Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review

Bridging clinical informatics and implementation science to improve cancer symptom management in ambulatory oncology practices: experiences from the IMPACT consortium

Objectives

To report lessons from integrating the methods and perspectives of clinical informatics (CI) and implementation science (IS) in the context of Improving the Management of symPtoms during and following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium pragmatic trials.

Materials and Methods

IMPACT informaticists, trialists, and implementation scientists met to identify challenges and solutions by examining robust case examples from 3 Research Centers that are deploying systematic symptom assessment and management interventions via electronic health records (EHRs). Investigators discussed data collection and CI challenges, implementation strategies, and lessons learned.

Results

CI implementation strategies and EHRs systems were utilized to collect and act upon symptoms and impairments in functioning via electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePRO) captured in ambulatory oncology settings. Limited EHR functionality and data collection capabilities constrained the ability to address IS questions. Collecting ePRO data required significant planning and organizational champions adept at navigating ambiguity.

Discussion

Bringing together CI and IS perspectives offers critical opportunities for monitoring and managing cancer symptoms via ePROs. Discussions between CI and IS researchers identified and addressed gaps between applied informatics implementation and theory-based IS trial and evaluation methods. The use of common terminology may foster shared mental models between CI and IS communities to enhance EHR design to more effectively facilitate ePRO implementation and clinical responses.

Conclusion

Implementation of ePROs in ambulatory oncology clinics benefits from common understanding of the concepts, lexicon, and incentives between CI implementers and IS researchers to facilitate and measure the results of implementation efforts.

Shared decision-making and disease management in advanced cancer and chronic kidney disease using patient-reported outcome dashboards

OBJECTIVES

To assess the use of a co-designed patient-reported outcome (PRO) clinical dashboard and estimate its impact on shared decision-making (SDM) and symptomatology in adults with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We developed a clinical PRO dashboard within the Northwestern Medicine Patient-Reported Outcomes system, enhanced through co-design involving 20 diverse constituents. Using a single-group, pretest-posttest design, we evaluated the dashboard's use among patients with advanced cancer or CKD between June 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients had a visit with a participating clinician, completed at least two dashboard-eligible visits, and consented to follow-up surveys. PROs were collected 72 h prior to visits, including measures for chronic condition management self-efficacy, health-related quality of life (PROMIS measures), and SDM (collaboRATE). Responses were integrated into the EHR dashboard and accessible to clinicians and patients.

RESULTS

We recruited 157 participants: 66 with advanced cancer and 91 with CKD. There were significant improvements in SDM from baseline, as assessed by collaboRATE scores. The proportion of participants reporting the highest level of SDM on every collaboRATE item increased by 15 percentage points from baseline to 3 months, and 17 points between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Additionally, there was a clinically meaningful decrease in anxiety levels over study period (T-score baseline: 53; 3-month: 52; 6-month: 50; P < .001), with a standardized response mean (SRM) of -0.38 at 6 months.

DISCUSSION

PRO clinical dashboards, developed and shared with patients, may enhance SDM and reduce anxiety among patients with advanced cancer and CKD.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures in routine care of older adults: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis

Objective

The aims of this systematic review were to (1) synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators influencing implementation of the electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures (PRMs) in older adults' care from various stakeholder perspectives and (2) map these factors to the digital technology implementation framework Non-adoption, Abandonment, challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) and behavior change framework Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B).

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021 was conducted and included English language qualitative studies exploring stakeholder perspectives on the electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care. Two authors independently screened studies, conducted data extraction, quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), data coding, assessed confidence in review findings using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE CERQual), and mapped the findings to NASSS and COM-B. An inductive approach was used to synthesize findings describing the stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included from the 3368 records identified. Studies explored older adult, caregiver, healthcare professional, and administrative staff perspectives. Twenty nine of 34 review findings (85%) were graded as having high or moderate confidence. Key factors salient to older adults related to clinical conditions and socio-cultural factors, digital literacy, access to digital technology, and user interface. Factors salient to healthcare professionals related to resource availability to collect and use PRMs, and value of PRMs collection and use.

