Factors Associated With Increased Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Within a Large Health Care System

Patterns of Social Needs Predict Quality-of-Life and Healthcare Utilization Outcomes in Patients from a Large Hospital System

BACKGROUND

Unmet social needs (SNs) often coexist in distinct patterns within specific population subgroups, yet these patterns are understudied.

OBJECTIVE

To identify patterns of social needs (PSNs) and characterize their associations with health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and healthcare utilization (HCU).

DESIGN

Observational study using data on SNs screening, HRQoL (i.e., low mental and physical health), and 90-day HCU (i.e., emergency visits and hospital admission). Among patients with any SNs, latent class analysis was conducted to identify unique PSNs. For all patients and by race and age subgroups, compared with no SNs, we calculated the risks of poor HRQoL and time to first HCU following SNs screening for each PSN.

PATIENTS

Adult patients undergoing SNs screening at the Mass General Brigham healthcare system in Massachusetts, United States, between March 2018 and January 2023.

MAIN MEASURES

SNs included: education, employment, family care, food, housing, medication, transportation, and ability to pay for household utilities. HRQoL was assessed using the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Global-10.

KEY RESULTS

Six unique PSNs were identified: "high number of social needs," "food and utility access," "employment needs," "interested in education," "housing instability," and "transportation barriers." In 14,230 patients with HRQoL data, PSNs increased the risks of poor mental health, with risk ratios ranging from 1.07(95%CI:1.01-1.13) to 1.80(95%CI:1.74-1.86). Analysis of poor physical health yielded similar findings, except that the "interested in education" showed a mild protective effect (0.97[95%CI:0.94-1.00]). In 105,110 patients, PSNs increased the risk of 90-day HCU, with hazard ratios ranging from 1.09(95%CI:0.99-1.21) to 1.70(95%CI:1.52-1.90). Findings were generally consistent in subgroup analyses by race and age.

CONCLUSIONS

Certain SNs coexist in distinct patterns and result in poorer HRQoL and more HCU. Understanding PSNs allows policymakers, public health practitioners, and social workers to identify at-risk patients and implement integrated, system-wide, and community-based interventions.

Selecting patient-reported outcome measures: "what" and "for whom"

Patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) are becoming more widely implemented across health care for important reasons. However, with thousands of PROMs available and the science of psychometrics becoming more widely applied in health measurement, choosing the right ones to implement can be puzzling. This article provides a framework of the different types of PROMs by organizing them into 4 categories based upon "what" is being measured and "from whom" the questions are asked: (1) condition-specific and domain-specific, (2) condition-specific and global, (3) universal and global, and (4) universal and domain-specific. We delve deeper into each category with clinical examples. This framework can empower health care leaders and policymakers to make more informed decisions when selecting the best PROMs to implement, ensuring PROMs deliver on their potential to promote high quality, patient-centered care.

Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Dashboard in Oncology Telemedicine Encounters: Clinician and Patient Adoption and Acceptability

PURPOSE

Telemedicine provides numerous benefits to patients, yet effective communication and symptom assessment remain a concern. The recent uptake of telemedicine provided an opportunity to use a newly developed dashboard with patient-reported outcome (PRO) information to enhance communication and shared decision making (SDM) during telemedicine appointments. The objective of this study was to identify barriers to using the dashboard during telemedicine, develop implementation strategies to address barriers, and pilot test use of this dashboard during telemedicine appointments in two practice settings to evaluate acceptability, adoption, fidelity, and effectiveness.

METHODS

Patients and clinicians were interviewed to identify determinants to dashboard use in telemedicine. Implementation strategies were designed and refined through iterative feedback from stakeholders. A pilot study of dashboard use was conducted from March to September 2022. Acceptability, adoption, and fidelity were evaluated using mixed methods. SDM was evaluated using the collaboRATE measure.

RESULTS

One hundred two patient encounters were evaluated. Most patients (62; 60%) had completed some PRO data at the time of their telemedicine encounter. Most (82; 80%) encounters had clinician confirmation that PRO data had been reviewed; however, collaborative review of the dashboard was documented in only 27%. Degree of SDM was high (mean collaboRATE score 3.40; SD, 0.11 [95% CI, 3.17 to 3.63] out of a maximum score of 4). Implementation strategies focused on patient engagement, education, and remote PRO completion. Clinician-facing strategies included education, practice facilitation, and small tests of change.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated that implementation of a PRO-based dashboard into telemedicine appointments was feasible and had acceptable adoption and acceptability by patients and clinicians when several strategies were used to engage end users. Strategies targeting both patients and clinicians are needed to support routine and effective PRO integration in telemedicine.

Different factors identified by stakeholder group for barriers and facilitators to measurement-based care implementation in behavioral health clinics

INTRODUCTION

Despite the benefits of measurement-based care (MBC) in the behavioral health setting, there have been difficulties in implementation and low saturation. Although barriers and facilitators to MBC implementation have been identified, research has generally only included the perspective of one stakeholder group. The current study aims to examine the similarities and differences-by stakeholder group-in the identified barriers to and facilitators of implementing MBC in the behavioral health setting.

METHOD

A purposeful sampling approach was used to recruit and conduct interviews and focus groups with stakeholders (clinicians, clinic leaders, and administrative staff) from four behavioral health clinics at an academic medical center that is part of a larger healthcare system. The data coding process included a directed content analytic approach whereby the coding team used an iterative process to analyze deidentified transcripts starting with a codebook based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) constructs.

RESULTS

A total of 31 clinicians, 11 clinic leaders, and 8 administrative staff participated in the interviews and focus groups. There was convergence among all stakeholder regarding which CFIR constructs were identified as barriers and facilitators, but there were differences in the specific thematic factors identified by stakeholders as barriers and facilitators within each of these implementation constructs. The barriers and facilitators that stakeholders identified within each CFIR construct were often connected to their specific role in implementing MBC.

CONCLUSION

Collecting information on barriers and facilitators to MBC implementation from the multiple stakeholders involved in the process may enhance successful implementation of MBC given the variation between groups in identified thematic factors. Administrative staff perspectives, which have not been reported in the literature, may be of particular importance in planning for successful MBC implementation.

Real-world use and clinical impact of an electronic patient-reported outcome tool in patients with solid tumors treated with immuno-oncology therapy

BACKGROUND

Utilization of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools to monitor symptoms in patients undergoing cancer treatment has shown clinical benefits. Tennessee Oncology (TO) implemented an ePRO platform in 2019, allowing patients to report their health status online. We conducted a real-world, multicenter, observational, non-interventional cohort study to evaluate utilization of this platform in adults with solid tumors who initiated immuno-oncology (IO) therapy as monotherapy or in combination at TO clinics.

METHODS

Patients initiating IO therapy prior to platform implementation were included in a historical control (HC) cohort; those initiating treatment after implementation were included in the ePRO cohort, which was further divided into ePRO users (platform enrollment ≤ 45 days from IO initiation) and non-users. Data were extracted from electronic medical records; patients were followed for up to 6 months (no minimum follow up). Outcomes included patient characteristics, treatment patterns, duration of therapy (DoT), and overall survival (OS).

