Emotional and functional well-being in long-term breast cancer survivorship

PURPOSE

Emotional and functional well-being (EWB and FWB) are important components of mental health and quality of life. This study aims to evaluate long-term EWB and FWB in breast cancer (BC) survivors.

METHODS

The Carolina Breast Cancer Study Phase 3 oversampled Black and younger (< 50 years in age) women so that they each represent approximately 50% of the study population and assessed participants' EWB and FWB with the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B) at 5- (baseline), 25-, and 84-months post diagnosis. Multinomial logit models were used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for associations between demographic and clinical characteristics and well-being change relative to baseline.

RESULTS

Among 2,781 participants with BC, average EWB and FWB improved with time since diagnosis. Persistent FWB decrements were associated with Black race [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.2-1.7) and 1.3 (95% CI 1.1-1.6), at 25-months and 84-months respectively], older age [OR 1.4 (95% CI 1.1-1.7) and 1.5 (95% CI 1.2-1.8), respectively], no chemotherapy, and recurrence [OR 2.9 (95% CI 1.8-4.8) and 3.1 (95% CI 2.1-4.6), respectively]. EWB decrements were associated with advanced stage and recurrence. Decrements in combined (FWB+EWB) well-being were associated with recurrence at both follow-up survey timepoints [ORs 4.7 (95% CI 2.7-8.0) and 4.3 (95% CI 2.8-6.6), respectively].

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term well-being varies by demographics and clinical features, with Black women and women with aggressive disease at greatest risk of long-term decrements.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Virtual quality improvement collaborative with primary care practices during COVID-19: a case study within a clinically integrated network

INTRODUCTION

Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) are a common approach to facilitate practice change and improve care delivery. Attention to QIC implementation processes and outcomes can inform best practices for designing and delivering collaborative content. In partnership with a clinically integrated network, we evaluated implementation outcomes for a virtual QIC with independent primary care practices delivered during COVID-19.

METHODS

We conducted a longitudinal case study evaluation of a virtual QIC in which practices participated in bimonthly online meetings and monthly tailored QI coaching sessions from July 2020 to June 2021. Implementation outcomes included: (1) level of engagement (meeting attendance and poll questions), (2) QI capacity (assessments completed by QI coaches), (3) use of QI tools (plan-do-check-act (PDCA) cycles started and completed) and (4) participant perceptions of acceptability (interviews and surveys).

RESULTS

Seven clinics from five primary care practices participated in the virtual QIC. Of the seven sites, five were community health centres, three were in rural counties and clinic size ranged from 1 to 7 physicians. For engagement, all practices had at least one member attend all online QIC meetings and most (9/11 (82%)) poll respondents reported meeting with their QI coach at least once per month. For QI capacity, practice-level scores showed improvements in foundational, intermediate and advanced QI work. For QI tools used, 26 PDCA cycles were initiated with 9 completed. Most (10/11 (91%)) survey respondents were satisfied with their virtual QIC experience. Twelve interviews revealed additional themes such as challenges in obtaining real-time data and working with multiple electronic medical record systems.

DISCUSSION

A virtual QIC conducted with independent primary care practices during COVID-19 resulted in high participation and satisfaction. QI capacity and use of QI tools increased over 1 year. These implementation outcomes suggest that virtual QICs may be an attractive alternative to engage independent practices in QI work.

An eHealth symptom and complication management program for cancer patients with newly created ostomies and their caregivers (Alliance): a pilot feasibility randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients with newly created ostomies face complications that reduce quality of life (QOL) and increase morbidity and mortality. This proof-of-concept study examined the feasibility, usability, acceptability, and initial efficacy of an eHealth program titled the "Patient Reported Outcomes-Informed Symptom Management System" (PRISMS) during post-ostomy creation care transition.

METHODS

We conducted a 2-arm pilot randomized controlled trial among 23 patients who received surgical treatment with curative intent for bladder and colorectal cancer and their caregivers. After assessing QOL, general symptoms, and caregiver burden at baseline, participants were randomly assigned to PRISMS (n = 16 dyads) or usual care (UC) (n = 7 dyads). After a 60-day intervention period, participants completed a follow-up survey and post-exit interview. We used descriptive statistics and t-tests to analyze the data.

RESULTS

We achieved an 86.21% recruitment rate and a 73.91% retention rate. Among the PRISMS participants who used the system and biometric devices (n = 14, 87.50%), 46.43% used the devices for ≥ 50 days during the study period. Participants reported PRISMS as useful and acceptable. Compared to their UC counterparts, PRISMS patient social well-being scores decreased over time and had an increased trend of physical and emotional well-being; PRISMS caregivers experienced a greater decrease in caregiver burden.

CONCLUSIONS

PRISMS recruitment and retention rates were comparable to existing family-based intervention studies. PRISMS is a useful and acceptable multilevel intervention with the potential to improve the health outcomes of cancer patients needing ostomy care and their caregivers during post-surgery care transition. A sufficiently powered RCT is needed to test its effects.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT04492007. Registration date: 30/07/2020.

Evaluating Nurses' Time to Response by Severity and Cancer Stage in a Remote Symptom Monitoring Program for Patients With Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient-reported outcomes enables patients with cancer to communicate symptoms between in-person visits. A better understanding of key RSM implementation outcomes is crucial to optimize efficiency and guide implementation efforts. This analysis evaluated the association between the severity of patient-reported symptom alerts and time to response by the health care team.

METHODS

This secondary analysis included women with stage I-IV breast cancer who received care at a large academic medical center in the Southeastern United States (October 2020-September 2022). Symptom surveys with at least one severe symptom alert were categorized as severe. Response time was categorized as optimal if the alert was closed by a health care team member within 48 hours. Odds ratios (ORs), predicted probabilities, and 95% CIs were estimated using a patient-nested logistic regression model.

RESULTS

Of 178 patients with breast cancer included in this analysis, 63% of patients identified as White and 85% of patients had a stage I-III or early-stage cancer. The median age at diagnosis was 55 years (IQR, 42-65). Of 1,087 surveys included, 36% reported at least one severe symptom alert and 77% had an optimal response time by the health care team. When compared with surveys that had no severe symptom alerts, surveys with at least one severe symptom alert had similar odds of having an optimal response time (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.68 to 1.38). The results were similar when stratified by cancer stage.

CONCLUSION

Response times to symptom alerts were similar for alerts with at least one severe symptom compared with alerts with no severe symptoms. This suggests that alert management is being incorporated into routine workflows and not prioritized based on disease or symptom alert severity.

Adaptation of Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Implementation in Real-World Settings

PURPOSE

Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers.

METHODS

This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman's Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (phase I) and workflow (phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semistructured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation.

RESULTS

Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility.

CONCLUSION

Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.

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.

Development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) screening strategy for early palliative care needs in outpatients with advanced cancer

203

Background: There is a critical need to develop standardized and feasible methods to monitor patients for unmet palliative needs and direct timely referral to specialty palliative care. We developed a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) measurement strategy to screen patients for multidimensional palliative care needs. Methods: Guided by evidence-based frameworks for early palliative care in oncology, we identified 8 key domains for PROM monitoring that are meaningful and actionable in clinical care and appropriate for direct patient report. We conducted a systematic search for PROMs assessing these key domains using the Palliative Care Research Cooperative (PCRC) Measurement Core resources and the Grid-Enabled Measures Database. PROMs for each domain were compared for content coverage, psychometric properties, proprietary availability, Spanish translation, and attributes (response options, length, literacy demand). Results: We selected 13 PRO items for weekly monitoring (Symptom PROs) and 11 PRO items for monthly monitoring (Palliative PROs) (Table). We did not identify any validated PROMs to assess caregiver burden from the patient perspective. Validated PROMs in short formats for spiritual/existential needs are limited. Conclusions: Existing PROMs are limited in capturing the multi-dimensionality of palliative care needs for patients with cancer, particularly for spiritual needs and patient-reported caregiver burden. Future work will focus on piloting identified PROMs to monitor patients for early palliative care needs and determining thresholds to trigger referrals to specialty palliative care.[Table: see text]

Identification of target population in the implementation of navigator-delivered home ePRO for patients with cancer receiving treatment

