Implementation of Symptom Questionnaires Into Oncology Workflow

Real-World Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome (ePRO) Tools Integrated in the Electronic Medical Record During Radiation Therapy for Head and Neck Cancer: Feasibility Study

Purpose Use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools in routine oncology practice can be challenging despite evidence showing they can improve survival, improve patient and practitioner satisfaction, and reduce medical resource utilization. Head and neck cancer (HNC) patients receiving radiation therapy (RT) may be a group that would particularly benefit from interventions focused on early symptom management. Methods Patients undergoing definitive RT for HNC were enrolled in a feasibility study and received ePRO surveys integrated within the electronic medical record (EMR) on a weekly basis during RT. After completion of each ePRO survey, a radiation oncology registered nurse documented the findings and subsequent interventions within the EMR. Results Thirty-four patients with HNC who received curative RT at a single center were enrolled. The total number of surveys completed was 194 with a median of 7 surveys per patient (range 1-8). There was a total of 887 individual abnormal findings reported on the ePROs, and the authors found that all 887 had a corresponding documented intervention. Post-treatment practitioner questionnaires highlighted that ePROs were felt to be helpful for the care team in providing care to HNC patients. Conclusion For patients with HNC receiving RT, ePROs can be effectively utilized to address patient symptoms within an integrated health care system. Creating an infrastructure for the use of ePROs integrated within the EMR in routine care requires an approach that accounts for local workflows and buy-in from patients and the entire care team.

Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system

BACKGROUND

While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have benefit in cancer clinical trials, real-world applications are lacking. This study describes the method of implementation of a cancer enterprise-wide PROMs platform.

METHODS

After establishing a multispecialty stakeholder group within a large integrated health system, domain-specific instruments were selected from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (pain interference, fatigue, physical function, and depression) and were administered at varying frequencies throughout each patient's cancer journey. All cancer patients with an oncologic visit were eligible to complete the PROMs prior to the visit using a patient portal, or at the time of the visit using a tablet. PROMs were integrated into clinical workflow. Clinical partnerships were essential for successful implementation. Descriptive preliminary data were compared using multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors associated with method of PROMs completion.

RESULTS

From September 16, 2020 to July 23, 2021, 23 of 38 clinical units (60.5%) implemented PROMs over 2392 encounters and 1666 patients. Approximately one third of patients (n = 629, 37.8%) used the patient portal. Black patients (aOR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) and patients residing in zip codes with higher percentage of unemployment (aOR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.41) were among the least likely to complete PROMs using the patient portal.

CONCLUSIONS

Successful system-wide implementation of PROMs among cancer patients requires engagement from multispecialty stakeholders and investment from clinical partners. Attention to the method of PROMs collection is required in order to reduce the potential for disparities, such as Black populations and those residing in areas with high levels of unemployment.

Barriers and Facilitators When Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at a Municipal Cancer Care Unit: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Few qualitative studies of barriers and facilitators when implementing electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) in municipal cancer care exist within the large body of symptom assessment research. Such data, gathered from healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspective, are central to the development and design of sustainable interventions aiming for a systematic and patient-centered symptom assessment to patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers and facilitators, as described by HCPs, in the implementation of the ePROM application "Eir" at a municipal cancer care unit in Norway.

METHODS

The study applies a qualitative method, conducting an inductive data inquiry of semistructured individual interviews and focus groups with 14 Norwegian HCPs. Analysis was inspired by thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed 3 main themes affecting the implementation of ePROM in municipal cancer care: "achieving patient-centered care," "crucial management and training," and "technological barriers."

CONCLUSION

The results from this study suggest that HCPs' motivation plays a significant role when implementing ePROM. Motivation of HCPs was strongly influenced by whether the application added value to previously used symptom assessment. Hands-on management and a multiprofessional approach enabled the implementation by facilitating adaptations, training, and resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings show that adapting the implementation of ePROMs to patient population could be of major importance. Early integration of ePROMs in cancer care could facilitate use throughout the disease trajectory.

Patient-reported treatment toxicity and adverse events in Black and White women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer

PURPOSE

It is not known whether chemotherapy-related symptom experiences differ between Black and White women with early breast cancer (Stage I-III) receiving current chemotherapy regimens and, in turn, influences dose delay, dose reduction, early treatment discontinuation, or hospitalization.