RESULTS

Data were collected for 538 patients in the HC and 1014 in the ePRO cohort; 319 in the ePRO cohort were ePRO users (uptake rate 31%). Baseline age was higher, more patients had stage IV disease at diagnosis, and more received monotherapy (82 vs 52%, respectively) in the HC vs the ePRO cohort. Median follow-up was 181.0 days (range 0.0-182.6) in the HC and 175.0 (0.0-184.0) in the ePRO cohort. Median DoT of index IO regimen was 5.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.4-NE) in the HC cohort vs not estimable (NE) in the ePRO cohort. Multivariable regression adjusting for baseline differences confirmed lower risk of treatment discontinuation in the ePRO vs HC cohort: hazard ratio (HR) 0.83 (95% CI, 0.71-0.97); p < 0.05. The estimated 6-month OS rate was 65.5% in the HC vs 72.4% in the ePRO cohort (p < 0 .01). Within the ePRO cohort, DoT of index IO regimen and OS did not differ between users and non-users. In ePRO users, patient platform use was durable over 6 months.

CONCLUSION

Improvements in DoT and OS were seen after ePRO platform implementation. Conclusions are limited by challenges in separating the impact of platform implementation from other changes affecting outcomes.

Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Improved With Use of a Mobile Application in Arthroplasty Patients: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has historically been reported as costly and time-consuming, with low compliance rates that may impact reimbursement. Little research has reported the effects of mobile applications to support PROMs collection following arthroplasty.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of data from a multicenter randomized controlled trial was performed. Patients undergoing knee and hip arthroplasty were randomized to utilize a smartphone-based care management platform (app) for self-directed rehabilitation and completed joint-specific PROMs (Hip Dysfunction and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score, Joint Replacement or Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Score, Joint Replacement) via the application at prescribed intervals or on paper during clinic visits. Control patients received practice standard of care, and completed PROMs via emailed hyperlink or during clinic visits following lower limb arthroplasty. Overall, 455 patients underwent knee arthroplasty procedures (245 control, 210 app group) and 380 underwent total hip arthroplasty (206 control, 174 app group). Compliance with expected PROMs completion was calculated through one year postoperatively.

RESULTS

Compliance was higher in the app group preoperatively in both knee (98.1 versus 86.9%, P < .0001) and hip cohorts (96.0 versus 88.4%, P = .008), and postoperatively, including at one year (knees, 72.2 versus 53.7%, P < .0001; hips, 71.1 versus 49.2%, P < .0001). On log-binomial regressions, intervention arm was the strongest predictor of completion of all PROMs, where app users undergoing knee (Relative Risk 2.039, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.595 to 2.607, P < .000) and hip arthroplasty (2.268 95% CI 1.742 to 2.953, P < .0001) were more likely to be compliant at all timepoints. The majority of patients in the app group, including those over 65 years of age, completed PROMs using the application as opposed to paper methods.

CONCLUSIONS

A smartphone mobile application that engages patients during recovery after knee and hip joint arthroplasty improved compliance with completion of preoperative and postoperative PROMs compared to other electronic and paper methods.

Analysis of factors associated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) score completion rate one year after shoulder surgeries

Background

Patient-reported outcome measurements (PROMs) are important metrics for monitoring improvements following shoulder surgery. Despite the easy accessibility of electronic PROM surveys, completion rates vary, and factors predictive of survey completion for patients enrolled in medical survey follow-up after shoulder surgery remain largely unknown. The purpose of this study is to investigate survey completion rates for common shoulder procedures and identify factors predictive of PROM completion at one-year postoperatively. We hypothesize that the response rate to shoulder PROMs may vary by the shoulder procedure type after surgery.

Methods

Patients undergoing total shoulder arthroplasty (TSA), rotator cuff repair (RCR), and instability surgery (Latarjet procedure [LP], and arthroscopic Bankart repair [ABR]) from 2019 to 2021 were prospectively enrolled. Each patient was administered PROM surveys via email preoperatively and at 2-weeks, 6-weeks, 3-months, 6-months, and 12-months following surgery. Demographics and socioeconomic characteristics were collected from our institutional database. The primary outcome studied was survey completion rate by procedure. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to identify factors predictive of completing 12-month follow-up.

Results

A total of 514 (251 TSA, 194 RCR, and 69 instability surgery (35 LP, 34 ABR)) patients with an average age of 58 ± 15 years were included in this study. Overall, the 12-month survey completion rate for all procedures was 57.2%. TSA had the highest completion rate (64.9%), followed by RCR (52.1%), ABR (44.2%), and LP (42.9%). ABR and LP demonstrated more than a 50% drop in survey response at 2 weeks, and the RCR cohort demonstrated an increased attrition in survey response at the 6-month mark. Patients who completed the 12-month follow-up survey were older [61 ± 14 vs. 54 ± 17; P < .001], less frequently self-identified as Hispanic [13% vs. 23%; P = .009], less frequently single [32% vs. 44%; P = .008], and most frequently classified as the American Society of Anesthesiology [ASA] score II [65%, P = .001].

Conclusion

Postoperative PROM survey completion rates vary significantly among commonly performed shoulder procedures during the first year after surgery. Hispanic ethnicity and younger age were all predictive of a lower propensity, and the TSA procedure is predictive of higher odds for PROM survey completion at the 12-month follow-up.

Immediate Effects of Integrative Health and Medicine Modalities Among Outpatients With Moderate-To-Severe Symptoms

Background

Patients seeking integrative health and medicine (IHM) modalities often present with multiple physical and psychological concerns. Research supports IHM's effectiveness for addressing symptoms over longer time periods. However, few studies have evaluated immediate outpatient effects.

Objective

This study describes pre-encounter patient-reported outcome (PRO) clusters and examines the immediate clinical effectiveness of IHM modalities on pain, stress, and anxiety among outpatients with moderate-to-severe symptoms.

Methods

A retrospective review was conducted of encounters among adults presenting to outpatient acupuncture, chiropractic, massage, integrative medicine consultation, or osteopathic manipulation treatment between January 2019 and July 2020. Encounters were included if patients reported pre-encounter pain, stress, or anxiety ≥4 on a numeric rating scale (NRS). Outcome analyses included random effects for patient and provider using a mixed model.

Results

Across 7335 clinical encounters among 2530 unique patients (mean age: 49.14 years; 81.0% female; 75.9% White; 15.8% Black/African American), the most common pre-encounter PRO clusters were pain, stress, and anxiety ≥4 (32.4%); pain ≥4 only (31.3%); and stress and anxiety ≥4 (15.6%). Clinically meaningful single-encounter mean [95% CI] changes were observed across all modalities in pain (-2.50 [-2.83, -2.17]), stress (-3.22 [-3.62, -2.82]), and anxiety (-3.05 [-3.37, -2.73]).