351

Background: One key challenge of practice transformation activities, such as remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs), is identification of patients starting treatment. In real-world settings, reliance on referrals is likely to miss patients. We describe the difficulties encountered in patient identification and the subsequent changes implemented in protocol to remediate this. Methods: We conducted two PDSA cycles focused on identification and engagement of patients for RSM at the Mitchel Cancer Institute (MCI). Target patient capture was > 75%. Modifications to the patient identification process were documented. Schedules of physicians participating in the RSM program were reviewed from 6/2021 – 5/2022 to identify eligible patients. Patients were considered eligible if they were starting chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy. Patients seeking a second opinion were excluded. Patient demographics, cancer type, cancer stage, and PROs were abstracted from electronic health records and the PRO platform (Carevive). Initial clinic roll-out was conducted in gynecologic oncology, with expansion to breast and thoracic oncology in 10/2021 and 3/2022, respectively. The proportion of eligible patients approached per month was reported.Results: In the first PDSA cycle, the eligibility criteria was defined. Although clinical trials included advanced disease, non-clinical staff screening expressed concern about determining advanced vs. early-stage disease. Thus, inclusion criteria was broadened to include all patients starting treatments. From 6/2021 –8/2021, navigators identified patients by screening patients who presented for chemo-education visits. The navigation team approached 23 patients during this period. However, this process didn’t identify all eligible patients as not all patients beginning treatment received chemo-education visits. In PDSA Cycle 2, the process for new patient contact from initial call for appointment through treatment was reviewed. The implementation team screened all patients in a physician’s schedule a week prior to the office visit as well as on the day of visit. This updated process identified all eligible patients starting either intravenous or oral chemotherapy. The recruitment process was modified to screen the physician schedules rather than chemo educator visits. From 9/2022-5/22, the proportion of eligible patients identified and approached remained high at 100%. This methodological screening process helped the navigation team identify all eligible patients in an efficient manner and they reported comfort in expanding to additional disease teams. Conclusions: Systematic screening of physician schedules can be successfully leveraged for patient identification and reduce time spent manually screening for eligible patients by non-clinical navigators. Clinical trial information: NCT04809740.

Sociodemographic difference in patients who enroll and decline remote symptom monitoring (RSM)

268

Background: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using patient-reported outcomes has been shown to reduce symptom burden and hospitalizations in clinical trials. However, little is known about how willing patients are to participate in remote symptom monitoring in real-world settings, particularly for vulnerable patient populations. This study aims to compare characteristics of cancer patients enrolled vs. patients who declined enrollment into RSM. Methods: This prospective study used data that assessed the characteristics of patients who enrolled vs. patients who declined enrollment into RSM. Inclusion criteria included participants’ age ≥18 with cancer who received chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy at the University of Alabama at Birmingham. Race and ethnicity (Black or African American, White, Asian, other and unknown), sex, cancer type (breast, gastrointestinal [GI], genitourinary [GU], gynecological [GYNX], head and neck, leukemia, lymphoma, melanoma, myeloma and other), urban/rural residence, Area Deprivation Index (ADI), and insurance type (Medicaid, Medicare, none, other and private) were abstracted from electronic medical records (EMR) and PRO platform (Carevive). Descriptive statistics were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Differences in enrollment status characteristics were calculated using measures of effect size such as Cramer’s V. Results: Of the 307 patients, two thirds of patients were female (71%); 25% were Black or African American and 66% were White patients; 15% lived in an area of higher disadvantage. For insurance, 46%, 26%, 10%, 8%, and 9% of patients had Private, Medicare, Medicaid, other insurance, and no insurance, respectively. The proportion of patients who declined enrollment was higher for males than females (22% vs. 10%), Black or African American than White (18% vs 13%); and having Medicare than private insurance (22% vs. 10%). Compared to those who enrolled, patients who declined enrollment were more often to be male (V:0.2), Black or African American (V:0.1); and have Medicare insurance (V:0.2). Patients enrolled vs. declined in RSM had similar ADI scores (V:0.01). Conclusions: This study demonstrates that potentially vulnerable patients, including Black patients and those with public insurance, have lower RSM engagement. Future analysis is needed to understand participation barriers and how to better engage diverse populations to ensure optimal healthcare delivery to all patients.

Evaluating nurses' time to response by severity and cancer stage in a remote symptom monitoring program

341

Background: Remote symptom monitoring (RSM) using electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) allow for patients with cancer to communicate symptoms to their clinical team between clinic visits. Prior randomized control trials of RSM focused on advanced cancer, and less data are available for patient with early stage cancers. The University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) implemented RSM for early stage (I-III) and advanced stage (IV) patients on active treatment. This study evaluates nurses’ real-world response time to alerts by varying severity and by patients cancer stages. Methods: This study included women with stage I-IV breast cancer who received care at UAB from October 2020 through May 2022. The program was first implemented in the breast clinic allowing for larger patient numbers with early and advanced stage breast cancer. A composite score for symptom severity is automatically calculated in the Carevive® platform for moderate, severe, or worsening symptoms using patient responses for frequency, severity, and interference. The nurse receives an alert if a symptom is moderate or severe. Surveys with at least one severe alert were categorized as severe and response time was categorized as optimal if the survey was closed within 48 hours (goal time for phone message follow-up). Odds ratios (OR), predicted probabilities, and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using a patient nested logistic regression evaluating time to response comparing surveys with at least one severe alert notification to those with no severe, adjusting for age at enrollment, race, cancer stage, provider who closed the surveys, and quarter from study start and date. An interaction between severity and cancer stage was evaluated. Results: Of 137 patients included in this study, 64% were White; 86% were diagnosed with early-stage breast cancer. The median age at diagnosis was 54 (27-79). Of 802 surveys included, 38% reported at least one severe symptom and 70% had an optimal response time. Similar results were seen when stratified by early vs. advanced stage with 39% and 38% reporting at least one severe alert and 68% and 71% an optimal response time, respectively. In our adjusted analysis, when compared with surveys that had no severe alerts, surveys with at least one severe alert had similar odds of having an optimal response time (OR, 1.29; 95%CI, 0.88, 1.89). No significant interaction between severity and stage was observed on the odds of optimal response time. Conclusions: Response times to alerts were similar regardless of the severity of the alert and cancer stage, suggesting alert management is incorporated into routine workflows and not prioritized based on disease or alert severity. Additional research is needed to understand factors contributing to non-optimal response times.

Postoperative symptom monitoring with ePROs in an academic public hospital

264

Background: Postoperative symptom burden is high in surgical oncology patients. Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) remote monitoring systems are rapidly proliferating and have the promise of improving care. However, implementation in diverse practice settings is understudied. More information on ePRO participation may determine addressable barriers. Methods: Patients presenting to the Multidisciplinary Thoracic Oncology Program for surgery were prospectively enrolled. ePROs assessing common postop symptoms and functional impairments were administered via a web-based platform daily for 14 days and then weekly until 3 months post-discharge. Automated reminders were provided by email. Phone calls were made for 2 consecutive missed ePROs. ePRO participation levels were categorized as high (> 80%), medium (50-80%), low (1-49%), and none. Patient characteristics were examined by participation level via Fisher’s exact and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results: From 2020-2022, 202 patients were recruited to participate, and 113 (56%) agreed. There were no differences in demographics of agreed vs. declined. 99 patients initiated ePROs after discharge. Mean age was 60.5 years (sd 13.4), 37.8% were male, 72.5% were White, and the majority (64%) had lung resection. Patients participated in ePROs for an average of 82 days (sd 24) before discontinuing. Overall, 57.7% (1383/2397) of delivered surveys were completed; response rates were lowest in week 1 (48%) and highest in week 7 (71%). Participation levels are described in Table. Married/partnered patients were significantly more likely to have high levels of participation (p = 0.003), and those who regularly used a computing device almost reached significance (p = 0.057). Age, gender, race, employment, email/internet use, financial status, and quality of life did not vary across ePRO participation levels. Conclusions: Monitoring symptoms with ePROs after discharge from thoracic surgery is feasible in a large academic public hospital. Participation levels in ePROs are lower immediately after discharge, when symptomatic complications drive the highest rates of readmissions. This suggests an opportunity to improve ePRO implementation during the post-acute period when intensive monitoring is desired and in patients who are not partnered or are less frequent device users. As length of stay and readmissions are increasingly targeted for expenditure reduction in academic inpatient settings, it is paramount to design and implement systems to effectively monitor at-risk patients. Clinical trial information: NCT04342260. [Table: see text]

Trajectory of symptoms reported in remote symptom monitoring over the course of oncology treatment for gynecologic cancers

