development of PRO to a national level and centres around three main elements: development and feasibility tests of standardised PRO instruments within specific clinical areas, the development and implementation of a PRO instrument repository and a national IT infrastructure for the sharing of data across healthcare sectors. The paper describes these elements together with reports on the current state of implementation after six years of activities. PRO instruments have been developed and tested within eight clinical areas and - as intended - they show promising value for patients as well as healthcare professionals with respect to individual patient care. It has taken time for the supporting IT infrastructure to become fully operational in practice and, likewise, the strengthening of the implementation in and across healthcare sectors has required - and continues to require - considerable efforts from all stakeholders.

How to make PROMs work: qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs

PURPOSE

Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR).

RESULTS

According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success.

CONCLUSION

Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.