1
|
Almeida AM, Lima L, Martins T. Monitoring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Self-management of Postsurgical Symptoms in Oncology: A Scoping Review. Cancer Nurs 2024; Publish Ahead of Print:00002820-990000000-00147. [PMID: 37232525 DOI: 10.1097/ncc.0000000000001250] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Surgery is used widely for cancer treatment, and in most types, after discharge, patients usually report multiple symptoms, which, if not controlled, can put postoperative recovery at risk. Understanding which patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be monitored could have a significant impact on reducing the symptom burden associated with cancer and its treatment by playing a pivotal role in developing symptom self-management plans and designing tailored approaches to optimize patients' symptom self-management behaviors. OBJECTIVE To map the PROs used for patients' postsurgical symptom self-management after hospital discharge following cancer surgery. INTERVENTIONS/METHODS Our scoping review process was guided by the steps for conducting scoping reviews recommended by the Joanna Briggs Institute. RESULTS The search identified 97 potentially relevant studies, with 27 articles meeting the inclusion criteria. The most frequently assessed and monitored PROs were problems with surgical wounds, more general physical symptoms, psychological functioning outcomes, and quality of life. CONCLUSIONS Our results showed an overall uniformity among the PROs selected to be monitored in surgical cancer patients after hospital discharge. Monitoring through electronic platforms is widely used and seems useful to self-manage symptoms and optimize the recovery of cancer patients after discharge following surgery. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE This study provides knowledge about PROs that can be applied in oncologic patients after surgery to self-report their symptoms following discharge.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ana M Almeida
- Author Affiliations: Institute of Biomedical Sciences Abel Salazar of the University of Porto-ICBAS (Mrs Almeida); Imaging Sciences and Radiooncology Department, Portuguese Institute of Oncology of Porto (Mrs Almeida); Nursing School of Porto (Drs Martins and Lima); and Center for Health Technology and Services Research, (CINTESIS@RISE)(Drs Martins and Lima), Porto, Portugal
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
2
|
Anderson NE, Kyte D, McMullan C, Cockwell P, Aiyegbusi OL, Verdi R, Calvert M. Global use of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in nephrology: a mixed methods study. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e070927. [PMID: 37438075 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-070927] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/14/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to support the management of patients with chronic kidney disease is increasing. This mixed-methods study aimed to comprehensively identify existing and developing ePRO systems, used in nephrology settings globally, ascertaining key characteristics and factors for successful implementation. STUDY DESIGN ePRO systems and developers were identified through a scoping review of the literature and contact with field experts. Developers were invited to participate in a structured survey, to summarise key system characteristics including: (1) system objectives, (2) population, (3) PRO measures used, (4) level of automation, (5) reporting, (6) integration into workflow and (7) links to electronic health records/national registries. Subsequent semistructured interviews were conducted to explore responses. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Eligible systems included those being developed or used in nephrology settings to assess ePROs and summarise results to care providers. System developers included those with a key responsibility for aspects of the design, development or implementation of an eligible system. ANALYTICAL APPROACH Structured survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts were analysed using Codebook Thematic Analysis using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS Fifteen unique ePRO systems were identified across seven countries; 10 system developers completed the structured survey and 7 participated in semistructured interviews. Despite system heterogeneity, reported features required for effective implementation included early and sustained patient involvement, clinician champions and expanding existing electronic platforms to integrate ePROs. Systems demonstrated several common features, with the majority being implemented within research settings, thereby affecting system implementation readiness for real-world application. CONCLUSIONS There has been considerable research investment in ePRO systems. The findings of this study outline key system features and factors to support the successful implementation of ePROs in routine kidney care.Cite Now.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Elizabeth Anderson
- Institute of Applied Heath Research, Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Research, Development and Innovation, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Derek Kyte
- Institute of Applied Heath Research, Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- School of Allied Health and Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK
| | - Christel McMullan
- Institute of Applied Heath Research, Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR SRMRC, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Paul Cockwell
- Institute of Applied Heath Research, Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Institute of Applied Heath Research, Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Rav Verdi