Conclusion

Future efforts to implement electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care should consider addressing the barriers, facilitators, and key theoretical domains identified in this review. Older adults are more likely to adopt electronic completion of PRMs when barriers associated with digital technology access, digital literacy, and user interface are addressed. Future research should explore the perspectives of other stakeholders, including those of organizational leaders, digital technology developers and implementation specialists, in various healthcare settings and explore factors influencing implementation of PREMs.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022295894.

User-Centered Design and Usability of Voxe as a Pediatric Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Platform: Mixed Methods Evaluation Study

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are standardized digital instruments integrated into clinical care to collect subjective data regarding patients' health-related quality of life, functional status, and symptoms. In documenting patient-reported progress, ePROMs can guide treatment decisions and encourage measurement-based care practices. Voxe is a pediatric and user-centered ePROM platform for patients with chronic health conditions.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the user-centered design approach involving feedback from end users and usability testing of Voxe's platform features to support implementation in a pediatric health care setting.

METHODS

Purposive sampling was used to recruit patients aged 8-17 years from 2 chronic illness populations in 2 pediatric hospitals in Canada. Patients' health care team members were also purposively recruited. One-on-one iterative testing sessions were conducted digitally by research team members with participants to obtain feedback on the appearance and functionalities of the Voxe platform prototype. Patients and health care providers (HCPs) completed Voxe-related task-based activities. International Organization for Standardization key performance indicators were tracked during HCP task-based activities. HCPs also completed the System Usability Scale. To test platform usability, the think-aloud technique was used by participants during the completion of structured tasks. After completing all task-based activities, patient participants selected 5 words from the Microsoft Desirability Toolkit to describe their overall impression and experience with the Voxe platform. Qualitative data about likes, dislikes, and ease of use were collected through semistructured interviews. Feedback testing sessions were conducted with patients and HCPs until Voxe was acceptable to participating end users, with no further refinements identified. Quantitative and qualitative data analysis were completed using descriptive statistics and content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 49 patients and 38 HCPs were recruited. Patients were positive about Voxe's child-centered design characteristics and notification settings. HCPs rated Voxe as user-friendly and efficient, with the time to complete tasks decreasing over time. HCPs were satisfied with the Voxe platform functionalities and identified the value of Voxe's system notifications, summarized display of ePROM results, and its capacity to integrate with electronic medical records. Patients' and HCPs' high satisfaction rates with the Voxe prototype highlight the importance of being responsive to user suggestions from the inception of eHealth platform developments to ensure their efficient and effective design.

CONCLUSIONS

This paper describes the user-centered creation and usability testing of Voxe as an ePROM platform for implementation into clinical care for pediatric patients with chronic health conditions. As a patient-facing platform that can be integrated into electronic medical records, Voxe aligns with measurement-based care practices to foster quality patient-centered approaches to care. End users' positive feedback and evaluation of the platform's user-friendliness and efficiency suggest that Voxe represents a valuable and promising solution to systematically integrate patient-related outcome (PRO) data into complex and dynamic clinical health care settings.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2021-053119.

Use of the BRANT-MERQS scoring table for the quality assessment of type 3 medication review in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and those with type 2 diabetes mellitus

Background

A type 3 medication review (MR3) is a patient-centred medication service primarily provided by pharmacists and is presently employed routinely in several countries. In this process, pharmacists interview patients and collaborate with the treating physician to optimize the patient's pharmacotherapy, taking into account the patient's medication history and other medical data including laboratory values. The need to maintain the quality of such interventions during and after their initial implementation cannot be overstated.

Aim

The objective of this study was to refine and assess a scoring table to evaluate the quality of MR3 conducted in Belgian community pharmacies.

Methods

The comprehensive quality of MR3s was assessed by scoring its various components using a previously developed scoring table, called BRANT-MERQS, Brussels Antwerp Medication Review Quality Score. MR3s were analysed from an implementation study with patients suffering from rheumatoid arthritis (RA, subproject 1) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM, subproject 2). Additional information was obtained during a telephone call with a subset of participating pharmacists of subproject 1 who finalized their first MR3.

