Renee A Cowan1, Rudy S Suidan2, Vaagn Andikyan3, Youssef A Rezk4, M Heather Einstein5, Kaity Chang1, Jeanne Carter1, Oliver Zivanovic1, Elizabeth J Jewell1, Nadeem R Abu-Rustum1, Ethan Basch6, Dennis S Chi7. 1. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. 2. The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 3. Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY, USA. 4. University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. University of Connecticut School of Medicine, Hartford Hospital, Hartford, CT, USA. 6. Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, School of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. 7. Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Electronic address: chid@mskcc.org.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We previously reported on the feasibility of a Web-based system to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to update the experience of these patients and assess patient and provider satisfaction and feedback regarding the system. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of patients scheduled to undergo laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) questionnaire preoperatively and weekly during a 6-week postoperative period. Email alerts were sent to study nurses when concerning patient responses were entered. The patient and the nurse assessments of STAR's usefulness were measured via an exit survey. RESULTS: The study enrolled 96 eligible patients. Of these, 71 patients (74%) completed at least four of seven total sessions. Of the patients who completed the exit satisfaction survey, 98% found STAR easy to use; 84% found it useful; and 82% would recommend it to other patients. Despite positive feedback from patients, clinical personnel found that the STAR system increased their current workload without enhancing patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an electronic program for PROs in those recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery is feasible, and acceptable to most patients. While most clinicians did not find STAR clinically helpful, the majority of patients reported a positive experience with the system and would recommend its use. The program helped many patients feel more empowered in their postoperative recovery.
PURPOSE: We previously reported on the feasibility of a Web-based system to capture patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the immediate postoperative period. The purpose of this study was to update the experience of these patients and assess patient and provider satisfaction and feedback regarding the system. METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study of patients scheduled to undergo laparotomy for presumed gynecologic malignancy. Patients completed a Web-based Symptom Tracking and Reporting (STAR) questionnaire preoperatively and weekly during a 6-week postoperative period. Email alerts were sent to study nurses when concerning patient responses were entered. The patient and the nurse assessments of STAR's usefulness were measured via an exit survey. RESULTS: The study enrolled 96 eligible patients. Of these, 71 patients (74%) completed at least four of seven total sessions. Of the patients who completed the exit satisfaction survey, 98% found STAR easy to use; 84% found it useful; and 82% would recommend it to other patients. Despite positive feedback from patients, clinical personnel found that the STAR system increased their current workload without enhancing patient care. CONCLUSIONS: Application of an electronic program for PROs in those recovering from major gynecologic cancer surgery is feasible, and acceptable to most patients. While most clinicians did not find STAR clinically helpful, the majority of patients reported a positive experience with the system and would recommend its use. The program helped many patients feel more empowered in their postoperative recovery.
Authors: Larissa A Meyer; Alpa M Nick; Qiuling Shi; Xin Shelley Wang; Loretta Williams; Tremaine Brock; Maria D Iniesta; Kelly Rangel; Karen H Lu; Pedro T Ramirez Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2015-01-31 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: San Soo Hoo; Natalie Marriott; Aimee Houlton; James Nevin; Janos Balega; Kavita Singh; Jason Yap; Ramya Sethuram; Ahmed Elattar; David Luesley; Sean Kehoe; Sudha Sundar Journal: Int J Gynecol Cancer Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 3.437
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: David J Cook; Dennis M Manning; Diane E Holland; Sharon K Prinsen; Stephen D Rudzik; Véronique L Roger; Claude Deschamps Journal: J Am Coll Surg Date: 2013-07-25 Impact factor: 6.113
Authors: Kirsten A Nyrop; Allison M Deal; Shlomit S Shachar; Ethan Basch; Bryce B Reeve; Seul Ki Choi; Jordan T Lee; William A Wood; Carey K Anders; Lisa A Carey; Elizabeth C Dees; Trevor A Jolly; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; Gretchen G Kimmick; Meghan S Karuturi; Raquel E Reinbolt; JoEllen C Speca; Hyman B Muss Journal: Oncologist Date: 2018-12-14
Authors: Heather S L Jim; Aasha I Hoogland; Naomi C Brownstein; Anna Barata; Adam P Dicker; Hans Knoop; Brian D Gonzalez; Randa Perkins; Dana Rollison; Scott M Gilbert; Ronica Nanda; Anders Berglund; Ross Mitchell; Peter A S Johnstone Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2020-04-20 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: K A Nyrop; E M Damone; A M Deal; S B Wheeler; M Charlot; B B Reeve; E Basch; S S Shachar; L A Carey; K E Reeder-Hayes; E C Dees; T A Jolly; G G Kimmick; M S Karuturi; R E Reinbolt; J C Speca; W A Wood; H B Muss Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2021-11-05 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Helbert Eustáquio Cardoso da Silva; Glaucia Nize Martins Santos; André Ferreira Leite; Carla Ruffeil Moreira Mesquita; Paulo Tadeu de Souza Figueiredo; Cristine Miron Stefani; Nilce de Santos Melo Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-05-06 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: H S Richards; J M Blazeby; A Portal; R Harding; T Reed; T Lander; K A Chalmers; R Carter; R Singhal; K Absolom; G Velikova; K N L Avery Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-06-10 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Oliver Zivanovic; Ling Y Chen; Andrew Vickers; Alli Straubhar; Raymond Baser; Mitchell Veith; Nate Aiken; Jeanne Carter; Katherine Curran; Brett Simon; Jennifer Mueller; Elizabeth Jewell; Dennis S Chi; Yukio Sonoda; Nadeem R Abu-Rustum; Mario M Leitao Journal: Gynecol Oncol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 5.482
Authors: Laleh G Melstrom; Andrei S Rodin; Lorenzo A Rossi; Paul Fu; Yuman Fong; Virginia Sun Journal: J Surg Oncol Date: 2020-09-24 Impact factor: 3.454
Authors: Esther V A Bouwsma; Judith A F Huirne; Peter M van de Ven; Antonie Vonk Noordegraaf; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Paul J M van Kesteren; Hans A M Brölmann; Johannes R Anema Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-01-30 Impact factor: 2.692