- Patient Partner, Institute of Applied Health Research,Centre for Patient-Reported Outcomes Research (CPROR), University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Institute of Applied Heath Research, Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration, West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR SRMRC, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Blood and Transplant Research Unit (BTRU) in Precision Transplant and Cellular Therapeutics, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Birmingham Health Partners Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Schick-Makaroff K, Klarenbach S, Kwon JY, Cohen SR, Czupryn J, Lee L, Pauly R, MacRae JM, Forde B, Sawatzky R. Electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical kidney practice (ePRO Kidney): a process evaluation of educational support for clinicians. Ther Adv Chronic Dis 2023; 14:20406223231173624. [PMID: 37332391 PMCID: PMC10272664 DOI: 10.1177/20406223231173624] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/21/2022] [Accepted: 04/17/2023] [Indexed: 06/20/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives. Objectives We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care. Design A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20). Methods Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation. Results Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians. Conclusion Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care. Registration NCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kara Schick-Makaroff
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 4-116 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB T6G 1C9, Canada
| | - Scott Klarenbach
- Division of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Jae-Yung Kwon
- School of Nursing, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC, Canada
| | - S. Robin Cohen
- Departments of Oncology and Medicine, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada
- Lady Davis Research Institute of the Jewish General Hospital, Montreal, QC, Canada
| | - Joanna Czupryn
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Loretta Lee
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Robert Pauly
- Division of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | | | - Bruce Forde
- Cambian Business Services, Surrey, BC, Canada
| | - Richard Sawatzky
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada
- Centre for Health Evaluation & Outcome Sciences, St. Paul’s Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada
- Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Anderson NE, McMullan C, Calvert M, Dutton M, Cockwell P, Aiyegbusi OL, Kyte D. Using patient-reported outcome measures during the management of patients with end-stage kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis (PROM-HD): a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e052629. [PMID: 34446501 PMCID: PMC8395280 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-052629] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/27/2021] [Accepted: 07/06/2021] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Patients undergoing haemodialysis report elevated symptoms and reduced health-related quality of life, and often prioritise improvements in psychosocial well-being over long-term survival. Systematic collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may help support tailored healthcare and improve outcomes. This study investigates the methodological basis for routine PRO assessment, particularly using electronic formats (ePROs), to maximise the potential of PRO use, through exploration of the experiences, views and perceptions of patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) on implementation and use of PROs in haemodialysis settings. STUDY DESIGN Qualitative study. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS Semistructured interviews with 22 patients undergoing haemodialysis, and 17 HCPs in the UK. ANALYTICAL APPROACH Transcripts were analysed deductively using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and inductively using thematic analysis. RESULTS For effective implementation, the potential value of PROs needs to be demonstrated empirically to stakeholders. Any intervention must remain flexible enough for individual and aggregate use, measuring outcomes that matter to patients and clinicians, while maintaining operational simplicity. Any implementation must sit within a wider framework of education and support for both patients and clinicians who demonstrate varying previous experience of using PROs and often confuse related concepts. Implementation plans must recognise the multidimensionality of end-stage kidney disease and treatment by haemodialysis, while acknowledging the associated challenges of delivering care in a highly specialised environment. To support implementation, careful consideration needs to be given to barriers and facilitators including effective leadership, the role of champions, effective launch and ongoing evaluation. CONCLUSIONS Using the CFIR to explore the experiences, views and perceptions of key stakeholders, this study identified key factors at organisational and individual levels which could assist effective implementation of ePROs in haemodialysis settings. Further research will be required to evaluate subsequent ePRO interventions to demonstrate the impact and benefit to the dialysis community.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Elzabeth Anderson
- Research and Development, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Christel McMullan
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR SMRC, University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR SMRC, University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mary Dutton
- Research and Development, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Paul Cockwell
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Olalekan L Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University of Birmingham and University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
- Centre for Regulatory Science and Innovation, Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham, UK
- NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West Midlands, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Derek Kyte