Results

In subproject 1, a total of 21 MR3s of patients with RA were examined. The assessment showed favourable scores for elements such as a well-organized medication schedule, treatment adherence, and the elaboration of specific interventions. However, certain other quality criteria posed challenges in the evaluation, for example, the use of simple and understandable language. Pharmacists faced time constraints, and elderly general practitioners (GPs) displayed limited enthusiasm, which were notable barriers observed for this subproject. In the context of subproject 2 that investigated 41 MR3s in patients with T2DM, the quality criteria of interaction between pharmacist and GP, and used sources and tools received high scores. However, there was still room for improvement, especially in areas such as accurate dosing, handling kidney function, QT prolongation, correctly associating laboratory values with relevant drugs and medical conditions, and optimisation of medication schedules for patients.

Conclusion

This study demonstrated the feasibility of MR3 quality assessment through a scoring system. However, it also unveiled the tool's current imperfections and highlighted the ongoing need for refinement, something expected of a new service in an implementation phase.

Barriers to and enablers of the use of the Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam in clinical practice-a qualitative post-implementation study

BACKGROUND

The Otology Questionnaire Amsterdam (OQUA) is developed to evaluate multiple ear complaints and their impact on patients' daily lives. The current clinical use of this questionnaire is below the potential utilization.

AIM

To identify the barriers and enablers of using the OQUA as perceived by ENT surgeons and patients and provide recommendations for an implementation strategy.

METHODS

Prospective and qualitative analysis was performed using focus groups and interviews with ENT professionals (n = 15) and patients (n = 25) with ear complaints of one tertiary referral hospital and two regional hospitals. Barriers and enablers were identified and classified by using the Capability-Opportunity-Motivation-Behavior model and the Theoretical Domains Framework. Suggestions for an implementation strategy will be made accordingly.

RESULTS

ENT professionals' barriers included lack of knowledge and skills to use the OQUA, inadequate technological support and perceived time constraints during consultation, uncertainty about the clinical relevance and lack of feedback on the outcomes of the OQUA. Enablers included beneficial consequences of the OQUA for the professional, organization and science. Patients' barriers included lack of knowledge about the objective and usefulness of the OQUA, perceived burden, difficulties in completing the questionnaire and insufficient feedback during consultation. Patient enablers included beliefs about beneficial consequences of the OQUA for the patient, health care and society. Suggested interventions involved education, training, environmental restructuring and incentivisation.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings, we propose an implementation strategy should focus on education and training about the objective, outcomes and relevance of the OQUA, environmental restructuring regarding the optimal use of the OQUA, and incentivisation with feedback on the valuable outcomes of the OQUA for the patient, professional and healthcare. Future research is needed to determine the feasibility of the implementation strategy.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Implementing Systematic Patient-Reported Measures for Chronic Conditions Through the Naveta Value-Based Telemedicine Initiative: Observational Retrospective Multicenter Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures can play a critical role in providing patient-centered and value-based health care to a growing population of patients who are chronically ill. Value-based telemedicine platforms such as the Naveta initiative may facilitate the effective integration of these tools into health care systems.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the response rate to electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and electronic patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) among patients participating in the Naveta telemedicine initiative and its correlations with sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, as well as the evolution of the response rates over time.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2021, and June 30, 2023, a total of 53,364 ePREMs and ePROMs for 20 chronic conditions were administered through the Naveta-Phemium platform. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize continuous and categorical variables. Differences in response rates within each sociodemographic variable were analyzed using logistic regression models, with significance assessed via chi-square and post hoc Tukey tests. Two-way ANOVA was used to examine the interaction between time interval and disease type on response rate evolution.