METHODS

Patients self-reported their race and provided symptom reports for 17 major side effects throughout chemotherapy. Toxicity and adverse events were analyzed separately for anthracycline and non-anthracycline regimens. Fisher's exact tests and two-sample t-tests compared baseline patient characteristics. Modified Poisson regression estimated relative risks of moderate, severe, or very severe (MSVS) symptom severity, and chemotherapy-related adverse events.Please check and confirm that the authors and their respective affiliations have been correctly identified and amend if necessary.no changes RESULTS: In 294 patients accrued between 2014 and 2020, mean age was 58 (SD13) and 23% were Black. For anthracycline-based regimens, the only significant difference in MSVS symptoms was in lymphedema (41% Black vs 20% White, p = .04) after controlling for axillary surgery. For non-anthracycline regimens, the only significant difference was MSVS peripheral neuropathy (41% Blacks vs. 23% White) after controlling for taxane type (p = .05) and diabetes (p = .05). For all other symptoms, severity scores were similar. Dose reduction differed significantly for non-anthracycline regimens (49% Black vs. 25% White, p = .01), but not for anthracycline regimens or in dose delay, early treatment discontinuation, or hospitalization for either regimen.

CONCLUSION

Except for lymphedema and peripheral neuropathy, Black and White patients reported similar symptom severity during adjuvant chemotherapy. Dose reductions in Black patients were more common for non-anthracycline regimens. In this sample, there were minimal differences in patient-reported symptoms and other adverse outcomes in Black versus White patients.

Patient-reported symptom severity, interference with daily activities, and adverse events in older and younger women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer

BACKGROUND

To the authors' knowledge, it is unknown whether patient-reported symptom severity and symptom interference with daily activities differ between younger (aged <65 years) and older (aged ≥65 years) women receiving similar chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer (EBC).

METHODS

Study participants rated 17 side effects of chemotherapy regimens currently in use in clinical practice (2014-2019).

RESULTS

Of 284 women with EBC (stage I-III), approximately 57% were aged <65 years and 43% were aged ≥65 years. For anthracycline-based regimens, a higher percentage of younger women reported moderate, severe, or very severe (MSVS) hot flashes (49% vs 18%) (P < .001). For nonanthracycline regimens, a higher percentage of younger women reported MSVS hot flashes (38% vs 19%) (P = .009) and a lower percentage reported MSVS arthralgia (28% vs 49%) (P = .005). With regard to symptom interference with daily activities, a higher percentage of younger women being treated with anthracycline-based regimens reported MSVS hot flashes (32% vs 7%) (P = .001) and myalgia (38% vs 18%) (P = .02). For nonanthracycline chemotherapy, a higher percentage of younger women reported MSVS interference for hot flashes (26% vs 9%) (P = .006) and lower percentages reported abdominal pain (13% vs 28%) (P = .02). Overall, there were no significant differences noted among younger versus older patients with regard to hospitalizations (19% vs 12%; P = .19), dose reductions (34% vs 31%; P = .50), dose delays (22% vs 25%; P = .59), or early treatment discontinuation (16% vs 16%; P = .9546).

CONCLUSIONS

Older and younger women with EBC who were treated with identical chemotherapy regimens generally experienced similar levels of symptom severity, symptom-related interference with daily activities, and adverse events.

LAY SUMMARY

In this study, women receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer rated the severity of 17 symptoms and symptom interference with their activities of daily living. Older (aged ≥65 years) and younger (aged <65 years) women who received identical chemotherapy regimens generally experienced similar levels of symptom severity, symptom-related interference with daily activities, and adverse events.

The utility of the implementation science framework "Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services" (i-PARIHS) and the facilitator role for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a medical oncology outpatient department

PURPOSE

We evaluated the utility of the implementation science framework "Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services" (i-PARIHS) for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into a medical oncology outpatient department. The i-PARIHS framework identifies four core constructs for implementation, including Facilitation, Innovation, Context and Recipients.

METHODS

A pilot study used the i-PARIHS framework to identify PROM implementation barriers and enablers to inform facilitation support strategies, such as training clinicians and staff, workflow support, technical support and audit and feedback. Pre- and post-implementation surveys were completed by 83 and 72 staff, respectively, (nurses, doctors and allied health), to assess perceived knowledge, enablers, barriers and utility of PROMs; and acceptability of the PROM intervention was also assessed post-implementation.

RESULTS

Important barriers included time constraints and previous experiences with technology. Enablers included good leadership support and a culture of learning. Facilitation strategies were used to overcome barriers identified in the i-PARIHS core domains. Compared to before the intervention, staff surveys showed improvement in perceived usefulness, perceived understanding and interpretation skills for PROMs. Staff perceptions about lack of time to use PROMs during visits remained a major perceived barrier post-implementation.

CONCLUSION

The i-PARIHS framework was useful for guiding the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology care. The four core i-PARIHS constructs (Facilitation, Innovation, Context and Recipients) identified factors that directly impacted implementation, with Facilitation having a particularly important role to overcome these barriers. Oncology clinics and health systems considering implementing PROMs should consider having a dedicated Facilitator available during PROM implementation.