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- School of Allied Health and Community, University of Worcester, Worcester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Schick-Makaroff K, Levay A, Thompson S, Flynn R, Sawatzky R, Thummapol O, Klarenbach S, Karimi-Dehkordi M, Greenhalgh J. An Evidence-Based Theory About PRO Use in Kidney Care: A Realist Synthesis. PATIENT-PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2021; 15:21-38. [PMID: 34109571 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-021-00530-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/18/2021] [Indexed: 12/11/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is international interest on the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in nephrology. OBJECTIVES Our objectives were to develop a kidney-specific program theory about use of PROs in nephrology that may enhance person-centered care, both at individual and aggregated levels of care, and to test and refine this theory through a systematic review of the empirical literature. Together, these objectives articulate what works or does not work, for whom, and why. METHODS Realist synthesis methodology guided the electronic database and gray literature searches (in January 2017 and October 2018), screening, and extraction conducted independently by three reviewers. Sources included all nephrology patients and/or practitioners. Through a process of extraction and synthesis, each included source was examined to assess how contexts may trigger mechanisms to influence specific outcomes. RESULTS After screening 19,961 references, 84 theoretical and 34 empirical sources were used. PROs are proposed to be useful for providing nephrology care through three types of use. The first type is use of individual-level PRO data at point of care, receiving the majority of theoretical and empirical explorations. Clinician use to support person-centered care, and patient use to support patient engagement, are purported to improve satisfaction, health, and quality of life. Contextual factors specific to the kidney care setting that may influence the use of PRO data include the complexity of kidney disease symptom burden, symptoms that may be stigmatized, comorbidities, and time or administrative constraints in dialysis settings. Electronic collection of PROs may facilitate PRO use given these contexts. The second type is use of aggregated PRO data at point of care, including public reporting of PROs to inform decisions at point of care and improve quality of care, and use of PROs for treatment decisions. The third type is use of aggregated PRO data by organizations, including publicly available PRO data to compare centers. In single-payer systems, regular collection of PROs by dialysis centers can be achieved through economic incentives. Both the second and third types of PRO use include pressures that may trigger quality improvement processes. CONCLUSION The current state of the evidence is primarily theoretical. There is pressing need for empirical research to improve the evidence-base of PRO use at individual and aggregated levels of nephrology care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kara Schick-Makaroff
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Third Floor, Edmonton Clinica Health Academy, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
| | - Adrienne Levay
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Third Floor, Edmonton Clinica Health Academy, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Stephanie Thompson
- Division of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Rachel Flynn
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Third Floor, Edmonton Clinica Health Academy, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Richard Sawatzky
- School of Nursing, Trinity Western University, Langley, BC, Canada.,Centre for Health Evaluation & Outcome Sciences, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, Canada.,Sahlgrenska Academy, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden
| | - Onouma Thummapol
- Faculty of Nursing Science, Assumption University of Thailand, Bangkok, Thailand
| | - Scott Klarenbach
- Division of Nephrology, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada
| | - Mehri Karimi-Dehkordi
- Departments of Medicine and Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hancock S, Preston N, Jones H, Gadoud A. Telehealth in palliative care is being described but not evaluated: a systematic review. BMC Palliat Care 2019; 18:114. [PMID: 31835998 PMCID: PMC6911274 DOI: 10.1186/s12904-019-0495-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 71] [Impact Index Per Article: 14.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2019] [Accepted: 11/25/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Telehealth is growing and its application in palliative care is seen as a solution to pressures on palliative care services. A 2010 UK review reported growing awareness of telehealth in palliative care but a lack of evidence-based research to support its use. The primary aim of this review was to describe the current use of telehealth in palliative care in the UK and evaluate telehealth initiatives against a digital service standard. The secondary aim was to explore whether telehealth results in a reduction in emergency care access. METHODS Systematic review of the literature with thematic synthesis. Records were screened and data extracted by two reviewers. EMBASE, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Psychinfo and Cochrane central register for controlled trials were searched using pre-defined terms. Hand searching of conference literature, thesis databases and citation tracking was also conducted. The protocol for this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO and can be found at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42017080038. RESULTS The search identified 3807 titles and 30 studies were included in the review. Telehealth was used to support patients and carers, electronic record keeping and professional education. Notably, the number of home telemonitoring initiatives for patients had increased from the 2010 review. Despite this variety, many studies were small scale, descriptive and provided little evidence of evaluation of the service. Ten papers were sufficiently detailed to allow appraisal against the digital service standard and only one of these met all of the criteria to some extent. Seven studies made reference to emergency care access. CONCLUSIONS Although there is growth of telehealth services, there remains a lack of evaluation and robust study design meaning conclusions regarding the clinical application of telehealth in palliative care cannot be drawn. There is insufficient evidence to appreciate any benefit of telehealth on access to emergency care. Future work is needed to evaluate the use of telehealth in palliative care and improve telehealth design in line with digital service standards.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie Hancock
- International Observatory on End of Life Care, Furness Building, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.