RESULTS

A total of 3372 patients with severe chronic diseases from 64 public hospitals in Spain participated in the Naveta health questionnaire project. The overall response rate to ePROMs and ePREMs during the first 2.5 years of the Naveta initiative was 46.12% (24,704/53,364), with a baseline rate of 53.33% (7198/13,496). Several sociodemographic factors correlated with lower response rates, including male gender, older age, lower education level, frequent alcohol use, being a student, and not being physically active. There were also significant variations in response rates among different types of chronic conditions (P<.001), with the highest rates being for respiratory (433/606, 71.5%), oncologic (200/319, 62.7%), digestive (2247/3601, 62.4%), and rheumatic diseases (7506/12,982, 57.82%) and the lowest being for HIV infection (7473/22,695, 32.93%). During the first 6 months of follow-up, the response rates decreased in all disease types, except in the case of the group of patients with oncologic disease, among whom the response rate increased up to 100% (6/6). Subsequently, the overall response rate approached baseline levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing the influence of sociodemographic factors on response rates is critical to identifying barriers to participation in telemonitoring programs and ensuring inclusiveness in patient-centered health care practices. The observed decline in response rates at follow-up may be due to survey fatigue, highlighting the need for strategies to mitigate this effect. In addition, the variation in response rates across chronic conditions emphasizes the importance of tailoring telemonitoring approaches to specific patient populations.

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 adult HIV care: A rapid scoping review of targeted outcomes and instruments used

OBJECTIVE

There is international interest in the integration of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into routine HIV care, but little work has synthesized the content of published initiatives. We conducted a rapid scoping review primarily to identify their selected patient-reported outcomes and respective instruments.

METHODS

Four databases were searched on 4 May 2022 (Medline, Embase, CINAHL and PsychINFO) for relevant English language documents published from 2005 onwards. Dual review of at least 20% of records, full texts and data extraction was performed. Outcomes and instruments were classified with an adapted 14-domain taxonomy. Instruments with evidence of validation were described.

RESULTS

Of 13 062 records generated for review, we retained a final sample of 94 documents, referring to 60 distinct initiatives led mostly in the USA (n = 29; 48% of initiatives), Europe (n = 16; 27%) and Africa (n = 9; 15%). The measured patient-reported outcome domains were: mental health (n = 42; 70%), substance use (n = 23; 38%), self-management (n = 16; 27%), symptoms (n = 12; 20%), sexual/reproductive health (n = 12; 20%), physical health (n = 9; 15%), treatment (n= 8; 13%), cognition (n = 7; 12%), quality of life (n = 7; 12%), violence/abuse (n = 6; 10%), stigma (n = 6; 10%), socioeconomic issues (n = 5; 8%), social support (n = 3; 5%) and body/facial appearance (n = 1; 2%). Initiatives measured 2.6 outcome domains, on average (range = 1-11). In total, 62 distinct validated PROMs were identified, with 53 initiatives (88%) employing at least one (M = 2.2). Overwhelmingly, the most used instrument was any version of the Patient Health Questionnaire to measure symptoms of depression, employed by over a third (26; 43%) of initiatives.

CONCLUSION

Published PROM initiatives in HIV care have spanned 19 countries and disproportionately target mental health and substance use.

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.

[Health-related quality of life : Concept, measurement and fields of application]

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is the most important patient-reported outcome in clinical trials and patient care. HRQoL is further considered as target variable in treatment guidelines and as outcome indicator in the evaluation of the quality of care. Numerous validated questionnaires are available for the assessment of HRQoL from the perspective of patients with skin diseases. However, many are of inadequate methodological quality, indicating the need for further research in the development of high-quality measurement instruments. The implementation of routine electronic HRQoL assessments is a promising approach.

