Implementation and evaluation of an expanded electronic health record-integrated bilingual electronic symptom management program across a multi-site Comprehensive Cancer Center: The NU IMPACT protocol

Web-Based Cancer Symptom Self-Management System: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Patients with cancer and cancer survivors frequently experience symptoms that increase the need for health care services and impair quality of life. Effective symptom management is critical for comprehensive patient-centered cancer care.

Objective

To evaluate the effectiveness of adding a bilingual (English and Spanish), web-based self-management program to an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated patient-reported outcome for cancer (cPRO) assessment in reducing symptom burden and health care resource use (HCRU).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This patient-level randomized clinical trial was performed at the Northwestern Memorial HealthCare system in Chicago, Illinois. Participants included 1614 adult patients with cancer or cancer survivors in 30 clinics who were enrolled between April 1, 2020, and April 8, 2023, and followed up for 12 months until May 8, 2024.

Interventions

Usual care (UC) consisting of an EHR-integrated cPRO assessment or enhanced care (EC), which offered an additional tailored web-based self-management program.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures of anxiety, depression, fatigue, pain interference, and physical function collected at baseline and monthly for 12 months. Secondary outcomes included HCRU measures (inpatient and/or observation visits and days, emergency department and/or urgent care visits, and days of hospital stay).

Results

A total of 1614 patients were included in the analysis, with 804 randomized to EC and 810 to UC. The mean (SD) age was 61 (13) years; 1095 patients (67.8%) were female. Only 419 EC participants (52.1%) accessed the website, with only 197 (47%) returning; the median time per visit was 45 seconds (IQR, 45-105 seconds). There were no statistically significant differences between EC and UC across the cPRO outcomes over 12 months. The mean change from baseline at each assessment time point for treatment effects (EC vs UC) ranged from -0.19 (95% CI, -0.86 to 0.33; P = .64) for physical function to 0.11 (95% CI, -0.75 to 0.79; P = .87) for fatigue. Zero-inflated negative binomial and logistic regression models showed no significant differences in HCRU outcomes: inpatient and/or observation visits (incidence rate ratio [IRR], 0.90; 95% CI, 0.72-1.12), emergency department and/or urgent care visits (IRR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.84-1.16), and days of hospital stay (IRR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83-1.33).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized clinical trial, adding a bilingual web-based self-management program to EHR-integrated cPRO did not reduce symptom burden or HCRU compared with cPRO alone. Low engagement with the web-based program highlights the need for strategies to enhance engagement and tailor interventions to those who would benefit most.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03988543.

Development of a method for qualitative data integration to advance implementation science within research consortia

BACKGROUND

Methods of integrating qualitative data across diverse studies and within multi-site research consortia are less developed than those for integrating quantitative data. The development ofsuchmethods is essential to support the data exchange needed for cross-study qualitative inquiry and given the increasing emphasis on data sharing and open science. We describe methods for qualitative data integration within the National Cancer Institute's Improving the Management of symPtoms During And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium funded by the Cancer MoonshotSM. Data collection and analysis were guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Our case study highlights potential solutions for unique challenges faced when integrating qualitative data across multiple settings in a research consortium.

METHODS

The IMPACT consortium is comprised of three research centers (RCs) each conducting pragmatic trials examining the effectiveness of routine symptom management on patient-centered outcomes. After reaching consensus on use of CFIR as the common implementation determinant framework, RCs developed a semi-structured interview guide and tailored it to features of their healthcare setting and symptom management interventions. RCs conducted interviews/focus groups with healthcare system partners to examine contextual factors impacting implementation. RCs exchanged 1-2 transcripts (n = 5 total) for purposes of pilot testing the methodology.

