Roxanne E Jensen1, Nan E Rothrock, Esi M DeWitt, Brennan Spiegel, Carole A Tucker, Heidi M Crane, Christopher B Forrest, Donald L Patrick, Rob Fredericksen, Lisa M Shulman, David Cella, Paul K Crane. 1. *Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC †Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Chicago, IL ‡Department of Pediatrics, Division of Rheumatology, University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, Cincinnati, OH §Division of Gastroenterology, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center ∥Cedars-Sinai Center for Outcomes Research and Education ¶Department of Health Policy and Management, UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Los Angeles, CA #College of Health Professions & Social Work, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA **Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Division of Allergy & Infectious Diseases, University of Washington, Seattle, WA ††Children's Hospital of Philadelphia ‡‡Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA §§DP Department of Health Services, University of Washington ∥∥Seattle Quality of Life Group, Seattle, WA ¶¶Department of Neurology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD ##Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are gaining recognition as key measures for improving the quality of patient care in clinical care settings. Three factors have made the implementation of PROs in clinical care more feasible: increased use of modern measurement methods in PRO design and validation, rapid progression of technology (eg, touchscreen tablets, Internet accessibility, and electronic health records), and greater demand for measurement and monitoring of PROs by regulators, payers, accreditors, and professional organizations. As electronic PRO collection and reporting capabilities have improved, the challenges of collecting PRO data have changed. OBJECTIVES: To update information on PRO adoption considerations in clinical care, highlighting electronic and technical advances with respect to measure selection, clinical workflow, data infrastructure, and outcomes reporting. METHODS: Five practical case studies across diverse health care settings and patient populations are used to explore how implementation barriers were addressed to promote the successful integration of PRO collection into the clinical workflow. The case studies address selecting and reporting of relevant content, workflow integration, previsit screening, effective evaluation, and electronic health record integration. CONCLUSIONS: These case studies exemplify elements of well-designed electronic systems, including response automation, tailoring of item selection and reporting algorithms, flexibility of collection location, and integration with patient health care data elements. They also highlight emerging logistical barriers in this area, such as the need for specialized technological and methodological expertise, and design limitations of current electronic data capture systems.
BACKGROUND:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are gaining recognition as key measures for improving the quality of patient care in clinical care settings. Three factors have made the implementation of PROs in clinical care more feasible: increased use of modern measurement methods in PRO design and validation, rapid progression of technology (eg, touchscreen tablets, Internet accessibility, and electronic health records), and greater demand for measurement and monitoring of PROs by regulators, payers, accreditors, and professional organizations. As electronic PRO collection and reporting capabilities have improved, the challenges of collecting PRO data have changed. OBJECTIVES: To update information on PRO adoption considerations in clinical care, highlighting electronic and technical advances with respect to measure selection, clinical workflow, data infrastructure, and outcomes reporting. METHODS: Five practical case studies across diverse health care settings and patient populations are used to explore how implementation barriers were addressed to promote the successful integration of PRO collection into the clinical workflow. The case studies address selecting and reporting of relevant content, workflow integration, previsit screening, effective evaluation, and electronic health record integration. CONCLUSIONS: These case studies exemplify elements of well-designed electronic systems, including response automation, tailoring of item selection and reporting algorithms, flexibility of collection location, and integration with patient health care data elements. They also highlight emerging logistical barriers in this area, such as the need for specialized technological and methodological expertise, and design limitations of current electronic data capture systems.
Authors: David Cella; Seung Choi; Sofia Garcia; Karon F Cook; Sarah Rosenbloom; Jin-Shei Lai; Donna Surges Tatum; Richard Gershon Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-06-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Galina Velikova; Laura Booth; Adam B Smith; Paul M Brown; Pamela Lynch; Julia M Brown; Peter J Selby Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: James F Fries; James Witter; Matthias Rose; David Cella; Dinesh Khanna; Esi Morgan-DeWitt Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2013-11-15 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: David T Eton; Timothy J Beebe; Philip T Hagen; Michele Y Halyard; Victor M Montori; James M Naessens; Jeff A Sloan; Carrie A Thompson; Douglas L Wood Journal: Patient Relat Outcome Meas Date: 2014-02-10
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Alyson Listhaus; Constanza M Covarrubias; Siegfried Of Schmidt; Sean Mackey; Peter J Carek; Roger B Fillingim; Robert W Hurley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2015-07-09 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Nate C Apathy; Robert L Cook; Elizabeth C Danielson; Julie DiIulio; Sarah M Downs; Robert W Hurley; Burke W Mamlin; Laura G Militello; Shilo Anders Journal: AMIA Annu Symp Proc Date: 2018-12-05
Authors: Rob J Fredericksen; Kenneth H Mayer; Laura E Gibbons; Todd C Edwards; Frances M Yang; Melonie Walcott; Sharon Brown; Lydia Dant; Stephanie Loo; Cristina Gutierrez; Edgar Paez; Emma Fitzsimmons; Albert W Wu; Michael J Mugavero; William C Mathews; William B Lober; Mari M Kitahata; Donald L Patrick; Paul K Crane; Heidi M Crane Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-05-29 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Andrea K Graham; Alexa Minc; Erin Staab; David G Beiser; Robert D Gibbons; Neda Laiteerapong Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2019-01 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Julia R Trosman; Ruth C Carlos; Melissa A Simon; Debra L Madden; William J Gradishar; Al B Benson; Bruce D Rapkin; Elisa S Weiss; Ilana F Gareen; Lynne I Wagner; Seema A Khan; Mikele M Bunce; Art Small; Christine B Weldon Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2016-10-31 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Darren Desantis; Richard J Baverstock; Andrea Civitarese; R Trafford Crump; Kevin V Carlson Journal: Can Urol Assoc J Date: 2016-11-10 Impact factor: 1.862