Conclusion

Patients presenting to outpatient IHM with moderate-to-severe symptoms most often presented with pain, stress, and anxiety ≥4 on the NRS. Multiple IHM modalities yielded clinically meaningful (≥2 unit) immediate reductions in these symptoms. Future research measuring immediate and longitudinal effectiveness is needed to optimize the triage and coordination of IHM modalities to meet patients' needs.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Venous Thromboembolism: A Systematic Review of the Literature, Current Challenges, and Ways Forward

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) affects >1.2 million Americans annually. Although the clinical outcomes and economic burdens of VTE have been well described, the impact of VTE on patients' health status has yet to be summarized. This systematic review summarizes how patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been used in VTE to date.

METHODS AND RESULTS

PubMed/MEDLINE was queried for literature published through March 2023 using PROMs in a population of patients with VTE. Studies were excluded if the reference was an editorial, review, or case report, or if the study included patients with conditions other than VTE. Qualitative analyses were performed. After screening and exclusion, 136 references were identified; 5 described PROM development, 20 focused on PROM validation, and 111 used PROMs in outcomes research. The most used generic PROMs were the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey and EuroQol 5-dimensional questionnaire, and the most common disease-specific PROMs were the Venous Insufficiency Epidemiological and Economic Study-Quality of Life/Symptoms and the Pulmonary Embolism Quality of Life Questionnaire. PROMs were used to quantify the changes in health status after diagnosis, characterize the trajectory of subsequent improvement, and identify drivers of continued impairments in health status like postthrombotic syndrome and postpulmonary embolism syndrome. PROMs were also used to investigate the impact of novel treatment modalities on quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates the many benefits of PROM use, including quantifying changes in health status with treatment, capturing patients' experiences with the treatment itself, and identifying complications of VTE. Incorporating PROMs into VTE care will be an essential component of evaluating the effectiveness of novel therapies and should lead to improved shared decision-making for patients with VTE.

Embedding research study recruitment within the patient portal preCheck-in

OBJECTIVE

Patient portals are increasingly used to recruit patients in research studies, but communication response rates remain low without tactics such as financial incentives or manual outreach. We evaluated a new method of study enrollment by embedding a study information sheet and HIPAA authorization form (HAF) into the patient portal preCheck-in (where patients report basic information like allergies).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eligible patients who enrolled received an after-visit patient-reported outcomes survey through the patient portal. No additional recruitment/messaging efforts were made.

RESULTS

A total of 386 of 843 patients completed preCheck-in, 308 of whom signed the HAF and enrolled in the study (37% enrollment rate). Of 93 patients who were eligible to receive the after-visit survey, 45 completed it (48% completion rate).

CONCLUSION

Enrollment and survey completion rates were higher than what is typically seen with recruitment by patient portal messaging, suggesting that preCheck-in recruitment can enhance research study recruitment and warrants further investigation.

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Regional Feasibility of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Data Collection for Orthopedic Trauma Patients

INTRODUCTION

Behavioral health has been shown to impact both short- and long-term health outcomes in trauma patients. Recommendations for screening for behavioral health concerns in the acute setting exist, but longitudinal data collection is infrequently performed. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program describes the importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including behavioral health data.

METHODS

In this qualitative feasibility study, a multidisciplinary team participated in one-hour virtual focus groups; a semi-structured interview guide was used to ascertain feedback on a proposed PROMs study design. This study utilized a qualitative methodology to reveal thematic results from the staff feedback to determine the feasibility of the proposed study design.

RESULTS

Three virtual one-hour focus groups consisting of a combination of seven trauma program managers and orthopedic practice managers were asked questions related to the feasibility of a PROMs study design before thematic saturation was reached. Through the analysis, four themes emerged: barriers, possible improvements, representation and research design. Themes included subthemes as well. Noteworthy results included the impact of an integrated orthopedic practice and the technological options available for use.

CONCLUSION

This study revealed the barriers that would exist in the implementation of PROMs for orthopedic trauma patients, which may be useful when designing data collection procedures for PROMs. The results related to barriers may assist other trauma centers or regional trauma systems in designing an optimal methodology for PROMs data. Furthermore, the American College of Surgeons might consider these results prior to any mandated implementation of PROMs for trauma centers to avoid any possible burden on staff and systems.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Your Practice Needs

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures offer a unique opportunity to systematically incorporate patient perspectives of their health and wellbeing into treatment, view progress over time, and develop opportunities related to clinical decision support, shared decision making, and outcomes-driven payment and practice transformation. As healthcare institutions increasingly look toward adopting PRO measures in their practices, more information is needed regarding the practicalities of implementing a successful PRO program outside of the research setting. This article offers a stepwise approach to implementing a PRO program while overcoming barriers and leveraging facilitators that commonly exist in the realms of human contribution or team building, technological infrastructure, and process design. To routinely adopt and implement these instruments, we need a multifaceted approach to operationalizing patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) for high-value outcomes-driven, patient-centered musculoskeletal care.

Operationalizing PROMs at the Musculoskeletal Practice and Policy Levels

There continues to be growing interest in patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), especially as value-based healthcare initiatives gain more traction. Although it is well-established that PROMs can be useful in clinical research, how to operationalize PROMs in clinical care and policy initiatives remains a "work in progress." Following the design of a comprehensive PROM administration and routine collection system, orthopaedic surgeons and their patients can reap the benefits of PROMs in practice through improved shared clinical decision-making discussions at the individual patient level and closer symptom monitoring on a large scale, with improved resource allocation at the population health level. Although certain government and payer incentives exist to collect PROMs at present, it is reasonable to assume that future policy initiatives will begin to use the actual PROM scores to assess clinical outcomes. Orthopaedic surgeons with interest in this area should prioritize their involvement in policy discussion to ensure PROMs are being used appropriately in novel payment models and policy endeavors so that they are both evaluated and compensated fairly. Specifically, orthopaedic surgeons can help ensure appropriate risk adjustment of patients when this is being done. Undoubtedly, PROMs will only become a larger part of musculoskeletal care moving forward.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures in Rhinoplasty: Need for Use and Implementation

Patient-reported outcome metrics (PROMs) are increasingly utilized to capture data about patients' quality of life. PROMs play an important role in the value-based health care movement by providing a patient-centered metric of quality. There are many barriers to the implementation of PROMs, and widespread adoption requires buy-in from numerous stakeholders including patients, clinicians, institutions, and payers. Several validated PROMs have been utilized by facial plastic surgeons to measure both functional and aesthetic outcomes among rhinoplasty patients. These PROMs can help clinicians and rhinoplasty patients participate in shared decision making (SDM), a process via which clinicians and patients arrive at treatment decisions together through a patient-centered approach. However, widespread adoption of PROMs and SDM has not yet been achieved. Further work should focus on overcoming barriers to implementation and engaging key stakeholders to increase the utilization of PROMs in rhinoplasty.

Optimizing Patient-Reported Outcome Collection and Documentation in Medical Music Therapy: Process-Improvement Study

BACKGROUND

To measure the effectiveness of nonpharmacologic interventions delivered during clinical care, investigators need to ensure robust and routine data collection without disrupting individualized patient care or adding unnecessary documentation burden.

