Jenna M Evans1, Alysha Glazer2, Rebecca Lum2, Esti Heale2, Marnie MacKinnon2, Peter G Blake2,3, Michael Walsh2,4,5. 1. DeGroote School of Business, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada Jenna.Evans@mcmaster.ca. 2. Ontario Renal Network, Ontario Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 3. Victoria Hospital, London Health Sciences Centre, London, Ontario, Canada. 4. Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. 5. Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences/McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical and psychosocial symptom burden in patients treated with maintenance dialysis. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures suggest the need for deeper understanding of how to optimize their implementation and use. This study examines patient and provider perspectives of the implementation process and the influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal on symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Eight in-facility hemodialysis programs in Ontario, Canada, assessed patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal every 4-6 weeks for 1 year. Screening and completion rates were tracked, and pre- and postimplementation surveys and midimplementation interviews were conducted with patients and providers. A chart audit was conducted 12 months postimplementation. RESULTS: In total, 1459 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; 58% of eligible patients completed the preimplementation survey (n=718), and 56% of patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal at least once completed the postimplementation survey (n=569). Provider survey response rates were 71% (n=514) and 54% (n=319), respectively. Nine patients/caregivers from three sites and 48 providers from all sites participated in interviews. A total of 1207 charts were audited. Seven of eight sites had mean screening rates over 80%, suggesting that routine use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal in clinical practice is feasible. However, the multiple data sources painted an inconsistent picture of the value and effect of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal standardized symptom screening processes across providers and sites; improved patient and provider symptom awareness, particularly for psychosocial symptoms; and empowered patients to raise issues with providers. Yet, there was little, if any, statistically significant improvement in the metrics used to assess symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. CONCLUSIONS: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal patient-reported outcome measure may be useful to standardize symptom screening, enhance awareness of psychosocial symptoms among patients and providers, and empower patients rather than to reduce symptom burden.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical and psychosocial symptom burden in patients treated with maintenance dialysis. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures suggest the need for deeper understanding of how to optimize their implementation and use. This study examines patient and provider perspectives of the implementation process and the influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal on symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Eight in-facility hemodialysis programs in Ontario, Canada, assessed patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal every 4-6 weeks for 1 year. Screening and completion rates were tracked, and pre- and postimplementation surveys and midimplementation interviews were conducted with patients and providers. A chart audit was conducted 12 months postimplementation. RESULTS: In total, 1459 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; 58% of eligible patients completed the preimplementation survey (n=718), and 56% of patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal at least once completed the postimplementation survey (n=569). Provider survey response rates were 71% (n=514) and 54% (n=319), respectively. Nine patients/caregivers from three sites and 48 providers from all sites participated in interviews. A total of 1207 charts were audited. Seven of eight sites had mean screening rates over 80%, suggesting that routine use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal in clinical practice is feasible. However, the multiple data sources painted an inconsistent picture of the value and effect of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal standardized symptom screening processes across providers and sites; improved patient and provider symptom awareness, particularly for psychosocial symptoms; and empowered patients to raise issues with providers. Yet, there was little, if any, statistically significant improvement in the metrics used to assess symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication. CONCLUSIONS: The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal patient-reported outcome measure may be useful to standardize symptom screening, enhance awareness of psychosocial symptoms among patients and providers, and empower patients rather than to reduce symptom burden.
Authors: Laura Min Mercer; Paula Tanabe; Peter S Pang; Michael A Gisondi; D Mark Courtney; Kirsten G Engel; Sarah M Donlan; James G Adams; Gregory Makoul Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-11
Authors: Joanne Greenhalgh; Ray Pawson; Judy Wright; Nick Black; Jose Maria Valderas; David Meads; Elizabeth Gibbons; Laurence Wood; Charlotte Wood; Chris Mills; Sonia Dalkin Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2014-07-22 Impact factor: 2.692
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: Kara Schick-Makaroff; Charlotte Berendonk; Jordan Overwater; Laura Streith; Loretta Lee; Manuel Escoto; Daniel Cukor; Scott Klarenbach; Richard Sawatzky Journal: Can J Kidney Health Dis Date: 2022-08-23
Authors: Evan Tang; Sumaya Dano; Nathaniel Edwards; Sara Macanovic; Heather Ford; Susan Bartlett; Doris Howell; Madeline Li; Marta Novak; Istvan Mucsi Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-06-17 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jiabi Wen; Xuejing Jin; Fatima Al Sayah; Hilary Short; Arto Ohinmaa; Sara N Davison; Michael Walsh; Jeffrey A Johnson Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-19 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Jing Zhang; Barry Dewitt; Evan Tang; Daniel Breitner; Mohammed Saqib; Dan Li; Rabail Siddiqui; Nathaniel Edwards; John Devin Peipert; Ron D Hays; Janel Hanmer; Istvan Mucsi Journal: Clin J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2021-07-16 Impact factor: 10.614