12-Month Trajectories of Health-Related Quality of Life Following Hospitalization in German Cancer Centers-A Secondary Data Analysis

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer a diverse array of potential applications within medical research and clinical practice. In comparative research, they can serve as tools for delineating the trajectories of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) across various cancer types. We undertook a secondary data analysis of a cohort of 1498 hospitalized cancer patients from 13 German cancer centers. We assessed the Physical and Mental Component Scores (PCS and MCS) of the 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey at baseline (t0), 6 (t1), and 12 months (t2), using multivariable generalized linear regression models. At baseline, the mean PCS and MCS values for all cancer patients were 37.1 and 44.3 points, respectively. We observed a significant improvement in PCS at t2 and in MCS at t1. The most substantial and significant improvements were noted among patients with gynecological cancers. We found a number of significant differences between cancer types at baseline, t1, and t2, with skin cancer patients performing best across all time points and lung cancer patients performing the worst. MCS trajectories showed less pronounced changes and differences between cancer types. Comparative analyses of HRQoL scores across different cancer types may serve as a valuable tool for enhancing health literacy, both among the general public and among cancer patients themselves.

Barriers and Facilitators to the Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome System at Cancer Hospitals in Japan

Background and objective Implementing electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) in oncology practice has shown substantial clinical benefits. However, it can be challenging in routine practice, warranting strategies to adapt to different clinical contexts. In light of this, this study aimed to describe the implementation process of the ePRO system and elucidate the provider-level implementation barriers and facilitators to a novel ePRO system at cancer hospitals in Japan. Methods We implemented an ePRO system linked to electronic medical records at three cancer hospitals. Fifteen patients with solid cancers at the outpatient oncology unit were asked to regularly complete the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE™) questionnaire and European Organization for Research and Treatment Core Quality of Life questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) by using the smartphone app between October 2021 and June 2022. Thirteen healthcare professionals were interviewed to identify implementation barriers and facilitators to the ePRO system by using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research framework. Results The healthcare professionals identified a lack of clinical resources and a culture and system that emphasizes treatment over care as the main barriers; however, the accumulation of successful cases, the leadership of managers, and the growing needs of patients can serve as facilitators to the implementation. Conclusions Our experience implementing an ePRO system in a few Japanese oncology practices revealed comprehensive barriers and facilitators. Further efforts are warranted to develop more successful implementation strategies.

Navigating the Digital Landscape: Embracing Innovation, Addressing Challenges, and Prioritizing Patient-Centric Care

In the digital era, healthcare customer feedback plays a pivotal role in shaping the reputation of healthcare organizations. The study explores how digital advancements are integrated into modern healthcare, offering both transformative insights and addressing the challenges they present. It investigates how technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), digital platforms, and patient feedback systems impact patient care, operational efficiency, and customer satisfaction in healthcare settings. The study emphasizes the importance of balancing both capitalizing on the opportunities presented by innovations and addressing the inherent difficulties associated with digitalization in healthcare, underlining the need for a comprehensive approach to navigating the opportunities and challenges in healthcare digitalization. AI is recognized for its role in reshaping value creation in healthcare, fostering collaboration among stakeholders, and improving patient care. Additionally, the study identifies key areas of research essential for effectively navigating the digital transformation in healthcare, including operational efficiency, patient-centric strategies, and organizational factors. However, along with the potential benefits come challenges, such as the need for regulatory frameworks to validate new technologies and address privacy concerns surrounding patient data. Managing reputation and customer relationships in the digital sphere also emerges as critical for healthcare organizations. In summary, the study underscores the importance of healthcare institutions prioritizing patient-centric care, adopting digital innovations, and adeptly navigating regulatory and ethical challenges. By doing so, they can enhance patient outcomes, and satisfaction, and drive innovation in today's dynamic healthcare landscape.

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.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to personalise follow-up care of ovarian cancer: what do patients think? A qualitative interview study

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to explore ovarian cancer patients' preferences regarding follow-up care and, in particular, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as an approach to personalise follow-up care.

METHODS

Between May and June 2021, semi-structured interviews were conducted with ovarian cancer patients, who had finished their primary treatment at least 6 months prior and were receiving follow-up care at our centre. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using an inductive thematic approach. A thematic flow chart was created describing interacting themes.

RESULTS

Seventeen patients were interviewed, of which 11 were familiar with PROMs. Two key themes emerged from the data: the need for reassurance and the wish for personalised care. A follow-up scheme using PROMs was identified as a separate theme with the potential to personalise care. Several barriers and facilitators of PROMs were mentioned.

