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. 1. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. awu@jhu.edu. 2. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. awu@jhu.edu. 3. Center for Health Services & Outcomes Research, 624 N. Broadway, Room 653, Baltimore, MD, 21205, USA. awu@jhu.edu. 4. Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 6. Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
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.
RCT Entities:
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 cancerpatients 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
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
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: 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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