OBJECTIVE

A process-improvement study was undertaken to improve documentation consistency and increase the capture of patient-reported outcomes (PROs; ie, stress, pain, anxiety, and coping) within a medical music therapy (MT) team.

METHODS

We used 2 Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycles to improve documentation processes among an MT team (13.3 clinical full-time equivalent staff). Trainings focused on providing skills and resources for optimizing pre- and postsession PRO collection, specific guidelines for entering session data in the electronic health record, and opportunities for the team to provide feedback. Two comparisons of therapists' PRO collection rates were conducted: (1) between the 6 months before PDSA Cycle 1 (T0) and PDSA Cycle 1 (T1), and (2) between T1 and PDSA Cycle 2 (T2).

RESULTS

Music therapists' rates of capturing any PRO within MT sessions increased significantly (P<.001) from T0 to T1 and from T1 to T2 for all domains, including stress (4/2758, 0.1% at T0; 1012/2786, 36.3% at T1; and 393/775, 50.7% at T2), pain (820/2758, 29.7% at T0; 1444/2786, 51.8% at T1; and 476/775, 61.4% at T2), anxiety (499/2758, 18.1% at T0; 950/2786, 34.1% at T1; and 400/775, 51.6% at T2), and coping (0/2758, 0% at T0; 571/2786, 20.5% at T1; and 319/775, 41.2% at T2). Music therapists' feedback and findings from a retrospective analysis were used to create an improved electronic health record documentation template.

CONCLUSIONS

Rates of PRO data collection improved within the medical MT team. Although the process improvement in this study was applied to a nonpharmacologic MT intervention, the principles are applicable to numerous inpatient clinical providers. As hospitals continue to implement nonpharmacologic therapies in response to the Joint Commission's recommendations, routine PRO collection will provide future researchers with the ability to evaluate the impact of these therapies on pain relief and opioid use.

Non-English Speakers and Socioeconomic Minorities are Significantly Less Likely to Complete Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Total Hip and Knee Arthroplasty: Analysis of 16,119 Cases

BACKGROUND

The Comprehensive Care for Joint Replacement requires patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion for total knee/hip arthroplasty (TKA/THA) patients. A 90% completion rate to avoid penalties was planned for 2023 but has been delayed. Our analysis compares TKA/THA PROM completion and results across demographics. We hypothesized that minority groups would be less likely to complete PROMs.

METHODS

A retrospective review was performed from 2018 to 2021 of 16,119 patients who underwent primary elective TKA or THA at a single institution. Pairwise chi-squared tests, t-tests, analysis of variance, and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to compare PROM completion rates and scores across demographics and surgery type (TKA/THA).

RESULTS

Comparing patients who had (N = 7,664) and did not have (N = 8,455) documented PROMs, completion rates were significantly lower in patients who were women, Black, Hispanic, less educated, used Medicaid insurance, lived in lower income neighborhoods, spoke non-English languages, required an interpreter, and underwent TKA versus THA. After regression analyses, odds ratios for PROM completion remained significantly lower in non-English speakers, Hispanic and Medicaid patients, lower income groups, and patients undergoing TKA. For the 31.8% of patients who completed both preoperative/postoperative PROMs, women, Black, and non-English speaking patients had significantly lower PROM scores for most measures preoperatively and postoperatively despite similar or better improvements after surgery.

CONCLUSION

Patients undergoing TKA and non-English speaking, ethnic, and socioeconomic minorities are less likely to complete PROMs. Strategies to create, validate, and collect PROMs for these populations are needed to avoid exacerbation of healthcare disparities.

System-wide integration of patient reported outcome measure collection through an electronic medical record system: A state-wide retrospective study

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

In spine neurosurgery practice, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools used to convey information about a patient's health experience and are an integral component of a clinician's decision-making process as they help guide treatment strategies to improve outcomes and minimize pain. Currently, there is limited research showing effective integration strategies of PROMs into electronic medical records. This study aims to provide a framework for other healthcare systems by outlining the process from start to finish in seven Hartford Healthcare Neurosurgery outpatient spine clinics throughout the state of Connecticut.

METHODS

On March 1, 2021, a pilot implementation program began in one clinic and on July 1, 2021, all outpatient clinics were implementing the revised clinical workflow that included the electronic collection of PROMs within the electronic health record (EHR). A retrospective chart analysis studied all adult (18+) new patient visits in seven outpatient clinics by comparing the rates of PROMs collection in Half 1 (March 1, 2021-August 31, 2022) and in Half 2 (September 1, 2022-February 28, 2022) across all sites. Additionally, patient characteristics were studied to identify any variables that may lead to higher rates of collection.

RESULTS

During the study period, 3528 new patient visits were analyzed. There was a significant change in rates of PROMs collection across all departments between H1 and H2 (p < 0.05). Additional significant predictors for PROMs collection were the sex and ethnicity of the patient as well as the provider type for the visit (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study proved that implementing the electronic collection of PROMs into an already existing clinical workflow reduces previously identified collection barriers and enables PROMs collection rates that meet or exceed current benchmarks. Our results provide a successful step-by-step framework for other spine neurosurgery clinics to implement a similar approach.

Implementing Innovation: Informatics-Based Technologies to Improve Care Delivery and Clinical Research

Improving technology has promised to improved health care delivery and the lives of patients. The realized benefits of technology, however, are delayed or less than anticipated. Three recent technology initiatives are reviewed: the Clinical Trials Rapid Activation Consortium (CTRAC), minimal Common Oncology Data Elements (mCODE), and electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes. Each initiative is at a different stage of maturity but promises to improve the delivery of cancer care. CTRAC is an ambitious initiative funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to develop processes across multiple NCI-supported cancer centers to facilitate the development of centralized electronic health record (EHR) treatment plans. Facilitating interoperability of treatment regimens has the potential to improve sharing between centers and decrease the time to begin clinical trials. The mCODE initiative began in 2019 and is currently Standard for Trial Use version 2. This data standard provides an abstraction layer on top of EHR data and has been implemented across more than 60 organizations. Patient-reported outcomes have been shown to improve patient care in numerous studies. Best practices for how to leverage these in an oncology practice continue to evolve. These three examples show how innovative has diffused into practice and evolved cancer care delivery and highlight a movement toward patient-centered data and interoperability.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care

Background

To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Method

A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

Results

A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options.

Plain English summary

Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Patients Receiving Integrative Medicine Effectiveness Registry (PRIMIER) of the BraveNet practice-based research network: Outcomes of the PRIMIER cohort

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the real-world effectiveness of integrative medicine treatment on quality of life using the Patients Receiving Integrative Medicine Effectiveness Registry (PRIMIER).

DESIGN

A prospective, longitudinal, observational evaluation of patient reported outcomes for quality of life.