270

Background: Patients now have the ability to utilize electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) for remote symptom monitoring (RSM). This analysis seeks to better understand trajectory of reported symptoms during treatment for patients with gynecologic cancer participating in RSM. Methods: We approached patients with gynecological cancer initiating treatment at the Mitchell Cancer Institute (MCI) between 7/1/21-4/30/2022. Patients were eligible if they were starting chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or immunotherapy for a new cancer. Patients seeking a second opinion were excluded. Enrolled patients received symptom survey (PRO-CTCAE questions) via text or email once per week. Initially, only severe alerts were forwarded to the clinical care team; moderate alerts were forwarded to clinical teams once they were comfortable with alert management. Patients completed symptom assessments for 24 weeks or until withdrawal. Patient age at enrollment, race, sex, cancer type, cancer stage, and PROs were abstracted from electronic health records and the PRO platform (Carevive). Descriptive statistics were calculated using frequencies and percentages for categorical variables and median and interquartile ranges (IQR) for continuous variables. Results: A total of 60 female patients with gynecological cancer were enrolled; 33% were Black or African American and 67% were White; median age was 61 years (IQR 53-68). Seventy-eight percent (47/60) of patients reported 379 symptoms with at least one moderate or severe alert during this time period; 32% considered moderate and 68% considered severe. Overall, the most frequently reported symptom was pain (29%). At baseline (week 0), 14% and 41% of 56 patients reported moderate symptoms and severe symptoms, respectively. Symptom burden decreased over time with 4% and 7% of 27 patients who completed a survey at 12 weeks reporting moderate and severe symptoms. Specific symptom trajectories followed similar patterns. Conclusions: In our sample, patients reported the majority of symptoms during the first three months of treatment. Symptom trajectory decreased with time, suggesting symptoms are being effectively monitored and addressed by the clinical teams engaging in RSM. Future research is needed to understand if symptom improvement translates to increased quality of life, decreased hospitalizations, and increased survival for patients, as well as lessen the burden of call volume on the clinical team.

Adaptation of remote symptom monitoring using electronic patient-reported outcomes for implementation in real-world settings

272

Background: Despite evidence of clinical benefits, widespread implementation of remote symptom monitoring has been limited. We describe a process of adapting a remote symptom monitoring intervention developed in a research setting to a real-world clinical setting at two cancer centers. Methods: This formative evaluation assessed core components and adaptations to improve acceptability and fit of remote symptom monitoring using Stirman’s Framework for Modifications and Adaptations. Implementation outcomes were evaluated in pilot studies at the two cancer centers testing technology (Phase I) and workflow (Phase II and III) using electronic health data; qualitative evaluation with semi-structured interviews of clinical team members; and capture of field notes from clinical teams and administrators regarding barriers and recommended adaptations for future implementation. Results: Core components of remote symptom monitoring included electronic delivery of surveys with actionable symptoms, patient education on the intervention, a system to monitor survey compliance in real-time, the capacity to generate alerts, training nurses to manage alerts, and identification of personnel responsible for managing symptoms. In the pilot studies, while most patients completed > 50% of expected surveys, adaptations were identified to address barriers related to workflow challenges, patient and clinician access to technology, digital health literacy, survey fatigue, alert fatigue, and data visibility. Conclusions: Using an implementation science approach, we facilitated adaptation of remote symptom monitoring interventions from the research setting to clinical practice and identified key areas to promote effective uptake and sustainability.

Nursing strategies to improve alert closure for remote symptom monitoring

421

Background: For successful remote symptom monitoring using patient-reported outcomes, nurses should respond to alerts in a timely fashion. Where clinical trials utilized research staff for alert management, the shift to standard-of-care delivery necessitates that this responsibility be added as a task to an already strained nursing workforce. Little is known about strategies to engage nurses to improve timeliness of alert management. Methods: In this quality improvement initiative, we aimed to improve timeliness of alert closures generated by moderate or severe symptoms within a remote symptom monitoring program. Optimal closure was defined as < 48 hours, which was consistent with institutional requirements for response to patient phone calls. A continuous quality improvement approach, with multiple Plan Do Study Act (PDSA) cycles was conducted. Data was captured from the electronic medical record and PRO platform (Carevive). Descriptive statistics included frequencies and percentages. The proportion of alerts closed each month < 48 hours, 48-72 hours, 3-7 days, and > 7 days were reported overall and by disease team (i.e., major cancer types). Surveys not closed were considered > 7 days. The timing of strategies to improve nursing engagement were documented and evaluated for impact on alert closure. Results: From June 1, 2021-May 31, 2022, 1121 moderate or severe alerts were generated from 234 patients. Disease teams had variable remote symptom monitoring start dates: breast, leukemia, and limited gynecologic (prior to 6/2021); myeloma and gastrointestinal (7/2021); genitourinary (10/2021); head and neck (12/2021); melanoma (2/2022); and Lymphoma (4/2022). In 6/2021, the overall alert closure at < 48 hours, 48-72 hours, 3-7 days, and > 7 days was 57%, 4%, 14%, and 25% respectively (n = 28). To improve alert closures, several key strategies were deployed to improve alert closure times including disease-specific reporting and meetings with nursing leadership (10/2021); identification of a nurse champion, creation of “cheat sheets” to remind nurses how to close alerts, and individualized calls with nurses with open alerts (1/2022), and inclusions of requirement to close alerts in nursing newsletters (2/2022). Overall, alert closure less than 48 hours improved to 61% by 12/2021 (n = 97) and to 69% by 5/2022 (n = 167). Disease group alert closure varied, with higher closure more commonly in teams with greater duration of use, such as breast cancer team with an alert closure of 85% < 48 hours in May 2022. Conclusions: Key nursing engagement strategies improve alert closure for remote symptom monitoring programs implemented in real-world settings.

The Key Driver Implementation Scale (KDIS) for practice facilitators: Psychometric testing in the “Southeastern collaboration to improve blood pressure control” trial

Background

Practice facilitators (PFs) provide tailored support to primary care practices to improve the quality of care delivery. Often used by PFs, the “Key Driver Implementation Scale” (KDIS) measures the degree to which a practice implements quality improvement activities from the Chronic Care Model, but the scale’s psychometric properties have not been investigated. We examined construct validity, reliability, floor and ceiling effects, and a longitudinal trend test of the KDIS items in the Southeastern Collaboration to Improve Blood Pressure Control trial.

Methods

The KDIS items assess a practice’s progress toward implementing: a clinical information system (using their own data to drive change); standardized care processes; optimized team care; patient self-management support; and leadership support. We assessed construct validity and estimated reliability with a multilevel confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). A trend test examined whether the KDIS items increased over time and estimated the expected number of months needed to move a practice to the highest response options.

Results

PFs completed monthly KDIS ratings over 12 months for 32 primary care practices, yielding a total of 384 observations. Data was fitted to a unidimensional CFA model; however, parameter fit was modest and could be improved. Reliability was 0.70. Practices started scoring at the highest levels beginning in month 5, indicating low variability. The KDIS items did show an upward trend over 12 months (all p < .001), indicating that practices were increasingly implementing key activities. The expected time to move a practice to the highest response category was 9.1 months for standardized care processes, 10.2 for clinical information system, 12.6 for self-management support, 13.1 for leadership, and 14.3 months for optimized team care.

Conclusions

The KDIS items showed acceptable reliability, but work is needed in larger sample sizes to determine if two or more groups of implementation activities are being measured rather than one.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available.

RESULTS

Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Effect of Electronic Symptom Monitoring on Patient-Reported Outcomes Among Patients With Metastatic Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021.

INTERVENTIONS

In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available.

RESULTS

Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.

OBJECTIVE

To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Evaluating the implementation and impact of navigator-supported remote symptom monitoring and management: a protocol for a hybrid type 2 clinical trial

Background

Symptoms in patients with advanced cancer are often inadequately captured during encounters with the healthcare team. Emerging evidence demonstrates that weekly electronic home-based patient-reported symptom monitoring with automated alerts to clinicians reduces healthcare utilization, improves health-related quality of life, and lengthens survival. However, oncology practices have lagged in adopting remote symptom monitoring into routine practice, where specific patient populations may have unique barriers. One approach to overcoming barriers is utilizing resources from value-based payment models, such as patient navigators who are ideally positioned to assume a leadership role in remote symptom monitoring implementation. This implementation approach has not been tested in standard of care, and thus optimal implementation strategies are needed for large-scale roll-out.

Methods

This hybrid type 2 study design evaluates the implementation and effectiveness of remote symptom monitoring for all patients and for diverse populations in two Southern academic medical centers from 2021 to 2026. This study will utilize a pragmatic approach, evaluating real-world data collected during routine care for quantitative implementation and patient outcomes. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) will be used to conduct a qualitative evaluation at key time points to assess barriers and facilitators, implementation strategies, fidelity to implementation strategies, and perceived utility of these strategies. We will use a mixed-methods approach for data interpretation to finalize a formal implementation blueprint.

