Literature DB >> 26644190

Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice.

Albert W Wu1,2,3, Sharon M White4, Amanda L Blackford4, Antonio C Wolff4, Michael A Carducci4, Joseph M Herman4, Claire F Snyder5,6,4.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Our aim was to study how patients and their clinicians evaluated the usability of PatientViewpoint, a webtool designed to allow patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to be used in clinical practice.
METHODS: As part of a two-round quality improvement study, breast and prostate cancer patients and their medical and radiation oncology clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about their use of PatientViewpoint. The patient interview addressed different phases of the PRO completion workflow: reminders, completing the survey, and viewing the results. The clinician interviews asked about use of PatientViewpoint, integration with the clinical workflow, barriers to use, and helpful and desired features. Responses were recorded, categorized, and reviewed. After both rounds of interviews, modifications were made to PatientViewpoint.
RESULTS: Across the two rounds, 42 unique patients (n = 19 in round 1, n = 23 in round 2) and 12 clinicians (all in both rounds) completed interviews. For patients, median age was 65, 81 % were white, 69 % were college graduates, 80 % had performance status of 0, 69 % had loco-regional disease, and 81 % were regular computer users. In the quality improvement interviews, patients identified numerous strengths of the system, including its ability to flag issues for discussion with their provider. Comments included confusion about how scores were presented and that the value of the system was diminished if the doctor did not look at the results. Requests included tailoring questions to be applicable to the individual and providing more explanation about the score meaning, including having higher scores consistently indicating either better or worse status. Clinicians also provided primarily positive feedback about the system, finding it helpful in some cases, and confirmatory in others. Their primary concern was with impact on their workflow.
CONCLUSIONS: Systematically collected feedback from patients and clinicians was useful to identify ways to improve a system to incorporate PRO measures into oncology practice. The findings and evaluation methods should be useful to others in efforts to integrate PRO assessments into ambulatory care. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Systems to routinely collect patient-reported information can be incorporated into oncology practices and provide useful information that promote patient and clinician partnership to improve the quality of care.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Clinical practice; Electronic health record; Oncology; Patient-reported outcome; Quality improvement; Quality of life

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26644190      PMCID: PMC4864116          DOI: 10.1007/s11764-015-0503-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Surviv        ISSN: 1932-2259            Impact factor:   4.442


  27 in total

1.  Issues in the design of Internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes.

Authors:  James B Jones; Claire F Snyder; Albert W Wu
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-08-01       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  The PDSA cycle at the core of learning in health professions education.

Authors:  G D Cleghorn; L A Headrick
Journal:  Jt Comm J Qual Improv       Date:  1996-03

3.  Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Symone B Detmar; Martin J Muller; Jan H Schornagel; Lidwina D V Wever; Neil K Aaronson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2002-12-18       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Supportive Care Review Group.

Authors:  R Sanson-Fisher; A Girgis; A Boyes; B Bonevski; L Burton; P Cook
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2000-01-01       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

Authors:  K Kroenke; R L Spitzer; J B Williams
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2001-09       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment.

Authors:  David Cella; Richard Gershon; Jin-Shei Lai; Seung Choi
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-03-31       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study.

Authors:  S B Detmar; N K Aaronson
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 9.162

8.  The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology.

Authors:  N K Aaronson; S Ahmedzai; B Bergman; M Bullinger; A Cull; N J Duez; A Filiberti; H Flechtner; S B Fleishman; J C de Haes
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  1993-03-03       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial.

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

10.  Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001.

Authors:  Catherine Acquadro; Rick Berzon; Dominique Dubois; Nancy Kline Leidy; Patrick Marquis; Dennis Revicki; Margaret Rothman
Journal:  Value Health       Date:  2003 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 5.725

View more
  17 in total

1.  Linking of the quality of life in neurological disorders (Neuro-QoL) to the international classification of functioning, disability and health.