Testing Symptom Severity Thresholds and Potential Alerts for Clinical Intervention in Patients With Cancer Undergoing Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Symptom monitoring is attracting attention as a way to improve adherence to cancer therapy, reduce treatment-related toxicities, and possibly improve overall survival. How reporting thresholds affect symptom alert generation and clinical outcomes is poorly understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed data from 38 US health care institutions collected for the prospective Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group-American College of Radiology Imaging Network E2Z02 Symptom Outcomes and Practice Patterns study. Participants were outpatients receiving chemotherapy for breast (n = 642), colorectal (n = 486), or lung cancer (n = 340) who rated symptom severity using the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory at 2 assessment points 1 month apart. Percentages of patients with pain, dyspnea, fatigue, or distress at different thresholds (score of 4-7 on a 0-10 scale) were compared. The percentage of patients whose performance status had worsened at follow-up was used to estimate risk for missing clinically important symptom data by using higher severity thresholds.

RESULTS

At the guideline-recommended threshold of ≥ 4, suprathreshold rates were 60% for any of the 4 symptoms at the initial survey; performance status worsened at follow-up for 27% of all patients with any symptom rated ≥ 4 at the initiate survey. When the threshold was increased to ≥ 7, approximately half of patients (51%) with worsened performance status were not identified.

CONCLUSION

The burden to clinicians from an alert threshold of ≥ 4 (per many current guidelines) would be substantial. However, setting higher alert thresholds may miss a large percentage of patients who need clinical intervention. These results may inform resource planning when implementing electronic symptom screening at an institutional or practice level.

Exploratory Factor Analysis of a Patient-Centered Cancer Care Measure to Support Improved Assessment of Patients' Experiences

OBJECTIVE

To increase the understanding of patient-centered care (PCC) and address the need for cross-cutting quality cancer care measures that are relevant to both patients and providers.

METHODS

An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) was performed on a short version of the Patients and the Cancer Care Experience Survey, a patient-reported measure of perceived importance of social, emotional, physical, and informational aspects of care, administered to adult patients (n = 104) at a National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center. Relationships between PCC dimensions and patient characteristics were also assessed. Principal axis factoring was applied and bivariate analyses were performed using Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.

RESULTS

Most of our sample was over 60 years old (63.4%), female (57.4%), and white (74.2%), with either breast (41.2%) or prostate cancer (27.5%). A 5-factor model was identified: (1) quality of life (α = .91), (2) provider social support (α = .83), (3) psychosocial needs (α = .91), (4) nonprovider social support (α = .79), and (5) health information and decision-making support (α = .88). No statistically significant associations were found between these factors and patients' characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

A preliminary factor structure for a cancer PCC measure was identified. Our findings reinforce the interrelated nature of PCC dimensions. The lessons learned from this study may be used to develop a single PCC measure that identifies patient priorities across the cancer care continuum. Data collected from such a measure can be used to support patient engagement in treatment planning and decision-making.

The role of patient-reported outcomes in outpatients receiving active anti-cancer treatment: impact on patients' quality of life

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to describe subjective symptoms. Nurses can be successfully involved in collecting symptom information, because of their direct relationship with the patient. In order to improve clinical management of outpatients receiving active anti-cancer treatment, we introduced in routine clinical practice an assessment of patient-reported symptoms and toxicities, starting from January 2018. Our hypothesis was that this could help to better control symptoms, improving patients' quality of life (QoL).

METHODS

Eligible patients were receiving an active anti-cancer treatment, as outpatients. Patients included in the control group (treated in 2017) underwent "usual" visits (group A), while patients treated in 2018, before each visit received a questionnaire by a dedicated nurse, in order to provide information about symptoms and toxicities (group B). Primary objective was the comparison of QoL changes, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30.

RESULTS

A total of 211 patients have been analyzed (119 group A; 92 group B). After 1 month, mean change from baseline of global QoL was - 1.68 in group A and + 2.54 in group B (p = 0.004, effect size 0.20). Group B showed significantly better mean changes for fatigue, pain, and appetite loss. Proportion of patients obtaining a clinically significant improvement in global QoL score was higher in group B (32.6%) compared to group A (19.3%, p = 0.04). Patients' satisfaction with questionnaire was high.

CONCLUSION

Introduction of PROs in clinical practice, thanks to an active role of nurses, was feasible, produced high patients' satisfaction and a significant QoL improvement, compared to the traditional modality of visit.

Exploring the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer care: need for more real-world evidence results in the peer reviewed literature

BACKGROUND

To explore the existing evidence of the real-world implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical practice and address two aims: (1) summarize available evidence of PRO use in clinical practice using a framework based on the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) PRO Implementation Guide; and (2) describe reports of real-world, standardized PRO administration in oncology conducted outside of scope of a research study.