Discussion

This pragmatic evaluation of real-world implementation of remote symptom monitoring will generate a blueprint for future efforts to scale interventions across health systems with diverse patient populations within value-based healthcare models.

Trial registration

NCT04809740; date of registration 3/22/2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-022-07914-6.

Digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes in community oncology practices: A U.S. national cluster randomized trial

349527

Background: Symptoms are common during cancer care but often go undetected. Digital systems that elicit patient-reported outcomes (PRO) surveys may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene, thereby alleviating suffering and averting complications. Methods: In a cluster-randomized trial, U.S.-based community oncology practices were randomized 1:1 to digital symptom monitoring with PRO surveys, or to usual care control. Patients receiving systemic treatment for metastatic cancer were eligible. At PRO practices, participants were invited to complete a weekly survey via web or automated telephone system for up to one year, including questions about nine common symptoms, performance status, and falls. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered electronic alerts to care team nurses, and reports showing longitudinal symptom data were available to oncologists at visits. Pre-specified secondary outcomes included impact on physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). The primary outcome of survival is not yet mature. Results: At 52 practices, 1,191 patients were eligible and enrolled (593 PRO; 598 control). Clinically meaningful benefits were experienced in physical function by 13.8% more patients with PRO versus control (P=0.009); symptom control by 16.1% (P=0.003); and HRQL by 13.4% (P=0.006). Mean changes from baseline were superior with PRO versus control for physical function (mean difference 2.47, 95% CI 0.41-4.53; P=0.02), symptom control (2.56, 0.95-4.17; P=0.002), and HRQL (2.43, 0.90-3.96; P=0.002). Patients completed 20,565/22,486 (91.5%) of expected weekly PRO surveys. Conclusions: Digital symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers clinical benefits. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Patient and clinician perceptions of a digital patient monitoring program in the community oncology setting: Findings from the Texas Two-Step Study

189

Background: Digital monitoring strategies that include electronic patient reported outcomes (ePRO) measures to monitor symptoms among cancer patients have been shown to be effective in improving patient outcomes in a large academic setting and across several smaller multi-center trials. However, demonstration of clinical utility in the real-world setting must incorporate patient and provider perspectives of ePRO programs to ensure successful implementation. We sought to understand perceptions among patients and clinicians in ePRO digital symptom monitoring program. Methods: Texas Two-Step is an ongoing hybrid implementation-effectiveness study of Navigating Cancer’s ePRO digital monitoring program at Texas Oncology. Patients initiating new systemic therapy for their cancer diagnosis were introduced to the program by their oncologist and enrolled in the program by nursing staff for weekly reporting of symptoms based on a modified version of NCI’s PRO-CTCAE instrument. Feedback surveys were administered to both patients and clinic staff after 6 months of implementation of the program to evaluate the overall experience with the program. Results: 1040 (23.5%) patients and 215 (12.4%) clinicians completed the feedback survey. Of the patient responders, 90% found the program very or somewhat easy for reporting symptoms, 85% moderately-extremely beneficial for having symptoms addressed, and 84% moderately-extremely interested in utilizing the program for future treatments. Of the clinician responders, 73% indicated that that they had a good understanding of the benefit of the program; 70.6% felt confident in their ability to interpret patients’ ePRO responses; 80.3% felt confident in their ability to discuss the program with patients; 71.2% confident in their ability to counsel patients based on ePRO responses; and 55.3% felt the program enhanced communication with patients. Additionally, 59% of clinicians felt the program was beneficial for patients. Conclusions: Patients have a more favorable perception of the benefit of the ePRO program than clinicians. Methods to reduce staff burden and reinforcement of program benefits during training and implementation are imperative to improve clinical utility and will be studied further as the program is optimized. As implementation occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic, this may impact perceptions regarding the tool.

Health-related quality of life outcomes in adults with nonmuscle-invasive bladder cancer receiving a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel as a primary treatment (Optima II: Phase 2b, single-arm, open-label trial)

270

Background: The standard of care for low-grade non‐muscle‐invasive bladder cancer (LG NMIBC) is transurethral resection of the bladder tumor, which can worsen health‐related quality of life (HRQOL). The “OPTimized Instillation of Mitomycin for Bladder Cancer Treatment” (Optima II, clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03558503) is a Phase 2b, open label, single arm, multicenter trial evaluating a nonsurgical alternative as a primary treatment. Patients receive six weekly instillations of UGN-102, a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel with a sustained release time of up to 8 hours. We report on HRQOL changes between baseline and the primary endpoint of 3 months. Methods: A total of 63 patients enrolled in the Optima II trial at 20 sites in the U.S. and 2 sites in Israel between October 2018 and October 2020. Of the 63 patients enrolled, 44 were in the HRQOL cohort and completed a quarterly questionnaire. The QLQ-NMIBC24 has six subscales (urinary symptoms, malaise, future health worries, bloating and flatulence, sexual functioning, and male sexual problems) and five single items (intravesical treatment issues, sexual intimacy, worry about contaminating partner, sexual enjoyment, and female sexual problems) assessed with 24 items. Items were rescaled to 0-100 and reverse-coded so that higher scores indicate worse symptom burden. Longitudinal score changes were evaluated using the Sign test. We examined demographic and clinical characteristics associated with HRQOL change scores with regression modeling. A p-value of ≤0.01 was used. Results: The HRQOL cohort was 61% men, 57% age 65+, and 89% non-Hispanic White. Clinically, most LG NMIBC patients had multiple tumors (88%) with prior NMIBC episodes (77%), and two or more prior transurethral resection of bladder procedures (TURBT) (85%). Approximately half (55%) had their most recent TURBT surgery within 12 months of trial enrollment. No patients had missing HRQOL data at baseline or the primary end point of 3 months. The chemoablative reverse thermal gel used as a primary treatment did not cause decrements in patient-reported urinary symptoms, bloating/ flatulence, malaise, fever, general health, or future health worries. Sexual function mildly worsened between baseline and 3 months, and abated by 6 months. Demographic and clinical characteristics were not correlated with HRQOL change scores. By 3 months, 31/44 (70%) LG NMIBC patients achieved a complete response (negative endoscopic examination, cytology, and for-cause biopsy) and 0 experienced a recurrence. By 12 months, 8/44 (18%) patients had a recurrence. Conclusions: Adults with LG NMIBC in a Phase 2b trial who received a mitomycin-containing reverse thermal gel with sustained release maintained their HRQOL through 3 months. A Phase 3 trial is warranted. Clinical trial information: NCT03558503.

Pediatric lymphoma patients in Malawi present with poor health-related quality of life at diagnosis and improve throughout treatment and follow-up across all Pediatric PROMIS-25 domains

BACKGROUND

Patient-reportedoutcomes (PROs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly important components of cancer care and research that are infrequently used in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA).

METHODS

We administered the Chichewa Pediatric Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Pediatric (PROMIS)-25 at diagnosis, active treatment, and follow-up among pediatric lymphoma patients in Lilongwe, Malawi. Mean scores were calculated for the six PROMIS-25 HRQoL domains (Mobility, Anxiety, Depressive Symptoms, Fatigue, Peer Relationships, Pain Interference). Differences in HRQoL throughout treatment were compared using the minimally important difference (MID) and an ANOVA analysis. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and Cox hazard ratios for mortality are reported.

RESULTS

Seventy-five children completed PROMIS-25 surveys at diagnosis, 35 (47%) during active treatment, and 24 (32%) at follow-up. The majority of patients died (n = 37, 49%) or were lost to follow-up (n = 6, 8%). Most (n = 51, 68%) were male, median age was 10 (interquartile range [IQR] 8-12), 48/73 (66%) presented with advanced stage III/IV, 61 (81%) were diagnosed with Burkitt lymphoma and 14 (19%) Hodgkin lymphoma. At diagnosis, HRQoL was poor across all domains, except for Peer Relationships. Improvements in HRQoL during active treatment and follow-up exceeded the MID. On exploratory analysis, fair-poor PROMIS Mobility <40 and severe Pain Intensity = 10 at diagnosis were associated with increased mortality risk and worse survival, but were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Pediatric lymphoma patients in Malawi present with poor HRQoL that improves throughout treatment and survivorship. Baseline PROMIS scores may provide important prognostic information. PROs offer an opportunity to include patient voices and prioritize holistic patient-centered care in low-resource settings.