Authors:  Alex W K Wong; Stephen C L Lau; David Cella; Jin-Shei Lai; Guanli Xie; Lidian Chen; Chetwyn C H Chan; Allen W Heinemann
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2017-05-05       Impact factor: 4.147

Review 2.  Quality of Life Measurements: Any Value for Clinical Practice?

Authors:  Matthias Büttner; Veit Zebralla; Andreas Dietz; Susanne Singer
Journal:  Curr Treat Options Oncol       Date:  2017-05

3.  Incorporating Multiple Perspectives Into the Development of an Electronic Survivorship Platform for Head and Neck Cancer.

Authors:  Talya Salz; Rebecca B Schnall; Mary S McCabe; Kevin C Oeffinger; Stacie Corcoran; Andrew J Vickers; Andrew L Salner; Ellen Dornelas; Nirupa J Raghunathan; Elizabeth Fortier; Janet McKiernan; David J Finitsis; Susan Chimonas; Shrujal Baxi
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2018-12

4.  Interpreting and Acting on PRO Results in Clinical Practice: Lessons Learned From the PatientViewpoint System and Beyond.

Authors:  Amanda L Blackford; Albert W Wu; Claire Snyder
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2019-05       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 5.  National Institutes of Health Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation Late Effects Initiative: The Patient-Centered Outcomes Working Group Report.

Authors:  Margaret Bevans; Areej El-Jawahri; D Kathryn Tierney; Lori Wiener; William A Wood; Flora Hoodin; Erin E Kent; Paul B Jacobsen; Stephanie J Lee; Matthew M Hsieh; Ellen M Denzen; Karen L Syrjala
Journal:  Biol Blood Marrow Transplant       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 5.742

Review 6.  Outcomes after kidney transplantation, let's focus on the patients' perspectives.

Authors:  Yiman Wang; Jaapjan D Snoep; Marc H Hemmelder; Koen E A van der Bogt; Willem Jan W Bos; Paul J M van der Boog; Friedo W Dekker; Aiko P J de Vries; Yvette Meuleman
Journal:  Clin Kidney J       Date:  2021-01-20

7.  Using the Computer-based Health Evaluation System (CHES) to Support Self-management of Symptoms and Functional Health: Evaluation of Hematological Patient Use of a Web-Based Patient Portal.

Authors:  Jens Lehmann; Petra Buhl; Johannes M Giesinger; Lisa M Wintner; Monika Sztankay; Lucia Neppl; Wolfgang Willenbacher; Roman Weger; Walpurga Weyrer; Gerhard Rumpold; Bernhard Holzner
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2021-06-08       Impact factor: 5.428

8.  The Head and Neck Survivorship Tool (HN-STAR) Trial (WF-1805CD): A protocol for a cluster-randomized, hybrid effectiveness-implementation, pragmatic trial to improve the follow-up care of head and neck cancer survivors.

Authors:  Talya Salz; Jamie S Ostroff; Chandylen L Nightingale; Thomas M Atkinson; Eleanor C Davidson; Sankeerth R Jinna; Anuja Kriplani; Glenn J Lesser; Kathleen A Lynch; Deborah K Mayer; Kevin C Oeffinger; Sujata Patil; Andrew L Salner; Kathryn E Weaver
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-05-21       Impact factor: 2.261

9.  From statistics to clinics: the visual feedback of PROMIS® CATs.

Authors:  Maud M van Muilekom; Michiel A J Luijten; Hedy A van Oers; Caroline B Terwee; Raphaële R L van Litsenburg; Leo D Roorda; Martha A Grootenhuis; Lotte Haverman
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2021-07-10

10.  Further Evidence That OPG rs2073618 Is Associated With Increased Risk of Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Patients Receiving Aromatase Inhibitors for Early Breast Cancer.

Authors:  Daniel L Hertz; Karen Lisa Smith; Yuhua Zong; Christina L Gersch; Andrea M Pesch; Jennifer Lehman; Amanda L Blackford; N Lynn Henry; Kelley M Kidwell; James M Rae; Vered Stearns
Journal:  Front Genet       Date:  2021-06-15       Impact factor: 4.599

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.