SETTING

Participants were patients from 17 integrative medicine clinics who received personalized, integrative medicine treatments between August 2013 and October 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants completed the Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)- 29, Perceived Stress Scale-4 (PSS-4), and the Patient Activation Measure (PAM) at index (baseline) visit and at 2, 4, 6, and 12 month follow-up assessments. Electronic health record data included diagnostic and billing codes/descriptions. A linear mixed-effects model was used to test whether outcomes changed from index through 12 months RESULTS: During enrollment, 4883 participants began the assessment, 3658 completed the index measures, and 2374 (65 %) completed at least 1 follow-up assessment, had electronic health record data and at least 1 integrative medicine visit. Most participants (mean age=51.4 years) were white (88.4 %), female (79.7 %), and college-educated (78.5 %). Significant improvements (p < 0.001) were observed at 12-months on all PROMIS-29 measures, PSS-4, and PAM. At 12 months, clinically meaningful improvements were found for 38 % and 28 % on PROMIS-29 Mental and Physical Health Summary scores respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

PRIMIER is the largest study to assess the real-world effectiveness of integrative medicine. Results indicate a statistical and clinical improvement across all measures at 12 months. Future research could explore whether dosing, timing or combinations of integrative medicine interventions have differential impacts on quality of life.

Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic

INTRODUCTION

The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) promises to improve patient care. However, in colorectal surgery, PROMs are uncommonly collected outside of clinical research studies and rarely used in clinical care. We designed and implemented a quality improvement project with the goals of routinely collecting PROMs and increasing the frequency that PROMs are utilized by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice.

METHODS

This mixed-methods, quality improvement project was conducted in the colorectal surgery clinic of a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were administered up to five PROMs before each appointment. PROM completion rates were measured. Additionally, we performed two educational interventions to increase utilization of our electronic health record's PROM dashboard by colorectal surgeons. Utilization rates and attitudes toward the PROM dashboard were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, patients completed 3600 of 3977 (90.9%) administered PROMs during the study period. At baseline, colorectal surgeons reviewed 6.7% of completed PROMs. After two educational interventions, this increased to 39.3% (P = 0.004). Colorectal surgeons also felt that the PROM dashboard was easier to use. Barriers to greater PROM dashboard utilization included poor user interface/user experience and a perceived lack of knowledge, time, and relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

The collection of PROMs in colorectal surgery clinics is feasible and can result in high PROM completion rates. Educational interventions can improve the utilization of PROMs by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice. Our experience collecting PROMs through this quality improvement initiative can serve as a template for other colorectal surgery clinics interested in collecting and utilizing data from PROMs.

What Is the Clinical Benefit of Common Orthopaedic Procedures as Assessed by the PROMIS Versus Other Validated Outcomes Tools?

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including the Patient-reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly used to measure healthcare value. The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) is a metric that helps clinicians determine whether a statistically detectable improvement in a PROM after surgical care is likely to be large enough to be important to a patient or to justify an intervention that carries risk and cost. There are two major categories of MCID calculation methods, anchor-based and distribution-based. This variability, coupled with heterogeneous surgical cohorts used for existing MCID values, limits their application to clinical care.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In our study, we sought (1) to determine MCID thresholds and attainment percentages for PROMIS after common orthopaedic procedures using distribution-based methods, (2) to use anchor-based MCID values from published studies as a comparison, and (3) to compare MCID attainment percentages using PROMIS scores to other validated outcomes tools such as the Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS) and Knee Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS).

METHODS

This was a retrospective study at two academic medical centers and three community hospitals. The inclusion criteria for this study were patients who were age 18 years or older and who underwent elective THA for osteoarthritis, TKA for osteoarthritis, one-level posterior lumbar fusion for lumbar spinal stenosis or spondylolisthesis, anatomic total shoulder arthroplasty or reverse total shoulder arthroplasty for glenohumeral arthritis or rotator cuff arthropathy, arthroscopic anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, arthroscopic partial meniscectomy, or arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. This yielded 14,003 patients. Patients undergoing revision operations or surgery for nondegenerative pathologies and patients without preoperative PROMs assessments were excluded, leaving 9925 patients who completed preoperative PROMIS assessments and 9478 who completed other preoperative validated outcomes tools (HOOS, KOOS, numerical rating scale for leg pain, numerical rating scale for back pain, and QuickDASH). Approximately 66% (6529 of 9925) of patients had postoperative PROMIS scores (Physical Function, Mental Health, Pain Intensity, Pain Interference, and Upper Extremity) and were included for analysis. PROMIS scores are population normalized with a mean score of 50 ± 10, with most scores falling between 30 to 70. Approximately 74% (7007 of 9478) of patients had postoperative historical assessment scores and were included for analysis. The proportion who reached the MCID was calculated for each procedure cohort at 6 months of follow-up using distribution-based MCID methods, which included a fraction of the SD (1/2 or 1/3 SD) and minimum detectable change (MDC) using statistical significance (such as the MDC 90 from p < 0.1). Previously published anchor-based MCID thresholds from similar procedure cohorts and analogous PROMs were used to calculate the proportion reaching MCID.

RESULTS

Within a given distribution-based method, MCID thresholds for PROMIS assessments were similar across multiple procedures. The MCID threshold ranged between 3.4 and 4.5 points across all procedures using the 1/2 SD method. Except for meniscectomy (3.5 points), the anchor-based PROMIS MCID thresholds (range 4.5 to 8.1 points) were higher than the SD distribution-based MCID values (2.3 to 4.5 points). The difference in MCID thresholds based on the calculation method led to a similar trend in MCID attainment. Using THA as an example, MCID attainment using PROMIS was achieved by 76% of patients using an anchor-based threshold of 7.9 points. However, 82% of THA patients attained MCID using the MDC 95 method (6.1 points), and 88% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (3.9 points). Using the HOOS metric (scaled from 0 to 100), 86% of THA patients reached the anchor-based MCID threshold (17.5 points). However, 91% of THA patients attained the MCID using the MDC 90 method (12.5 points), and 93% reached MCID using the 1/2 SD method (8.4 points). In general, the proportion of patients reaching MCID was lower for PROMIS than for other validated outcomes tools; for example, with the 1/2 SD method, 72% of patients who underwent arthroscopic partial meniscectomy reached the MCID on PROMIS Physical Function compared with 86% on KOOS.

CONCLUSION

MCID calculations can provide clinical correlation for PROM scores interpretation. The PROMIS form is increasingly used because of its generalizability across diagnoses. However, we found lower proportions of MCID attainment using PROMIS scores compared with historical PROMs. By using historical proportions of attainment on common orthopaedic procedures and a spectrum of MCID calculation techniques, the PROMIS MCID benchmarks are realizable for common orthopaedic procedures. For clinical practices that routinely collect PROMIS scores in the clinical setting, these results can be used by individual surgeons to evaluate personal practice trends and by healthcare systems to quantify whether clinical care initiatives result in meaningful differences. Furthermore, these MCID thresholds can be used by researchers conducting retrospective outcomes research with PROMIS.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, therapeutic study.

The effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations in health care: a systematic review

Background

Champions have been documented in the literature as an important strategy for implementation, yet their effectiveness has not been well synthesized in the health care literature. The aim of this systematic review was to determine whether champions, tested in isolation from other implementation strategies, are effective at improving innovation use or outcomes in health care.