RESULTS

Given the heterogeneity of study settings and contexts, it was challenging to simultaneously assign codes at both domain and construct levels and the process was resource intensive. Recommendations include employing a common framework for data collection and analyses from the outset, coding at domain level first and then incorporating construct codes, and centralizing processes via a coordinating center (or similar entity) and combining coded transcripts using qualitative software. We also generated an iteratively refined codebook that employed the CFIR schema and incorporated CFIR 2.0 to provide detailed guidance for coders conducting cross-study qualitative inquiry.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited guidance exists on how to support qualitative data integration, data exchange, and sharing across multiple studies. This paper describes a systematic method for employing an implementation determinant framework-guided approach to foster data integration. This methodology can be adopted by other research consortia to support qualitative data integration, cross-site qualitative inquiry, and generate improved understanding of evidence-based intervention implementation.

Rollout trial designs in implementation research are often necessary and sometimes preferred

BACKGROUND

Rollout designs, which include stepped wedge designs, are defined by staggered implementation of new or alternative programs or services. Critiques of stepped wedge and other rollout designs have raised concerns regarding the confounding of true implementation or program effects with unrelated, global changes in service delivery, with some recommending they only be used when traditional parallel-group designs are not practicable. However, rollout designs may sometimes be more suitable than traditional parallel group designs for ethical, scientific, or practical reasons.

RESULTS

As investigators involved in several recent rollout trials, we define and provide rationale for and examples of stepped wedge and the larger class of rollout designs, in which all participating units receive a new program or service implementation. Staged implementation in a rollout design may be necessary when denying, rather than delaying, implementation of a known effective service is ethically unacceptable. Scientifically, stepped wedge has increased statistical power relative to an equivalent parallel group design, and some rollout designs have the capability to compare different phases of implementation and sustainment. A rollout design may be practically necessary either because of limited resources and other logistical challenges or community requirements that no site serve as a control. Examples of completed and ongoing rollout trials illustrate how these ethical, scientific, and practical considerations influenced trial designs.

CONCLUSIONS

Stepped wedge and other rollout trial designs may be well suited to evaluation of implementation strategies or policy changes. In implementation trials, rollout designs may be necessary for practical reasons, may be required for ethical reasons, and may be preferred for scientific reasons. We summarize when such rollout designs have advantages and drawbacks.

Risk of significant functional impairment across cancer diagnosis and care continuum

BACKGROUND

The authors examined baseline physical functional (PF) impairment among cancer outpatients in the National Cancer Institute Cancer Moonshot study Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms During and Following Cancer Treatment (NU IMPACT). They hypothesized that PF impairment, measured with the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System-Physical Function (PROMIS-PF) survey, would (1) be common and more prevalent for patients receiving treatment compared with no treatment and (2) differ across tumor types, independent of cancer continuum phase.

METHODS

Adults who were diagnosed with cancer in NU IMPACT (n = 2273) were sampled, and their PROMIS-PF scores were compared across tumor types and cancer continuum (curative, noncurative, or no treatment), with scores ≤40 indicating moderate-severe impairment. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to evaluate the relation among patient and cancer factors and PF scores using a 95% confidence interval.

RESULTS

Forty percent of the surveyed patients reported moderate-severe PF impairment. Patients with melanoma reported the least impairment, and those with lung cancer were 6.5 times more likely to have moderate-severe impairment (95% confidence interval, 2.393-17.769). The noncurative group was 1.5 times more likely to have moderate-severe impairment (95% confidence interval, 1.045-2.145; mean score, 43; p < .001) than the curative (mean score, 6) and no treatment (mean score, 48) groups. One-third of those who reported PF impairment also had significant pain and/or fatigue.

CONCLUSIONS

A sizeable minority experienced PF impairment across tumor types for which pain and/or fatigue co-occurred, particularly in the noncurative group. The PROMIS-PF survey effectively identified variations in physical function. Future studies will explore how screening for PF impairment can be used to refer patients for appropriate cancer rehabilitation services.

Exploring the Relationship Among Financial Hardship, Anxiety, and Depression in Patients With Cancer: A Longitudinal Study

PURPOSE

Financial hardship (FH) is a complex issue in cancer care, affecting material conditions, well-being, and coping behaviors. This study aimed to longitudinally examine FH, anxiety, depressive symptoms, and their associations while incorporating social determinants of health and health care cost covariates in a sample of patients diagnosed with cancer.