Clinical Utility and User Perceptions of a Digital System for Electronic Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring During Routine Cancer Care: Findings From the PRO-TECT Trial

PURPOSE

There is increasing interest in implementing digital systems for remote monitoring of patients' symptoms during routine oncology practice. Information is limited about the clinical utility and user perceptions of these systems.

METHODS

PRO-TECT is a multicenter trial evaluating implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) among adults with advanced and metastatic cancers receiving treatment at US community oncology practices (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03249090). Questions derived from the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) are administered weekly by web or automated telephone system, with alerts to nurses for severe or worsening symptoms. To elicit user feedback, surveys were administered to participating patients and clinicians.

RESULTS

Among 496 patients across 26 practices, the majority found the system and questions easy to understand (95%), easy to use (93%), and relevant to their care (91%). Most patients reported that PRO information was used by their clinicians for care (70%), improved discussions with clinicians (73%), made them feel more in control of their own care (77%), and would recommend the system to other patients (89%). Scores for most patient feedback questions were significantly positively correlated with weekly PRO completion rates in both univariate and multivariable analyses. Among 57 nurses, most reported that PRO information was helpful for clinical documentation (79%), increased efficiency of patient discussions (84%), and was useful for patient care (75%). Among 39 oncologists, most found PRO information useful (91%), with 65% using PROs to guide patient discussions sometimes or often and 65% using PROs to make treatment decisions sometimes or often.

CONCLUSION

These findings support the clinical utility and value of implementing digital systems for monitoring PROs, including the PRO-CTCAE, in routine cancer care.

Stakeholder Perceptions of Key Aspects of High-Quality Cancer Care to Assess with Patient Reported Outcome Measures: A Systematic Review

Simple Summary

We conducted a review to identify important symptoms reported by patients on questionnaires (e.g., pain) that can be used to compare cancer centers on how well they provide care. For example, cancer centers could be compared on the percentage of patients with controlled pain after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. Standard review methods were used to identify studies through August 2020. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant. The remaining 34 studies showed that patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators identify psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management as critical parts of high-quality care. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are important. Clinicians and healthcare administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be important (e.g., pain, poor sleep, diarrhea). Results were used to inform testing of symptom questionnaires to compare the quality of care provided by six cancer centers.

Abstract

Performance measurement is the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting standardized measures of clinical performance that can be compared across practices to evaluate how well care was provided. We conducted a systematic review to identify stakeholder perceptions of key symptoms and health domains to test as patient-reported performance measures in oncology. Stakeholders included cancer patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators. Standard review methodology was used, consistent with PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify relevant studies through August 2020. Four coders independently reviewed entries and conflicts were resolved by a fifth coder. Efficacy and effectiveness studies, and studies focused exclusively on patient experiences of care (e.g., communication skills of providers) were excluded. Searches generated 1813 articles and 1779 were coded as not relevant, leaving 34 international articles for extraction. Patients, caregivers, clinicians, and healthcare administrators prioritize psychosocial care (e.g., distress) and symptom management for patient-reported performance measures. Patients and caregivers also perceive that maintaining physical function and daily activities are critical. Clinicians and administrators perceive control of specific symptoms to be critical (gastrointestinal symptoms, pain, poor sleep). Results were used to inform testing at six US cancer centers.

Ethnography and user-centered design to inform context-driven implementation

Despite pervasive findings pointing to its inextricable role in intervention implementation, context remains poorly understood in implementation science. Existing approaches for describing context (e.g., surveys, interviews) may be narrow in scope or superficial in their elicitation of contextual data. Thus, in-depth and multilevel approaches are needed to meaningfully describe the contexts into which interventions will be implemented. Moreover, many studies assess context without subsequently using contextual information to enhance implementation. To be useful for improving implementation, though, methods are needed to apply contextual information during implementation. In the case example presented in this paper, we embedded an ethnographic assessment of context within a user-centered design approach to describe implementation context and apply that information to promote implementation. We developed a patient-reported outcome measure-based clinical intervention to assess and address the pervasive unmet needs of young adults with cancer: the Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB). In this paper, we describe the user-centered design process that we used to anticipate context modifications needed to deliver NA-SB and implementation strategies needed to facilitate its implementation. Our ethnographic contextual inquiry yielded a rich understanding of local implementation context and contextual variation across potential scale-up contexts. Other methods from user-centered design (i.e., translation tables and a design team prototyping workshop) allowed us to translate that information into specifications for NA-SB delivery and a plan for implementation. Embedding ethnographic methods within a user-centered design approach can help us to tailor interventions and implementation strategies to their contexts of use to promote implementation.

Participant Perspectives and Experiences Entering an Intensively Monitored Antiretroviral Pause: Results from the AIDS Clinical Trials Group A5345 Biomarker Study

The AIDS Clinical Trials Group (ACTG) A5345 study included an intensively monitored antiretroviral pause (IMAP), during which a cohort of participants temporarily stopped antiretroviral treatment during chronic HIV infection. We surveyed participant perceptions and understanding of A5345 using a cross-sectional sociobehavioral questionnaire. Participants completed the baseline questionnaire either before or after initiating the study's IMAP. Questionnaire responses were linked to existing demographic data. Quantitative responses were analyzed overall and stratified by IMAP status. Open-ended responses were analyzed using conventional content analysis. Thirty-two participants completed the baseline sociobehavioral questionnaire. Half (n = 16) completed it before (i.e., pre-IMAP initiation group) and half (n = 16) after IMAP initiation (i.e., post-IMAP initiation group). Eight pre-IMAP initiation respondents (50%) and 11 post-IMAP respondents (69%) responded "yes" when asked if they perceived any direct benefits from participating in A5345. Perceived societal-level benefits included furthering HIV cure-related research and helping the HIV community. Perceived personal-level benefits included the opportunity to learn about the body's response to IMAP and financial compensation. The majority of respondents-13 from each group (81% of each)-reported risks from participation, for example, viral load becoming detectable. A5345 participants perceived both societal- and personal-level benefits of study participation. While the majority of survey respondents perceived participatory risks, nearly one in five did not. Key messages pertaining to study-related risks and benefits may need to be clarified or reiterated periodically throughout follow-up in HIV cure-related studies with IMAPs. Clinical Trail Registration Number: NCT03001128.

An actionable needs assessment for adolescents and young adults with cancer: the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB)

PURPOSE

In the USA, many of the nearly 90,000 adolescents and young adults (AYAs) diagnosed with cancer each year do not receive services to address the full scope of needs they experience during and after cancer treatment. To facilitate a systematic and patient-centered approach to delivering services to address the unmet needs of AYAs with cancer, we developed the AYA Needs Assessment & Service Bridge (NA-SB).

METHODS

To develop NA-SB, we leveraged user-centered design, an iterative process for intervention development based on prospective user (i.e., provider and AYA) engagement. Specifically, we conducted usability testing and concept mapping to refine an existing tool-the Cancer Needs Questionnaire-Young People-to promote its usability and usefulness in routine cancer practice.

RESULTS

Our user-centered design process yielded a need assessment which assesses AYAs' physical, psychosocial, and practical needs. Importantly, needs in the assessment are grouped by services expected to address them, creating an intuitive and actionable link between needs and services.

CONCLUSION

NA-SB has the potential to improve care coordination at the individual level by allowing cancer care programs to tailor service delivery and resource provision to the individual needs of AYAs they serve.

Comparing Clinician-Assessed and Patient-Reported Performance Status for Predicting Morbidity and Mortality in Patients With Advanced Cancer Receiving Chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Performance status (PS) is assessed during cancer treatment to determine clinical trial eligibility, appropriateness for treatment, and need for supportive care. There is rising interest for patients to report this information directly. We determined whether clinician- and patient-reported PS were equally associated with mortality and service utilization in patients with cancer.

METHODS

A secondary analysis was conducted using data from an radiotherapy plus chemotherapy in which 441 patients with advanced cancer and clinicians reported PS using the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group scale. Simple kappa statistics measured agreement between clinician-reported performance status (cPS) and patient-reported performance status (pPS). Associations of cPS and pPS with emergency department (ED) and hospital visits and overall survival were evaluated via Cox regression, competing risk regression, and Fisher's exact tests.