Methods

The JBI systematic review method guided this study. A peer-reviewed search strategy was applied to eight electronic databases to identify relevant articles. We included all published articles and unpublished theses and dissertations that used a quantitative study design to evaluate the effectiveness of champions in implementing innovations within health care settings. Two researchers independently completed study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal. We used content analysis and vote counting to synthesize our data.

Results

After screening 7566 records titles and abstracts and 2090 full text articles, we included 35 studies in our review. Most of the studies (71.4%) operationalized the champion strategy by the presence or absence of a champion. In a subset of seven studies, five studies found associations between exposure to champions and increased use of best practices, programs, or technological innovations at an organizational level. In other subsets, the evidence pertaining to use of champions and innovation use by patients or providers, or at improving outcomes was either mixed or scarce.

Conclusions

We identified a small body of literature reporting an association between use of champions and increased instrumental use of innovations by organizations. However, more research is needed to determine causal relationship between champions and innovation use and outcomes. Even though there are no reported adverse effects in using champions, opportunity costs may be associated with their use. Until more evidence becomes available about the effectiveness of champions at increasing innovation use and outcomes, the decision to deploy champions should consider the needs and resources of the organization and include an evaluation plan. To further our understanding of champions’ effectiveness, future studies should (1) use experimental study designs in conjunction with process evaluations, (2) describe champions and their activities and (3) rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of champions’ activities.

Registration

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/ba3d2). Registered on November 15, 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-022-00315-0.

Sociodemographic Factors Are Associated with Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Completion in Orthopaedic Surgery: An Analysis of Completion Rates and Determinants Among New Patients

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and, specifically, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), are increasingly utilized for clinical research, clinical care, and health-care policy. However, completion of these outcome measures can be inconsistent and challenging. We hypothesized that sociodemographic variables are associated with the completion of PROM questionnaires. The purposes of the present study were to calculate the completion rate of assigned PROM forms and to identify sociodemographic and other variables associated with completion to help guide improved collection efforts.

Methods

All new orthopaedic patients at a single academic medical center were identified from 2016 to 2020. On the basis of subspecialty and presenting condition, patients were assigned certain PROMIS forms and legacy PROMs. Demographic and clinical information was abstracted from the electronic medical record. Bivariate analyses were performed to compare characteristics among those who completed assigned PROMs and those who did not. A multivariable logistic regression model was created to determine which variables were associated with successful completion of assigned PROMs.

Results

Of the 219,891 new patients, 88,052 (40%) completed all assigned PROMs. Patients who did not activate their internet-based patient portal had a 62% increased likelihood of not completing assigned PROMs (odds ratio [OR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.58 to 1.66; p < 0.001). Non-English-speaking patients had a 90% (OR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.82 to 2.00; p < 0.001) increased likelihood of not completing assigned PROMs at presentation. Older patients (≥65 years of age) and patients of Black race had a 23% (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.27; p < 0.001) and 24% (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.19 to 1.30; p < 0.001) increased likelihood of not completing assigned PROMs, respectively.

Conclusions

The rate of completion of PROMs varies according to sociodemographic variables. This variability could bias clinical outcomes research in orthopaedic surgery. The present study highlights the need to uniformly increase completion rates so that outcomes research incorporates truly representative cohorts of patients treated. Furthermore, the use of these PROMs to guide health-care policy decisions necessitates a representative patient distribution to avoid bias in the health-care system.

Level of Evidence

Prognostic Level III. See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in trials of diabetes in pregnancy: A systematic review

AIMS

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of the patient's health status that come directly from the patient without interpretation by the clinician or anyone else. They are increasingly used in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). In this systematic review we identified RCTs conducted in women with diabetes in pregnancy which included PROs in their primary or secondary outcomes. We then evaluated the quality of PRO reporting against an internationally accepted reporting framework (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-PRO) guidelines).

METHODS

We searched online databases for studies published 2013-2021 using a combination of keywords. Two authors reviewed all abstracts independently. Data on study characteristics and the quality of PRO reporting were extracted from relevant studies. We conducted a multiple regression analysis to identify factors associated with high quality reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 7122 citations. Thirty-five articles were included for review. Only 17% of RCTs included a PRO as a primary or secondary outcome. Out of a maximum score of 100 the median score was 46, indicating sub-optimal reporting. A multiple regression analysis did not reveal any factors associated with high quality reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers should be mindful of the importance of PRO inclusion and reporting and include reliable PROs in trials.

Developing an International Standard Set of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Psychotic Disorders

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this project was to develop a set of patient-reported outcome measures for adolescents and adults who meet criteria for a psychotic disorder.

METHODS

A research team and an international consensus working group, including service users, clinicians, and researchers, worked together in an iterative process by using a modified Delphi consensus technique that included videoconferencing calls, online surveys, and focus groups. The research team conducted systematic literature searches to identify outcomes, outcome measures, and risk adjustment factors. After identifying outcomes important to service users, the consensus working group selected outcome measures, risk adjustment factors, and the final set of outcome measures. International stakeholder groups consisting of >100 professionals and service users reviewed and commented on the final set.

RESULTS

The consensus working group identified four outcome domains: symptoms, recovery, functioning, and treatment. The domains encompassed 14 outcomes of importance to service users. The research team identified 131 measures from the literature. The consensus working group selected nine measures in an outcome set that takes approximately 35 minutes to complete.

CONCLUSIONS

A set of patient-reported outcome measures for use in routine clinical practice was identified. The set is free to service users, is available in at least two languages, and reflects outcomes important to users. Clinicians can use the set to improve clinical decision making, and administrators and researchers can use it to learn from comparing program outcomes.

Barriers and Opportunities for Patient-Reported Outcome Implementation: A National Pediatrician Survey in the United States

Purpose: To characterize pediatricians’ perceived barriers and areas of confidence in assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the U.S., and to test associations of these factors with implementing PRO assessment. Methods: Using a random sample from the members of American Medical Association, we recruited general pediatricians and pediatric subspecialists to complete a survey (July 2011 to December 2013). Perceived barriers and confidence in PRO assessment were compared by age, pediatric specialty (general pediatrics, seven subspecialties), practice settings (academic, private), and region of practice. Multivariable logistic regressions tested associations of demographic factors, barriers, and confidence factors with the implementation of PRO assessment. Findings: The survey was completed by 458 participants (response rate 48.5%); of these, 40.4%, 15.9%, 15.5%, and 8.1% were general pediatricians, cardiology, hematology/oncology, and pulmonary specialists, respectively. PRO assessment was implemented by 29.0% of the pediatricians. The top five barriers for PRO assessment included limited time/manpower (79.0%), limited training (77.4%), lengthy PRO instruments (76%), lack of meaningful cut-offs on PRO scores (75.5%), and unavailable PRO instruments (75.0%). Limited knowledge of PROs (OR 4.10; 95% CI 2.21, 7.60) and unavailability of PRO instruments (OR 1.87; 95% CI 1.01, 3.49) increased the odds of not implementing the assessment, whereas confidence in PRO assessments compatible with norms (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.23, 0.72) and perceived benefit over clinical judgment alone (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31, 0.93) decreased the odds of not implementing the assessment. Interpretation: significant barriers to PRO assessment in pediatric settings suggest the need for providing training, resources, and practical guidance toward implementation. Patient or Public Contribution: healthcare service users contributed to this study by completing a survey and providing feedback about the barriers and areas of confidence in assessing PROs for pediatric populations.