CONCLUSIONS

Ovarian cancer patients have a desire for personalised follow-up care and seek reassurance. PROMs may be able to support both of these needs. Future research is needed to determine the most effective, patient-centred way to implement them.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

By understanding what patients' preferences are regarding follow-up care, more initiatives can be set up to personalise follow-up care, through which patient anxiety and dissatisfaction can be reduced.

Investigating Digital Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Patient-Centered Diabetes Specialist Outpatient Care (DigiDiaS): Protocol for a Multimethod Prospective Observational Study

BACKGROUND

Living with type 1 diabetes is challenging, and to support self-management, repeated consultations in specialist outpatient care are often required. The emergence of new digital solutions has revolutionized how health care services can be patient centered, providing unprecedented opportunities for flexible, high-quality care. However, there is a lack of studies exploring how the use of digital patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for flexible specialist care affects diabetes self-management. To provide new knowledge on the relevance of using PROMs in standard care, we have designed a multimethod prospective study.

OBJECTIVE

The overall aim of this protocol is to describe our prospective multimethod observational study designed to investigate digital PROMs in a routine specialist outpatient setting for flexible patient-centered diabetes care (DigiDiaS).

METHODS

This protocol outlines the design of a multimethod prospective observational cohort study that includes data from electronic health records, self-reported questionnaires, clinical consultation field observations, and individual in-depth interviews with patients and diabetes health care personnel. All patients with type 1 diabetes at a designated outpatient clinic were invited to participate and use the digital PROM implemented in clinical care. Both users and nonusers of the digital PROM were eligible for the prospective study, allowing for a comparison of the two groups. Data were collected at baseline and after 12 months, including self-management as the primary outcome assessed using the Patient Activation Measure, along with the secondary outcomes of digital health literacy, quality of life, health economy, and clinical variables such as glycated hemoglobin.

RESULTS

The digital solution was implemented for routine clinical care in the department in November 2021, and data collection for the prospective study started in October 2022. As of September 6, 2023, 84.6% (186/220) of patients among those in the digital PROM and 15.5% (34/220) of patients among the nonusers have consented to participate. We expect the study to have enough participants by the autumn of 2023. With 1 year of follow-up, the results are expected by spring 2025.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, a multimethod prospective observational cohort study can offer valuable insights into the relevance, effectiveness, and acceptability of digital tools using PROMs in diabetes specialist care. Such knowledge is crucial for achieving broad and successful implementation and use of these tools in a large diabetes outpatient clinic.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/52766.

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.

Exploring patient perspectives on electronic patient-reported outcome measures in home-based cancer palliative care: A qualitative study

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROMs) enhance symptom management and patients' engagement in palliative cancer care. However, integrating them into this setting brings challenges, including patients' familiarity with technological devices and declining health status. Prioritizing the patient's acceptability and feasibility is crucial for their adoption. However, more knowledge is needed about patients' perspectives on the adoption of ePROMs in the community, especially for home-based palliative care.

Aim

Explore patient viewpoints on utilizing ePROMs for symptom reporting in home-based oncology palliative care.

Design

A qualitative interpretative approach was used to evaluate patients' points of view on using ePROMs in this specific care setting. Semistructured interviews were carried out. Data were analyzed using a reflexive thematic analysis.

Setting/participants

A total of 25 patients receiving oncological home palliative care from the advanced palliative care unit of the Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori in Milan, Italy, were invited to participate. Twenty interviews were conducted, as five patients declined due to deteriorating health.

Results

Four themes were identified: (1) strategic value of ePROMs and subjective appreciation; (2) enhancing patient centeredness through ePROMs; (3) exploring and addressing concerns about the use of ePROMs and (4) intersecting factors influencing the efficacy of ePROMs.

Conclusion

Despite initial reticence, home palliative care patients consider ePROMs as potentially valuable allies monitoring symptoms, enhancing their quality of life, and amplifying their voices on less explored aspects of care. Continuous dialog between healthcare professionals and patients is crucial for addressing patient skepticism about ePROMs and their impact on the human aspect of care.