RESULTS

cPS and pPS correlated weakly (kappa = 0.27). Both pPS and cPS were associated with survival, ED visits, and hospitalizations, but only cPS remained associated after adjustment (survival: HR, 1.75; P < .0001). The first available cPS predicted mortality more strongly than the first available pPS (HR for death, comparing PS ≥ 1 v 0: 2.05 for cPS and 1.41 for pPS). When pPS questionnaires were repeated over time and averaged, associations with outcomes were stronger as measured by AIC model fit. Both pPS and cPS were associated with EQ-5D subcomponents (eg, 75%-77% with no usual activity deficits for PS 0, v 42%-51% for PS ≥ 1).

CONCLUSION

Both clinician-reported PS and patient-reported PS provide useful information and can be considered for clinical trials and routine care.

Improvement Science and Implementation Science in Cancer Care: Identifying Areas of Synergy and Opportunities for Further Integration

Efforts to improve cancer care primarily come from two fields: improvement science and implementation science. The two fields have developed independently, yet they have potential for synergy. Leveraging that synergy to enhance alignment could both reduce duplication and, more importantly, enhance the potential of both fields to improve care. To better understand potential for alignment, we examined 20 highly cited cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies published in the past 5 years, characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods, and approaches to practice change. We categorized studies as improvement science or implementation science based on authors' descriptions when possible; otherwise, we categorized studies as improvement science if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or implementation science if they evaluated efforts to promote the implementation of evidence-based interventions into practice. All implementation studies (10/10) and most improvement science studies (6/10) sought to improve uptake of evidence-based interventions. Improvement science and implementation science studies employed similar approaches to change practice. For example, training was employed in 8/10 implementation science studies and 4/10 improvement science studies. However, improvement science and implementation science studies used different terminology to describe similar concepts and emphasized different methodological aspects in reporting. Only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) described using a formal theory or conceptual framework to guide program development. Most studies were multi-site (10/10 implementation science and 6/10 improvement science) and a minority (2 from each category) used a randomized design. Based on our review, cancer-related improvement science and implementation science studies use different terminology and emphasize different methodological aspects in reporting but share similarities in purpose, scope, and methods, and are at similar levels of scientific development. The fields are well-positioned for alignment. We propose that next steps include harmonizing language and cross-fertilizing methods of program development and evaluation.

Development and evaluation of patient reported outcomes-based performance measures during chemotherapy

e19175

Background: As value-based oncology care models become increasingly common, there is need for reliable and valid patient-reported outcome performance measures (PRO-PMs) to assess quality of symptom control at practices. We propose a method for combining PRO items across multiple symptoms into a single reliable and valid summary PRO-PM metric. Methods: Symptom surveys were administered to 607 patients at 6 cancer centers, between 5-15 days after starting a chemotherapy cycle. Twelve symptoms were elicited, each scored from 0-4, with higher scores indicating greater severity. Summary PRO-PM metrics were generated by summing scores for symptoms. A 3-item short form (score range 0-12) included nausea, diarrhea, and pain. A 12-item long form (score range 0-48) included short form items plus neuropathy, dyspnea, vomiting, fatigue, constipation, anxiety, sadness, insomnia, and appetite. PRO-PM summary item scores were dichotomized into high and low symptom burden categories. Cut points for dichotomization were compared based on reliability, validity, and prevalence. Reliability was defined as the average of practice-specific signal-to-noise ratios, with an optimal score ≥0.7. Practice-level validity was defined as the Pearson correlation between the proportion of patients with high symptom burden and low self-reported physical functioning. Patient-level validity was estimated as the relative risk (RR) of low physical functioning for patients with high vs. low symptom burden. For prevalence, measures were required to have > 5% or < 95% of patients with high symptom burden. Optimal cut-points were identified via a scatter plot comparing measure reliability and validity. Results: Optimal cut-points were identified for both summary PRO-PM metrics. For the short form, a cut-point at ≥5 had a reliability of 0.56, correlation of 0.14, RR of 2.56, and prevalence of 24.5%. For the long form, a cut point at ≥22 had reliability of 0.54, correlation of 0.56, RR of 2.61, and prevalence of 8.5%. Conclusions: Summary PRO-PM metrics can be generated from multiple PRO symptom items, with optimal cut-point scores determined by comparing reliability and validity. Reliability scores approached but did not meet the recommended 0.7 threshold due to sample size, therefore additional data are currently being collected to further support these cut points.

Nurse, oncologist, and patient impressions of electronic symptom monitoring via patient-reported outcomes in community oncology practices: Qualitative results from the U.S. national PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, NCT03249090)

7044

Background: There is growing interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology practices for symptom monitoring. It is not well known what nurse, physician, and patient impressions of benefits, acceptability, and challenges are in routine care use. Methods: PRO-TECT is an ongoing U.S. national trial including 26 community oncology practices across 15 states that implemented PRO symptom monitoring [NCT03249090]. Patients complete weekly PROs between visits, nurses receive alerts for severe/worsening symptoms, and oncologists review PROs at office visits. Interviews were conducted with 147 stakeholders including nurses (N = 46), oncologists (N = 27), data managers (N = 15), and patients (N = 59). Each stakeholder group had different interview guides with overlapping topics to explore experiences with the PRO system. Interviews lasted 15-60 minutes, were digitally recorded, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative analysis software program. A codebook was developed from the research questions, interview guides, and discussions with the project team. Standardized coding methods were applied, with transcripts double coded for thematic analysis. Feedback surveys were also completed by nurses (N = 57), oncologists (N = 38), and patients (N = 435). Results: Key benefits perceived across stakeholder groups included increased patient self-awareness of symptoms; improved direct communication of patients with care teams; more open and honest conveying of symptom experiences; ability to track symptoms over time; and increased involvement of patients in their own care. Most stakeholders felt PRO symptom monitoring had a positive impact on quality of care delivery, and believed benefits of PROs outweighed necessary staff efforts. Challenges included additional work by nurses to review and respond to alerts, staff turnover requiring retraining, and limited time of oncologists. In the survey, 39/56 (70%) nurses felt the PRO system improved quality of care; 27/33 (82%) oncologists noted PROs were useful for team discussions and care delivery; and 320/434 (74%) patients agreed that weekly PRO reporting improved discussions with their care team. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients perceived weekly PRO symptom monitoring between visits to be valuable despite added staff effort. Results of additional analyses are forthcoming. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090 .

Performance Measures Based on How Adults With Cancer Feel and Function: Stakeholder Recommendations and Feasibility Testing in Six Cancer Centers

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability.

RESULTS

Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability, > 95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete.

CONCLUSION

Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.

Quality improvement and implementation science in cancer care: Identifying areas of synergy and opportunities for further integration

29

Background: Efforts to improve cancer care delivery have been driven by two approaches: quality improvement (QI) and implementation science (IS). QI and IS have developed independently but have potential for synergy. To inform efforts to better align these fields, we examined 20 cancer-related QI and IS articles to identify differences and areas of commonality. Methods: We searched PubMed for cancer care studies that used IS or QI methods and were published in the past 5 years in one of 17 leading journals. Through consensus-based discussions, we categorized studies as QI if they evaluated efforts to improve the quality, value, or safety of care, or IS if they evaluated efforts to promote the adoption of evidence-based interventions into practice. We identified the 10 most frequently cited studies from each category (20 total studies), characterizing and comparing their objectives, methods – including use of theoretical frameworks involvement of stakeholders – and terminology. Results: All IS studies (10/10) and half (5/10) of QI studies addressed barriers to uptake of evidence-based practices. The remaining five QI studies sought to improve clinical outcomes, reduce costs, and/or address logistical issues. QI and IS studies employed common approaches to change provider and/or organizational practice (e.g., training, performance monitoring/feedback, decision support). However, the terminology used to describe these approaches was inconsistent within and between IS and QI studies. Fewer than half (8/20) of studies (4 from each category) used a theoretical or conceptual framework and only 4/20 (2 from each category) consulted key stakeholders in developing their approach. Most studies (10/10 IS and 6/10 QI) were multi-site, and most were observational, with only 4/20 studies (2 from each category) using a randomized design to evaluate their approach. Conclusions: Cancer-related QI and IS studies had overlapping objectives and used similar approaches but used inconsistent terminology. The impact of IS and QI on cancer care delivery could be enhanced by greater harmonization of language and by promoting rigor through the use of conceptual frameworks and stakeholder input.