A Review of PROM Implementation in Surgical Practice

OBJECTIVE

To synthesize the current state of PROM implementation and collection in routine surgical practice through a review of the literature.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly relevant in the delivery of high quality, individualized patient care. For surgeons, PROMs can provide valuable insight into changes in patient quality of life before and after surgical interventions. Despite consensus within the surgical community regarding the promise of PROMs, little is known about their real-world implementation.

METHODS

The literature search was conducted in MEDLINE and Embase for studies published after 2012. We conducted a scoping review to synthesize the current state of implementation of PROs across all sizes and types of surgical practices. Studies were included if they met the following inclusion criteria: (1) patients ≥18 years 2) routine surgical practice, (3) use of a validated PRO instrument in the peri-operative period to report on general or disease-specific health-related quality of life, (4) primary or secondary outcome was implementation. Two independent reviewers screened 1524 titles and abstracts.

FINDINGS

16 studies were identified that reported on the implementation of PROMs for surgical patients. Sample size ranged from 41 patients in a single-center pilot study to 1324 patients in a study across 17 institutions. PROs were collected pre-operatively in 3 studies, post-operatively in 10, and at unspecified times in 4. The most commonly reported implementation outcomes were fidelity (12) and feasibility (11). Less than half of studies analyzed nonrespondents. All studies concluded that collection of PROMs was successful based on outcomes measured.

CONCLUSIONS

The identified studies suggest that implementation metrics including minimum standards of collection pre- and postintervention, reporting for response rates in the context of patient eligibility and analysis of respondents and nonrespondents, in addition to transparency regarding the resources utilized and cost, can facilitate adoption of PROMs in clinical care and accountability for surgical outcomes.

Minimum Clinically Important Difference: A Metric That Matters in the Age of Patient-Reported Outcomes

➤

As the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is increasingly utilized in orthopaedic research and clinical practice, there is not a consensus regarding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) calculation.

➤

The varied MCID calculation methods can lead to a range of possible values, which limits the translatability of research efforts.

➤

The completion rate and follow-up period also influence MCID values and should be reported alongside study results.

Examining the Landscape of Prognostic Factors and Clinical Outcomes for Cancer Control

Prognostic factors have important utility in various aspects of cancer surveillance, including research, patient care, and cancer control programmes. Nevertheless, there is heterogeneity in the collection of prognostic factors and outcomes data globally. This study aimed to investigate perspectives on the utility and application of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes in cancer control programmes. A qualitative phenomenology approach using expert interviews was taken to derive a rich description of the current state and future outlook of cancer prognostic factors and clinical outcomes. Individuals with expertise in this work and from various regions and institutions were invited to take part in one-on-one semi-structured interviews. Four areas related to infrastructure and funding challenges were identified by participants, including (1) data collection and access; (2) variability in data reporting, coding, and definitions; (3) limited coordination among databases; and (4) conceptualization and prioritization of meaningful prognostic factors and outcomes. Two areas were identified regarding important future priorities for cancer control: (1) global investment and intention in cancer surveillance and (2) data governance and exchange globally. Participants emphasized the need for better global collection of prognostic factors and clinical outcomes data and support for standardized data collection and data exchange practices by cancer registries.

Initial findings from a prospective, large scale patient reported outcomes program in patients with gynecologic malignancy

INTRODUCTION

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are associated with improved overall survival in patients with metastatic malignancy; however, routine collection of PROMs is nascent. Little is known about PROs in women with gynecologic malignancy outside of a trial setting, limiting our understanding of how routine populations experience treatment, disease and morbidity. The goal of this study was to prospectively collect and describe disease-specific PROs in a non-trial population of women with gynecologic malignancy.

METHODS

PROMs were assigned electronically to all patients presenting for care in our gynecologic oncology clinic. Patients received a general oncology questionnaire (EORTC QLQ C30) a disease specific questionnaire (FACT V, EORTC EN24, EORTC OV28, EORTC Cx 24), and questionnaires assessing support at home. Responses were mapped to relevant clinical variables. Descriptive statistics were performed, and comparisons made with parametric and nonparametric analyses. The association between support at home and perioperative complications was assessed via logistic regression.

RESULTS

In the study period, 3239 unique patients were evaluated at new patient visits, post-operative visits, chemotherapy visits and surveillance visits with a PROMs completion rate of 78.1% (n = 2530 women with 4402 completions). There was no difference in completion rates based on age or self-identified race. The EORTC QLQ C-30 questionnaire was able to adequately discern differences between disease sites. Overall, scores were lower than those obtained in trial populations. PROMs responses were not associated with perioperative complications.

CONCLUSION

Systematic collection of PROMs is feasible and tech-enabled workflows result in high collection rates. Quality of life scores in our clinic population were lower than published data, indicating caution should be used when extrapolating quality of life data from clinical trials to counseling and decision making around routine patient populations.

Digital Health for Patients With Multiple Myeloma: An Unmet Need

Multiple myeloma (MM) is associated with the highest symptom burden and lowest health-related quality of life (HRQoL) among patients with hematologic malignancies. HRQoL in MM is heterogeneous, varying over the course of disease, with the highest burden at diagnosis and relapse. Patients with MM are increasingly being treated with oral maintenance medications at home. As a result, longitudinal monitoring of medication adherence and patient-reported outcomes, including HRQoL, could inform on disease status, therapeutic tolerability, and satisfaction with care. Digital health technologies, including telemedicine, mobile health, and wearable devices, are poised to become an integral part of modern health care, in part due to the surge in telemedicine necessitated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the literature has many reports on the use of digital health technologies in other types of cancers, fewer studies report on their application to MM. In the current narrative review, we survey the applications of digital health for MM. Although there is evidence that some are associated with improved health outcomes, challenges exist that must be met to ensure more widespread adoption. These include the need for increased awareness by patients and health care providers, lack of access by the typical older patient with MM, absence of randomized clinical trials, and low integration with current workflows such as electronic health records. Following our summary of technologies that could benefit patients with MM, we end by describing our vision for how they can be integrated into each phase of the patient journey.

Implementing an Application Programming Interface for PROMIS Measures at Three Medical Centers

BACKGROUND

There is an increasing body of literature advocating for the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical care. Unfortunately, there are many barriers to integrating PRO measures, particularly computer adaptive tests (CATs), within electronic health records (EHRs), thereby limiting access to advances in PRO measures in clinical care settings.

OBJECTIVE

To address this obstacle, we created and evaluated a software integration of an Application Programming Interface (API) service for administering and scoring Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures with the EHR system.

METHODS

We created a RESTful API and evaluated the technical feasibility and impact on clinical workflow at three academic medical centers.

RESULTS

Collaborative teams (i.e., clinical, information technology [IT] and administrative staff) performed these integration efforts addressing issues such as software integration as well as impact on clinical workflow. All centers considered their implementation successful based on the high rate of completed PROMIS assessments (between January 2016 and January 2021) and minimal workflow disruptions.