METHODS

This prospective, longitudinal cohort study analyzed data from 2,305 participants from the Northwestern University Improving the Management of Symptoms during and following Cancer Treatment trial. Outcomes assessed at baseline and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months postbaseline included depressive symptoms, anxiety, and FH. Analysis involved random intercept cross-lagged panel models to explore between- and within-person effects, incorporating factors such as age, sex, insurance status, neighborhood area deprivation, health care charges, out-of-pocket costs, and health literacy.

RESULTS

The cohort had a mean age of 60.7 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.7) years and was mostly female (64.9%) and White (86.2%). Correlations were found between FH and depressive symptoms (r = 0.310) and anxiety (r = 0.289). A predictive relationship was observed between FH and depressive symptoms, with baseline and 6-month depressive symptom levels predicting later FH (baseline β = .079, P = .070; 6-month β = .072, P = .081) and 9-month FH significantly predicting 12-month depressive symptoms (β = .083, P = .025), even after accounting for health care charges and out-of-pocket costs. Baseline and 9-month anxiety showed a predictive relationship with subsequent FH (baseline β = .097, P = .023; 9-month β = .071, P = .068).

CONCLUSION

FH emerged as a prominent issue, with nearly half of participants experiencing some level of FH. Depressive symptoms and anxiety were related to FH. These findings underscore the need for a comprehensive approach in cancer care that concurrently addresses anxiety, depressive symptoms, and FH, recognizing their interconnected impact.

Predictors of Concordance between Patient-Reported and Provider-Documented Symptoms in the Context of Cancer and Multimorbidity

BACKGROUND

 The integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical care, particularly in the context of cancer and multimorbidity, is crucial. While PROs have the potential to enhance patient-centered care and improve health outcomes through improved symptom assessment, they are not always adequately documented by the health care team.

OBJECTIVES

 This study aimed to explore the concordance between patient-reported symptom occurrence and symptoms documented in electronic health records (EHRs) in people undergoing treatment for cancer in the context of multimorbidity.

METHODS

 We analyzed concordance between patient-reported symptom occurrence of 13 symptoms from the Memorial Symptom Assessment Scale and provider-documented symptoms extracted using NimbleMiner, a machine learning tool, from EHRs for 99 patients with various cancer diagnoses. Logistic regression guided with the Akaike Information Criterion was used to identify significant predictors of symptom concordance.

RESULTS

 Our findings revealed discrepancies in patient and provider reports, with itching showing the highest concordance (66%) and swelling showing the lowest concordance (40%). There was no statistically significant association between multimorbidity and high concordance, while lower concordance was observed for women, patients with advanced cancer stages, individuals with lower education levels, those who had partners, and patients undergoing highly emetogenic chemotherapy.

CONCLUSION

 These results highlight the challenges in achieving accurate and complete symptom documentation in EHRs and the necessity for targeted interventions to improve the precision of clinical documentation. By addressing these gaps, health care providers can better understand and manage patient symptoms, ultimately contributing to more personalized and effective cancer care.

Statistical analysis plan for the NU IMPACT stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial

BACKGROUND

As part of the IMPACT Consortium of three effectiveness-implementation trials, the NU IMPACT trial was designed to evaluate implementation and effectiveness outcomes for an electronic health record (EHR)-embedded symptom monitoring and management program for outpatient cancer care. NU IMPACT uses a unique stepped-wedge cluster randomized design, involving six clusters of 26 clinics, for evaluation of implementation outcomes with an embedded patient-level randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness outcomes. Collaborative, consortium-wide efforts to ensure use of the most robust and recent analytic methodologies for stepped-wedge trials motivated updates to the statistical analysis plan for implementation outcomes in the NU IMPACT trial.

METHODS

In the updated statistical analysis plan for NU IMPACT, the primary implementation outcome patient adoption, as measured by clinic-level monthly proportions of patient engagement with the EHR-based cancer symptom monitoring system, will be analyzed using generalized least squares linear regression with auto-regressive errors and adjustment for cluster and time effects (underlying secular trends). A similar strategy will be used for secondary patient and provider implementation outcomes.