Barriers to minority recruitment in a multicenter clinical trial (PRO-TECT [AFT-39]): Research staff insights

145

Background: Rates of minority enrollment in U.S. cancer clinical trials, including supportive care trials, are disproportionately low. Clinical research associates (CRAs) are the linchpin for successful accrual and often help screen and approach patients to discuss research studies. We sought to understand clinic-level factors that influence recruitment of African American patients (AA) in an ongoing U.S. multicenter, cluster- randomized controlled trial (PRO-TECT: Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Cancer Treatment; NCT03249090 AFT-39]). Notably, partway through this trial, a purposeful enrollment strategy was initiated where sites were asked to focus on minority recruitment. Methods: A subset of community oncology practices participating in PRO-TECT was identified with: 1) overall patient populations ≥20% AA; or 2) <20% AA but trial enrollment ≥20% AA. Semi-structured phone interviews were conducted with CRAs at each site to elicit perceived barriers and facilitators in identifying and approaching AA patients for this trial. Results: Among 13 identified community practices out of a potential 50 randomized sites, 3 had populations <20% AA but enrollment >20% AA; 3 had populations ≥20% AA but enrollment <20% AA; and 7 had populations ≥20% AA and enrollment >20% AA. All sites identified participants through review of clinic visit lists with clinicians. Eleven out of 13 sites felt they experienced no barriers to identifying, approaching, or enrolling minority patients. One site CRA felt minority patients are often “too sick to participate”. One CRA felt awkward about the request to purposefully approach minority patients. Conclusions: Site CRAs generally did not perceive barriers to minority recruitment, even when their population demographics were underrepresented in accrual. Results of efforts in this trial to increase minority participation through a purposeful enrollment strategy will be reported elsewhere.

Development and testing of patient-reported outcome performance measures (PRO-PMs) for oncology practice

173

Background: Symptom management is a cornerstone of quality oncology practice. ASCO established a Working Group to develop patient-reported outcome performance measures (PRO-PMs) for assessing symptom management. We describe multi-center testing funded by PCORI. Methods: Multi-stakeholder consensus and literature review identified 11 symptoms for testing as potential PRO-PMs. For these symptoms, questions from the NCI’s PRO-CTCAE tool were administered at 6 US academic and community oncology practices. Patients across cancer types completed questions electronically on days 5-15 of chemotherapy cycles. PRO-CTCAE mapped scores were dichotomized to delineate clinically meaningful thresholds (0-1 vs ≥2), and rates were tabulated between practices. Symptoms were selected to become PRO-PMs if clinically actionable and with prevalence ≥20%; between-practice variation was evaluated using χ2. Twelve candidate sociodemographic and clinical risk adjustment (RA) variables were evaluated via Akaike information criterion testing. Risk-adjusted PRO-PM rates were calculated using observed:expected ratios via generalized linear mixed modeling. Results: Among 653 enrolled patients, 607 (93%) completed questionnaires. Four of 11 symptoms met criteria for PRO-PM development: nausea, constipation, insomnia, pain. Four RA variables met inclusion criteria: age, gender, cancer type, insurance type. The Table shows raw and risk-adjusted rates of symptom burden (scores ≥2) for each PRO-PM across practices. Risk-adjustment yielded a modest impact on scores. Conclusions: Oncology PRO-PMs have been developed to quantify the burden of actionable symptoms at the practice level. Collection from patients is feasible. Further refinement is underway prior to submission for endorsement by the National Quality Forum.

[Table: see text]

State of the psychometric methods: patient-reported outcome measure development and refinement using item response theory

BACKGROUND

This paper is part of a series comparing different psychometric approaches to evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures using the same items and dataset. We provide an overview and example application to demonstrate 1) using item response theory (IRT) to identify poor and well performing items; 2) testing if items perform differently based on demographic characteristics (differential item functioning, DIF); and 3) balancing IRT and content validity considerations to select items for short forms.

METHODS

Model fit, local dependence, and DIF were examined for 51 items initially considered for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) Depression item bank. Samejima's graded response model was used to examine how well each item measured severity levels of depression and how well it distinguished between individuals with high and low levels of depression. Two short forms were constructed based on psychometric properties and consensus discussions with instrument developers, including psychometricians and content experts. Calibrations presented here are for didactic purposes and are not intended to replace official PROMIS parameters or to be used for research.

RESULTS

Of the 51 depression items, 14 exhibited local dependence, 3 exhibited DIF for gender, and 9 exhibited misfit, and these items were removed from consideration for short forms. Short form 1 prioritized content, and thus items were chosen to meet DSM-V criteria rather than being discarded for lower discrimination parameters. Short form 2 prioritized well performing items, and thus fewer DSM-V criteria were satisfied. Short forms 1-2 performed similarly for model fit statistics, but short form 2 provided greater item precision.

CONCLUSIONS

IRT is a family of flexible models providing item- and scale-level information, making it a powerful tool for scale construction and refinement. Strengths of IRT models include placing respondents and items on the same metric, testing DIF across demographic or clinical subgroups, and facilitating creation of targeted short forms. Limitations include large sample sizes to obtain stable item parameters, and necessary familiarity with measurement methods to interpret results. Combining psychometric data with stakeholder input (including people with lived experiences of the health condition and clinicians) is highly recommended for scale development and evaluation.

Pilot randomized trial of an electronic symptom monitoring and reporting intervention for hospitalized adults undergoing hematopoietic stem cell transplantation

PURPOSE

Patients undergoing a hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HCT) have varied symptoms during their hospitalization. This study examined whether daily symptom reporting (with electronic patient-reported outcomes [PROs]) in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced symptom burden on post-transplant days +7, +10, and +14.

METHODS

A prospective, single-institution 1:1 pilot randomized, two-arm study recruited HCT patients. HCT inpatients (N = 76) reported daily on 16 common symptoms using the PRO version of the Common Terminology for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). Fisher's exact test was used to examine differences in the proportion of patients reporting individual symptoms. Multivariable linear regression modeling was used to examine group differences in peak symptom burden, while controlling for symptom burden at baseline, age, comorbidity, and transplantation type (autologous or allogeneic).

RESULTS

HCT patients receiving the PRO intervention also experienced lower peak symptom burden (average of 16 symptoms) at days +7, +10, and +14 (10.4 vs 14.5, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Daily use of electronic symptom reporting to nurses in an inpatient bone marrow transplant clinic reduced peak symptom burden and improved individual symptoms during the 2 weeks post-transplant. A multi-site trial is warranted to demonstrate the generalizability, efficacy, and value of this intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02574897.

Methods for alerting clinicians to concerning symptom questionnaire responses during cancer care: Approaches from two randomized trials (STAR, AFT-39 PRO-TECT)

158

Background: There is limited research on methods for alerting clinicians to concerning patient-reported outcome (PRO) responses and how often PROs trigger alerts to nurses during cancer care. Methods: In two randomized trials, adults with advanced cancer receiving chemotherapy were enrolled. Participants were randomized to usual care vs. weekly PROs completed between visits (with automated feedback to nurses). PRO responses in the intervention arm triggered automated email alerts to nurses for frequent, severe, or worsening symptoms in the last 7 days. Alert thresholds for PROs were chosen a priori but were unique to each study. The “Symptom Tracking and Reporting” (STAR) trial was conducted at one academic medical center. The “PROs to Enhance Cancer Treatment” (PRO-TECT [AFT-39]) cluster-randomized trial is being conducted in > 30 community practices. Results: In STAR, 766 patients participated (58% female, 38% ages ≥65, 17% minority, 28% ≤high school). 441 participants were randomized to the intervention arm, where 1,431/84,212 items (2%) triggered a concerning symptom alert, during 1,070/8,498 weeks (13%). Frequent alerts were for fatigue (62%), pain (32%), and appetite (16%). In PRO-TECT (AFT-39), 300 patients have been enrolled (58% female, 49% ages ≥65, 8% minority, 47% ≤high school) out of 1,000. 146 participants have been randomized to the intervention arm, where 1,422/24,739 items (6%) triggered an alert, during 824/2249 weeks (37%). Common alerts were for pain (48%), physical function (35%), and diarrhea (15%). PRO-TECT provided clinical decision support with alerts. Conclusions: In two randomized trials in advanced cancer, PROs collected during care delivery enabled tailored treatment based on issues identified on PROs. Pain, physical function, appetite, and diarrhea commonly triggered alerts for concerning symptoms. Early PRO-TECT results are showing a trend for higher weekly alert rates for concerning symptoms (37% vs. 13% in STAR), which may indicate that the PRO intervention will be even more effective in community practices. Results assist in addressing logistical considerations for implementing PROs into routine care. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090.