CONCLUSION

These case studies demonstrate not only the feasibility but also the pathway for the integration of PROMIS CATs into the EHR and routine clinical care. All sites utilized diverse teams with support and commitment from institutional leadership, initial implementation in a single clinic, a process for monitoring and optimization, and use of custom software to minimize staff burden and error.

Digital Disparities: Lessons learned from a Patient Reported Outcomes Program During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The collection of patient reported outcomes (PROs) allows us to incorporate the patient's voice within their care in a quantifiable, validated manner. Large scale collection of PROs is facilitated by the electronic health record (EHR) and its portal, though historically patients have eschewed the portal and completed patient reported outcome measures (PROMS) in clinic via tablet. Furthermore, access to and use of the portal is associated with known racial inequities. Our institution oversees the largest clinical PRO program in the world, and has a long history of racially equitable PRO completion rates via tablet. However, when the COVID-19 pandemic forced us to remove tablets from clinics and rely exclusively on portal use for PRO completion, profound racial disparities resulted immediately. Our experience quantifiably demonstrates the magnitude of inequity that the portal, in its current configuration, generates and serves as a cautionary tale to other health care systems and EHRs.

Routine Collection of Patient Reported Outcomes in Thoracic Surgery: A Quality Improvement Study

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are critical for delivering high quality surgical care yet they are seldom collected in routine clinical practice. The objective of this quality improvement study was to improve routine PROs collection in a thoracic surgery clinic.

METHODS

Thoracic surgery patients at a single academic institution were prospectively followed from April 2019 to March 2020. The National Institutes of Health (NIH)-validated Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) was employed. Using a Model for Improvement design and through multidisciplinary participant observation, multiple plan-do-study-act (PDSA) cycles (an iterative, four-stage model for rapidly testing interventions) were performed to improve routine collection reliability.

RESULTS

Over the study period, a total of 2,315 patient visits occurred. The baseline PROMIS assessment collection rate was 53%. After convening a multidisciplinary stakeholder team, the key drivers for PROMIS collection were having engaged staff, engaged patients, adequate technological capacity, and adequate time for survey completion (including when to complete the survey during the patient visits). Regular meetings between stakeholders were initiated to promote these key drivers. Several PDSA cycles were then employed to test different interventions, resulting in several positive system shifts as demonstrated on statistical process control (SPC) chart. Adherence to survey collection reached 91% of office visits by approximately 7 months, a 72% relative improvement, which was sustained.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine collection of PROs, such as PROMIS, are critical for improving thoracic surgical care. Our study shows that reliably collecting these data is possible in a clinical setting with minimal additional hospital resources.

Electronic health record-integrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation

Background

The integration of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into clinical care presents many challenges for health systems. PROMs provide quantitative data regarding patient-reported health status. However, the most effective model for collecting PROMs has not been established. Therefore the purpose of this study is to report the development and preliminary evaluation of the standardized collection of PROMs within a department of orthopedic surgery at a large academic health center.

Methods

We utilized the Users’ Guide to Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Electronic Health Records by Gensheimer et al., 2018 as a framework to describe the development of PROMs collection initiative. We framed our initiative by operationalizing the three aspects of PROM collection development: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Next, we performed a preliminary evaluation of our initiative by assessing the response rate of patients completing PROMs (no. of PROMs completed/no. of PROMs administered) across the entire department (18 clinics), ambulatory clinics only (14 clinics), and hospital-based clinics only (4 clinics). Lastly, we reported on the mean response rates for the top 5 and bottom 5 orthopaedic providers to describe the variability across providers.

Results

We described the development of a fully-integrated, population health based implementation strategy leveraging the existing resources of our local EHR to maximize clinical utility of PROMs and routine collection. We collected a large volume of PROMs over a 13 month period (n = 10,951) across 18 clinical sites, 7 clinical specialties and over 100 providers. The response rates varied across the department, ranging from 29 to 42%, depending on active status for the portal to the electronic health record (MyChart). The highest single provider mean response rate was 52%, and the lowest provider rate was 13%. Rates were similar between hospital-based (26%) and ambulatory clinics (29%).

Conclusions

We found that our standardized PROMs collection initiative, informed by Gensheimer et al., achieved scope and scale, but faced challenges in achieving a high response rate commensurate with existing literature. However, most studies reported a targeted recruitment strategy within a narrow clinical population. Further research is needed to elucidate the trade-off between scalability and response rates in PROM collection initiatives.

Primary care physician's (PCP) perceived value of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can promote patient engagement, shared-decision making and improve the overall experience of care. However, PRO integration in the primary care clinical setting is limited. Exploring the perspectives of primary care physicians (PCPs) on PROs is key to understanding how they are being used in the clinical setting. We sought to elucidate this clinical perspective at one of the largest US health systems that has integrated a wide range of PROs into routine primary care.

METHODS

Mixed methods study with both anonymous online surveys and in-person qualitative semistructured interviews conducted with PCPs to understand their clinical perspectives on the applications of the existing PROs. PCPs from the 19 affiliated clinics were prompted to complete the survey. Interviewed PCPs were selected via a combination of random and purposive selection from the PCP directory.

RESULTS

Of 172 PCPs, 117 (68%) completed the online survey and 28 completed semistructured interviews. Most PCPs (77%) reviewed PRO responses with their patients. PCPs endorsed that PROs improve clinic efficiency and clinical management. However, PCPs have heterogeneous perspectives on the relevance of PROs in clinical practice, likely due to variations in clinic practice. For specific PRO instruments, PCPs reported anxiety and depression screening PROs to be most helpful. PCPs felt that PROs assisted with completing screening questions that are required by regulatory bodies. Barriers to using PROs include poor user-interface for both clinicians and patients and inadequate training.

CONCLUSIONS

Most PCPs regularly use PRO data though there are mixed opinions about their clinical relevance. An adaptable, user-friendly PRO system has the potential to have meaningful clinical applications in primary care.

Making the Case for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Big-Data Rehabilitation Research: Implications for Optimizing Patient-Centered Care

Advances in data science and timely access to health informatics provide a pathway to integrate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into clinical workflows and optimize rehabilitation service delivery. With the shift toward value-based care in the United States health care system, as highlighted by the recent Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services incentive and penalty programs, it is critical for rehabilitation providers to systematically collect and effectively use PROMs to facilitate evaluation of quality and outcomes within and across health systems. This editorial discusses the potential of PROMs to transform clinical practice, provides examples of health systems using PROMs to guide care, and identifies barriers to aggregating data from PROMs to conduct health services research. The article proposes 2 priority areas to help advance rehabilitation health services research: (1) standardization of collecting PROMs data in electronic health records to facilitate comparing health system performance and quality and (2) increased partnerships between rehabilitation providers, researchers, and payors to accelerate health system learning. As health care reform continues to emphasize value-based payment strategies, it is essential for the field of physical medicine and rehabilitation to be at the forefront of demonstrating its value in the care continuum.