DISCUSSION

The analytic updates described here resulted from highly iterative, collaborative efforts among statisticians, implementation scientists, and trial leads in the IMPACT Consortium. This updated statistical analysis plan will serve as the a priori specified approach for analyzing implementation outcomes for the NU IMPACT trial.

A mixed methods evaluation of patient perspectives on the implementation of an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program in cancer care

BACKGROUND

As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences.

METHODS

Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%).

CONCLUSIONS

While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements.

Disparities in electronic health record portal access and use among patients with cancer

BACKGROUND

Electronic health record-linked portals may improve health-care quality for patients with cancer. Barriers to portal access and use undermine interventions that rely on portals to reduce cancer care disparities. This study examined portal access and persistence of portal use and associations with patient and structural factors before the implementation of 3 portal-based interventions within the Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium.

METHODS

Portal use data were extracted from electronic health records for the 12 months preceding intervention implementation. Sociodemographic factors, mode of accessing portals (web vs mobile), and number of clinical encounters before intervention implementation were also extracted. Rurality was derived using rural-urban commuting area codes. Broadband access was estimated using the 2015-2019 American Community Survey. Multiple logistic regression models tested the associations of these factors with portal access (ever accessed or never accessed) and persistence of portal use (accessed the portal ≤20 weeks vs ≥21 weeks in the 35-week study period).

RESULTS

Of 28 942 eligible patients, 10 061 (35%) never accessed the portal. Male sex, membership in a racial and ethnic minority group, rural dwelling, not working, and limited broadband access were associated with lower odds of portal access. Younger age and more clinical encounters were associated with higher odds of portal access. Of those with portal access, 25% were persistent users. Using multiple modalities for portal access, being middle-aged, and having more clinical encounters were associated with persistent portal use.

CONCLUSION

Patient and structural factors affect portal access and use and may exacerbate disparities in electronic health record-based cancer symptom surveillance and management.

Advancing survivorship at a comprehensive cancer center: integrating clinical care, education and research initiatives at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center

The unprecedented and growing number of cancer survivors requires comprehensive quality care that includes cancer surveillance, symptom management, and health promotion to reduce morbidity and mortality and improve quality of life. However, coordinated and sustainable survivorship care has been challenged by barriers at multiple levels. We outline the survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center that have evolved over two decades. Our current survivorship clinics comprise STAR (Survivors Taking Action and Responsibility) for adult survivors of childhood cancers; Adult Specialty Survivorship for survivors of breast, colorectal and testicular cancers, lymphomas, and leukemias; and Gynecologic Oncology Survivorship. Care provision models align with general, disease/treatment-specific, and integrated survivorship models, respectively. Reimbursement for survivorship services has been bolstered by institutional budget allocations. We have standardized survivor education, counseling, and referrals through electronic health record (EHR)-integrated survivorship care plan (SCP) templates that incorporate partial auto-population. We developed EHR-integrated data collection tools (e.g., dashboards; SmartForm, and registry) to facilitate data analytics, personalized patient referrals, and reports to the Commission on Cancer (CoC). We report to the CoC on SCP delivery, dietitian encounters, and DEXA scans. For the last decade, our Cancer Survivorship Institute has aligned the efforts of clinicians, researchers, and educators. The institute promotes evidence-based care, high-impact research, and state-of-the-science educational programs for professionals, survivors, and the community. Future plans include expansion of clinical services and funding for applied research centered on the unique needs of post-treatment cancer survivors. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: The survivorship programs at Northwestern Medicine and the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Cancer Center underscore the imperative for comprehensive, coordinated, and sustainable survivorship care to address the needs of increasing numbers of cancer survivors, with a focus on evidence-based clinical practices, associated research, and educational initiatives.

Seamless Integration of Computer-Adaptive Patient Reported Outcomes into an Electronic Health Record

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have become an essential component of quality measurement, quality improvement, and capturing the voice of the patient in clinical care. In 2004, the National Institutes of Health endorsed the importance of PROs by initiating the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS), which leverages computer-adaptive tests (CATs) to reduce patient burden while maintaining measurement precision. Historically, PROMIS CATs have been used in a large number of research studies outside the electronic health record (EHR), but growing demand for clinical use of PROs requires creative information technology solutions for integration into the EHR.