Objective measures of performance status in cancer: A pilot Alliance study

284

Background: Clinician-assessed performance status (cPS) is prognostic in oncology. However, cPS may be limited by subconscious bias, and is confined to clinic visits. A more objective PS measure derived from cardiorespiratory fitness (VO2peak) and/or sensor-derived biometrics (activity (A), heart rate (HR), and activity/HR combinations (A/HR)) could better inform treatment selection, trial design, safety monitoring, and outcomes assessment. A multi-site study was conducted to examine the feasibility and utility of VO2peak and sensor-derived biometrics as complements to cPS and patient-reported PS (pPS). Methods: We enrolled 45 patients receiving chemotherapy at 4 institutions in 3 cohorts (solid tumor, hematologic malignancy, bone marrow transplant) to assess the feasibility and usefulness of VO2peak and sensor-derived biometrics. Patients underwent VO2peak prior to a cycle of treatment, wore a sensor for 4 weeks, and self-reported PS, physical function (PF), mental health (MH), and instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). Sensor-derived variables included A, HR, and A/HR. Spearman’s rank correlations described bivariate relationships. Results: 70% of participants underwent VO2peak testing. 81% provided ≥ 2 weeks of sensor data. At baseline, VO2peak was moderately to strongly correlated with pPS and A/HR (r = 0.44-0.66, p < 0.05). pPS, but not cPS, was correlated with MH, PF, and IADLs (r = 0.58-0.69, p < 0.05). During treatment, pPS, PF, and IADLs were moderately to strongly correlated with A/HR (r > 0.4, p < 0.05). Conclusions: VO2peak testing and biometric sensor deployment were feasible within a multi-institutional setting of cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. Sensor-derived A/HR variables were correlated with underlying fitness, as well as patient-reported functioning throughout treatment. A/HR variables are candidates for further development and validation as digital biomarkers of performance status in cancer patients. Support: UG1CA189823; Clinicaltrials.gov Id: NCT02786628

Testing the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness in a community pharmacy medication management program: a hurdle regression analysis

BACKGROUND

Many state Medicaid programs are implementing pharmacist-led medication management programs to improve outcomes for high-risk beneficiaries. There are a limited number of studies examining implementation of these programs, making it difficult to assess why program outcomes might vary across organizations. To address this, we tested the applicability of the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness to examine implementation of a community pharmacy Medicaid medication management program.

METHODS

We used a hurdle regression model to examine whether organizational determinants, such as implementation climate and innovation-values fit, were associated with effective implementation. We defined effective implementation in two ways: implementation versus non-implementation and program reach (i.e., the proportion of the target population that received the intervention). Data sources included an implementation survey administered to participating community pharmacies and administrative data.

RESULTS

The findings suggest that implementation climate is positively and significantly associated with implementation versus non-implementation (AME = 2.65, p < 0.001) and with program reach (AME = 5.05, p = 0.001). Similarly, the results suggest that innovation-values fit is positively and significantly associated with implementation (AME = 2.17, p = 0.037) and program reach (AME = 11.79, p < 0.001). Some structural characteristics, such as having a clinical pharmacist on staff, were significant predictors of implementation and program reach whereas other characteristics, such as pharmacy type or prescription volume, were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study supported the use of the organizational theory of innovation implementation effectiveness to identify organizational determinants that are associated with effective implementation (e.g., implementation climate and innovation-values fit). Unlike broader environmental factors or structural characteristics (e.g., pharmacy type), implementation climate and innovation-values fit are modifiable factors and can be targeted through intervention-a finding that is important for community pharmacy practice. Additional research is needed to determine what implementation strategies can be used by community pharmacy leaders and practitioners to develop a positive implementation climate and innovation-values fit for medication management programs.

Harmonization of patient-reported outcomes into EHRs at four cancer hospital outpatient clinics for patient care and quality assessment

129

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are well established in oncology trials but are not collected systematically during clinical care, to guide symptom management, or to assess quality. A growing body of evidence shows that collecting PROs during cancer care yields better clinical outcomes. Yet, little is known about best practices for PRO integration into electronic health record (EHR) workflows. We report on the first cross-institutional effort for PRO data harmonization across four CTSA-funded institutions (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Wake Forest University, Duke University, Medical University of South Carolina). Methods: Through surveys, systematic stakeholder qualitative focus groups, a landscape analysis, and technical/workflow assessment, our cross-institutional team sought to: 1) determine a set of common PRO measures to be collected via patient portals tethered to EHRs across the 4 sites; 2) develop an implementation strategy for the collection of PROs via patient portal within clinical workflows; and 3) collect a common set of PROs in cancer clinical care. We also sought to develop the methodological steps to harmonize extracted PRO data across each site to each other and then to the PCORnet Common Data Model Common Measures for PROs across each site. Results: Across the four sites, each institution uses Epic Systems (EHR and patient portal) and had available a library of PRO questionnaires which included the PROMIS profile (29 items) and short forms, SF-20, RAND, PHQ-2, and PHQ-9. The study team developed a list of domains and the tools available within each domain for stakeholders to prioritize at each site. The proposed workflows take into consideration the use of these data within the clinical encounter. Pilots at each site to collect PROs are underway along with the methodological work for data extraction and harmonization and will be reported at the meeting. Conclusions: The collection of a common set of PROs across EHRs has important implications for improving individual patient’s symptoms and for enhancing the quality of cancer care. Complex workflows and technical barriers must be considered successful implementation.

Bringing the patient voice into quality assessment: National stakeholder perceptions of facilitators and barriers for the use of PROs as performance measures

61

Background: An emerging trend in quality improvement is to incorporate the patient voice into performance metrics for routine care delivery using patient-reported outcomes (PRO). For instance, patients may complete a questionnaire about how well their symptoms are controlled (e.g., nausea). High-quality care is then determined by adjusting scores and comparing similar practices on symptom control. However, stakeholder (clinicians, administrators, and researchers) perspectives of facilitators and barriers are not well characterized because PRO performance measures are an emerging concept. Methods: Key informant interviews were conducted with 35 stakeholders (9 medical oncology clinicians, 13 administrators, and 13 health services researchers) from 5 healthcare systems across the U.S. Interview guides were used to elicit perceptions of barriers, facilitators, and acceptability for using PROs as performance measures. Transcripts were content analyzed by stakeholder group using standard methodology. Results: Clinicians reported barriers that were structural (e.g., complexity of programming electronic health record [EHR] changes) and process-oriented (e.g., changing clinic workflow to accommodate PRO review and alerts). Clinicians noted concerns about appropriate adjustments to ensure fair quality comparisons across practices. Clinicians and administrators reported structural barriers such as reimbursement and staff training, and outcome barriers such as choosing symptoms that have clear treatment guidelines. Facilitators included dashboards to visually display results that are intuitive and easily accessible in the EHR. Researchers focused on standardization and selecting thresholds for symptom alerts. Conclusions: Clinicians, administrators, and researchers reported barriers to the integration of PROs as quality measures. These barriers are mainly structural- and process-oriented but generally did not focus on acceptability. Facilitators focused on presenting PRO scores in an easily interpretable and accessible way within the EHR. Results will inform multi-site feasibility testing of PROs as quality metrics.

Patient-Reported Physical Function Measures in Cancer Clinical Trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function.

The association between clinician-based common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO): a systematic review

PURPOSE

Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) are monitored by clinicians as part of all US-based clinical trials in cancer via the U.S. National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) for the purposes of ensuring patient safety. Recently, there has been a charge toward capturing the patient perspective for those AEs amenable to patient self-reporting via patient-reported outcomes (PRO). The aim of this review was to summarize the empirically reported association between analogous CTCAE and PRO ratings.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through July 2015. From a total of 5658 articles retrieved, 28 studies met the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

Across studies, patients were of mixed cancer types, including anal, breast, cervical, chronic myeloid leukemia, endometrial, hematological, lung, ovarian, pelvic, pharyngeal, prostate, and rectal. Given this mixture, the AEs captured were variable, with many common across studies (e.g., dyspnea, fatigue, nausea, neuropathy, pain, vomiting), as well as several that were disease-specific (e.g., erectile dysfunction, hemoptysis). Overall, the quantified association between CTCAE and PRO ratings fell in the fair to moderate range and had a large variation across the majority of studies (n = 21).

CONCLUSIONS

The range of measures used and symptoms captured varied greatly across the reviewed studies. Regardless of concordance metric employed, reported agreement between CTCAE and PRO ratings was moderate at best. To assist with reconciliation and interpretation of these differences toward ultimately improving patient care, an important next step is to explore approaches to integrate PROs with clinician reporting of AEs.