Study protocol for a randomized, controlled, multicentre, pragmatic trial with Rehabkompassen®-a digital structured follow-up tool for facilitating patient-tailored rehabilitation in persons after stroke

BACKGROUND

Stroke is a leading cause of disability among adults worldwide. A timely structured follow-up tool to identify patients' rehabilitation needs and develop patient-tailored rehabilitation regimens to decrease disability is largely lacking in current stroke care. The overall purpose of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a novel digital follow-up tool, Rehabkompassen®, among persons discharged from acute care settings after a stroke.

METHODS

This multicentre, parallel, open-label, two-arm pragmatic randomized controlled trial with an allocation ratio of 1:1 will be conducted in Sweden. A total of 1106 adult stroke patients will have follow-up visits in usual care settings at 3 and 12 months after stroke onset. At the 3-month follow-up, participants will have a usual outpatient visit without (control group, n = 553) or with (intervention group, n = 553) the Rehabkompassen® tool. All participants will receive the intervention at the 12-month follow-up visit. Feedback from the end-users (patient and health care practitioners) will be collected after the visits. The primary outcomes will be the patients' independence and social participation at the 12-month visits. Secondary outcomes will include end-users' satisfaction, barriers and facilitators for adopting the instrument, other stroke impacts, health-related quality of life and the cost-effectiveness of the instrument, calculated by incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY).

DISCUSSION

The outcomes of this trial will inform clinical practice and health care policy on the role of the Rehabkompassen® digital follow-up tool in the post-acute continuum of care after stroke.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04915027. Registered on 4 June 2021. ISRCTN registry ISRCTN63166587. Registered on 21 August 2023.

Use of Real-World Data in Population Science to Improve the Prevention and Care of Diabetes-Related Outcomes

The past decade of population research for diabetes has seen a dramatic proliferation of the use of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) generation from non-research settings, including both health and non-health sources, to influence decisions related to optimal diabetes care. A common attribute of these new data is that they were not collected for research purposes yet have the potential to enrich the information around the characteristics of individuals, risk factors, interventions, and health effects. This has expanded the role of subdisciplines like comparative effectiveness research and precision medicine, new quasi-experimental study designs, new research platforms like distributed data networks, and new analytic approaches for clinical prediction of prognosis or treatment response. The result of these developments is a greater potential to progress diabetes treatment and prevention through the increasing range of populations, interventions, outcomes, and settings that can be efficiently examined. However, this proliferation also carries an increased threat of bias and misleading findings. The level of evidence that may be derived from RWD is ultimately a function of the data quality and the rigorous application of study design and analysis. This report reviews the current landscape and applications of RWD in clinical effectiveness and population health research for diabetes and summarizes opportunities and best practices in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of RWD to optimize its value and limit its drawbacks.

Implementing Innovation: Informatics-Based Technologies to Improve Care Delivery and Clinical Research

Improving technology has promised to improved health care delivery and the lives of patients. The realized benefits of technology, however, are delayed or less than anticipated. Three recent technology initiatives are reviewed: the Clinical Trials Rapid Activation Consortium (CTRAC), minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), and electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes. Each initiative is at a different stage of maturity but promises to improve the delivery of cancer care. CTRAC is an ambitious initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to develop processes across multiple NCI-supported cancer centers to facilitate the development of centralized electronic health record (EHR) treatment plans. Facilitating interoperability of treatment regimens has the potential to improve sharing between centers and decrease the time to begin clinical trials. The mCODE initiative began in 2019 and is currently Standard for Trial Use version 2. This data standard provides an abstraction layer on top of EHR data and has been implemented across more than 60 organizations. Patient-reported outcomes have been shown to improve patient care in numerous studies. Best practices for how to leverage these in an oncology practice continue to evolve. These three examples show how innovative has diffused into practice and evolved cancer care delivery and highlight a movement toward patient-centered data and interoperability.