METHODS

A Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) protocol was developed to guide the systematic literature review (SLR) that was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase databases. A two step search strategy was implemented including two searches based on previously completed reviews. Studies published from 2006 to 2017 were synthesized using a framework based on the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide.

RESULTS

After screening 4427 abstracts, 36 studies met the eligibility criteria. Most elements of the ISOQOL PRO Implementation Guide were followed. Two notable exceptions were found: 1) providing PRO score interpretation guidelines (39% of studies); and 2) providing patient-management guidance for addressing issues identified by PROs (25% of studies). Of the 22 studies with an intervention component, 19 (86%) reported intervention effects on study outcomes. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) was the most commonly used PRO (n = 10, 28%); use of 38 other PRO measures was also reported. Only three studies (8%) reported real-world PRO implementation.

CONCLUSION

Reports of real-world PRO implementation are limited. Reports from studies conducted in clinical settings suggest gaps in information on PRO score interpretation and the use of PRO results to inform patient management. Before the promise of practice-based PRO assessment in oncology can be truly realized, investigators need to advance the state-of-the-art of real-time PRO score interpretation as well as developing guidance on how to use PRO insights to drive clinically-meaningful patient-management strategies.

Patient-Reported Toxicities During Chemotherapy Regimens in Current Clinical Practice for Early Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

This study explores the incidence of patient-reported major toxicity-symptoms rated "moderate," "severe," or "very severe"-for chemotherapy regimens commonly used in early breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Female patients aged 21 years or older completed a validated Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring instrument and rated 17 symptoms throughout adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Fisher's exact tests compared differences in percentages in symptom ratings, and general linear regression was used to model the incidence of patient-reported major toxicity.

RESULTS

In 152 patients, the mean age was 54 years (range, 24-77), and 112 (74%) were white; 51% received an anthracycline-based regimen. The proportion of patients rating fatigue, constipation, myalgia, diarrhea, nausea, peripheral neuropathy, and swelling of arms or legs as a major toxicity at any time during chemotherapy varied significantly among four chemotherapy regimens (p < .05). The mean (SD) number of symptoms rated major toxicities was 6.3 (3.6) for anthracycline-based and 4.4 (3.5) for non-anthracycline-based regimens (p = .001; possible range, 0-17 symptoms). Baseline higher body mass index (p = .03), patient-reported Karnofsky performance status ≤80 (p = .0003), and anthracycline-based regimens (p = .0003) were associated with greater total number of symptoms rated major toxicities (alternative model: chemotherapy duration, p < .0001). Twenty-six percent of dose reductions (26 of 40), 75% of hospitalizations (15 of 20), and 94% of treatment discontinuations (15 of 16) were in anthracycline-based regimens.

CONCLUSION

Capturing multiple toxicity outcomes throughout chemotherapy enables oncologists and patients to understand the range of side effects as they discuss treatment efficacies. Continuous symptom monitoring may aid in the timely development of interventions that minimize toxicity and improve outcomes. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This study investigated patient-reported toxicities for 17 symptoms recorded prospectively during adjuvant and neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens for early breast cancer. An analysis of four commonly used chemotherapy regimens identified significant differences among regimens in both individual symptoms and total number of symptoms rated moderate, severe, or very severe. Longer chemotherapy regimens, such as anthracycline-based regimens followed by paclitaxel, had higher proportions of symptoms rated major toxicities. The inclusion of patient perspectives on multiple toxicity outcomes at the same time at multiple time points during chemotherapy has the potential for improving patient-provider communication regarding symptom management, patient satisfaction, and long-term clinical outcomes.

Experiences of Inpatient Bone Marrow Transplantation Nurses and Providers Using Electronic Symptom Reporting

PURPOSE

To investigate the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to assess symptoms and how they can provide opportunities to clinicians to address symptoms in a timely manner to improve clinical care. As part of a larger study to evaluate whether providing standardized symptom reports to the medical team would decrease the time to treatment of reported symptoms in hematopoietic stem-cell transplant recipients, we assessed nurses' and providers' perceptions of electronic symptom reporting.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews of RNs, MDs, NPs and PAs were conducted at an academic cancer center in the southeastern United States. Nurses' and providers' perceptions of electronic symptom reporting were explored. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded by two investigators to identify major themes.

RESULTS

Fourteen RNs and seven providers (MDs, PAs, and NPs) participated in the interviews. Three main themes emerged from the interviews: electronic symptom reporting may improve assessment and care, integrating symptom reporting into nurse workflow presents difficulties, and there are barriers for completion of surveys.

CONCLUSION

The majority of nurses and providers believed that the inclusion of electronic symptom reporting in bone marrow transplantation inpatient units has the potential to improve care but that barriers to implementation remain.