OBJECTIVES

This paper describes the introduction of PROMIS CATs into the Epic Systems EHR at a large academic medical center using a tight integration; we describe the process of creating a secure, automatic connection between the application programming interface (API) which scores and selects CAT items and Epic.

METHODS

The overarching strategy was to make CATs appear indistinguishable from conventional measures to clinical users, patients, and the EHR software itself. We implemented CATs in Epic without compromising patient data security by creating custom middleware software within the organization's existing middleware framework. This software communicated between the Assessment Center API for item selection and scoring and Epic for item presentation and results. The middleware software seamlessly administered CATs alongside fixed-length, conventional PROs while maintaining the display characteristics and functions of other Epic measures, including automatic display of PROMIS scores in the patient's chart. Pilot implementation revealed differing workflows for clinicians using the software.

RESULTS

The middleware software was adopted in 27 clinics across the hospital system. In the first 2 years of hospital-wide implementation, 793 providers collected 70,446 PROs from patients using this system.

CONCLUSION

This project demonstrated the importance of regular communication across interdisciplinary teams in the design and development of clinical software. It also demonstrated that implementation relies on buy-in from clinical partners as they integrate new tools into their existing clinical workflow.

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS): feasibility, usability, and pilot testing of a novel method

BACKGROUND

Systematic approaches are needed to accurately characterize the dynamic use of implementation strategies and how they change over time. We describe the development and preliminary evaluation of the Longitudinal Implementation Strategy Tracking System (LISTS), a novel methodology to document and characterize implementation strategies use over time.

METHODS

The development and initial evaluation of the LISTS method was conducted within the Improving the Management of SymPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Research Consortium (supported by funding provided through the NCI Cancer MoonshotSM). The IMPACT Consortium includes a coordinating center and three hybrid effectiveness-implementation studies testing routine symptom surveillance and integration of symptom management interventions in ambulatory oncology care settings. LISTS was created to increase the precision and reliability of dynamic changes in implementation strategy use over time. It includes three components: (1) a strategy assessment, (2) a data capture platform, and (3) a User's Guide. An iterative process between implementation researchers and practitioners was used to develop, pilot test, and refine the LISTS method prior to evaluating its use in three stepped-wedge trials within the IMPACT Consortium. The LISTS method was used with research and practice teams for approximately 12 months and subsequently we evaluated its feasibility, acceptability, and usability using established instruments and novel questions developed specifically for this study.

RESULTS

Initial evaluation of LISTS indicates that it is a feasible and acceptable method, with content validity, for characterizing and tracking the use of implementation strategies over time. Users of LISTS highlighted several opportunities for improving the method for use in future and more diverse implementation studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The LISTS method was developed collaboratively between researchers and practitioners to fill a research gap in systematically tracking implementation strategy use and modifications in research studies and other implementation efforts. Preliminary feedback from LISTS users indicate it is feasible and usable. Potential future developments include additional features, fewer data elements, and interoperability with alternative data entry platforms. LISTS offers a systematic method that encourages the use of common data elements to support data analysis across sites and synthesis across studies. Future research is needed to further adapt, refine, and evaluate the LISTS method in studies with employ diverse study designs and address varying delivery settings, health conditions, and intervention types.

Systematic symptom management in the IMPACT Consortium: rationale and design for 3 effectiveness-implementation trials

Cancer and its treatment produce deleterious symptoms across the phases of care. Poorly controlled symptoms negatively affect quality of life and result in increased health-care needs and hospitalization. The Improving the Management of symPtoms during And following Cancer Treatment (IMPACT) Consortium was created to develop 3 large-scale, systematic symptom management systems, deployed through electronic health record platforms, and to test them in pragmatic, randomized, hybrid effectiveness and implementation trials. Here, we describe the IMPACT Consortium's conceptual framework, its organizational components, and plans for evaluation. The study designs and lessons learned are highlighted in the context of disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.