| | - Nancy Preston
- International Observatory on End of Life Care, Furness Building, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK
| | - Helen Jones
- St Catherine's Hospice, Lostock Hall, Lostock Lane, Preston, PR5 5XU, UK
| | - Amy Gadoud
- International Observatory on End of Life Care, Furness Building, Lancaster University, Lancaster, LA1 4YG, UK.,Trinity Hospice, Low Moor Road, Bispham, Blackpool, FY2 OGB, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Aresi G, Rayner HC, Hassan L, Burton JO, Mitra S, Sanders C, van der Veer SN. Reasons for Underreporting of Uremic Pruritus in People With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Qualitative Study. J Pain Symptom Manage 2019; 58:578-586.e2. [PMID: 31228535 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2019.06.010] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2019] [Revised: 06/11/2019] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
CONTEXT Uremic pruritus, or itch, is common in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and has a negative impact on their lives and well-being. However, for reasons currently unknown, itch often remains unreported and therefore untreated. OBJECTIVES To explore reasons for underreporting of itch to provide pointers for improving itch reporting and management in people with CKD. METHODS We interviewed adult patients with CKD who self-reported experiencing itching in the last three years (n = 25), nephrologists (n = 10), and nurses (n = 12) from three kidney services in the U.K. Topic guides were informed by previous studies and a theoretical model of self-regulation. We conducted a thematic analysis of verbatim transcripts using framework analysis. RESULTS We identified the following three main themes reflecting factors that may influence whether itch is reported: knowledge on causes and treatment of itch (lack of awareness of the relationship between itch and CKD, and lack of knowledge of treatment options); attitudes toward importance of itch as a health issue (patients' and clinicians' attitudes); and prompts for itch assessment during consultations (routine practice, itch as a marker, and itch severity). CONCLUSION Underreporting of itch is related to patients being unaware of its causes, accepting it as something to live with, prioritizing other health issues, and the length and timing of consultations. Health care professionals' assessment and management of itch vary widely and are not necessarily evidence-based. Better patient information, development of clinical practice guidelines, and incorporation of routine symptom assessments into care may improve itch reporting and management in people with CKD.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Giovanni Aresi
- Centre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Hugh C Rayner
- University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - Lamiece Hassan
- Centre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - James O Burton
- University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust, Leicester, UK
| | - Sandip Mitra
- Manchester Academy of Health Sciences Centre, Manchester University Foundation Hospitals, Manchester, UK; NIHR Devices for Dignity Med Tech Co-operative, Sheffield, UK
| | - Caroline Sanders
- National Institute for Health Research School for Primary Care Research, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health Research Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Sabine N van der Veer
- Centre for Health Informatics, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Schick-Makaroff K, Tate K, Molzahn A. Use of Electronic Patient Reported Outcomes in Clinical Nephrology Practice: A Qualitative Pilot Study. Can J Kidney Health Dis 2019; 6:2054358119879451. [PMID: 31632681 PMCID: PMC6769209 DOI: 10.1177/2054358119879451] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/29/2019] [Accepted: 08/14/2019] [Indexed: 11/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) in clinical practice can offer clinicians important information about the impact of illness on patients and their quality of life. Electronic reporting of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) provide quick access of this information to the health care team. Although this type of information is acknowledged to be critical to not only improving the quality of care but also involving patients in care planning, little is known about how ePRO reports can be used in nephrology clinics to enhance person-centered care. Objective The purpose of this research was to examine how ePROs were used in home dialysis clinics. Design A pilot qualitative research design was employed. Setting The study was conducted in 2 home dialysis clinics over 6 months. Patients A total of 99 home dialysis patients and 12 nurses participated in the study. Measurements Patients completed 2 ePROs (the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System revised for renal patients and Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36) prior to their clinic appointment, and results were given to their health care providers. Nurses saw patients first, along with ePRO data. Patients and nurses consented to having their clinic interactions observed and audio recorded (n = 169). Methods Summative content analysis was used to synthesize the data. Results The ePRO data were used to discuss 24 specific issues (brought up a total of 456 times over 165 interactions), most frequently: itchiness (n = 55), appetite (n = 51), problems with sleeping (n = 50), tiredness (n = 46), and shortness of breath (n = 45) as well as overall patient health and the general effects of kidney disease on the patient's daily life. The issues that most often prompted a change in care plan, referral to another health care professional, or further assessment included itching (n = 23), depression (n = 18), tiredness (n = 13), sleeping (n = 12), anxiety (n = 11), and disease interfering with daily life (n = 7). Limitations Limitations include the duration of follow-up (6 months), the restriction to 2 home dialysis clinics, and the potential for the Hawthorne effect due to observation. Conclusions Use of these ePROs in the home dialysis clinics provided useful information that guided focused assessments and augmented standard assessments to support person-centered care. Further studies are warranted to identify whether this practice offers benefits over usual care.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Kaitlyn Tate
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| | - Anita Molzahn
- Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Elliott MJ, Hemmelgarn BR. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in CKD Care: The Importance of Demonstrating Need and Value. Am J Kidney Dis 2019; 74:148-150. [PMID: 31200974 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.04.014] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2019] [Accepted: 04/13/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Meghan J Elliott
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
| | - Brenda R Hemmelgarn
- Department of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Anderson NE, Calvert M, Cockwell P, Dutton M, Kyte D. The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Treated With Maintenance Hemodialysis: A Perspective. Am J Kidney Dis 2019; 74:399-406. [PMID: 31031088 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.01.035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2018] [Accepted: 01/29/2019] [Indexed: 12/20/2022]
Abstract
There is increasing interest in the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into health care research and clinical practice for the benefit of patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis. In a research setting, PROs can be used as a patient-centered primary or secondary outcome in clinical studies. In routine care, PRO data may be used to support service delivery through benchmarking and audit or inform and enhance the care of the individual patient by improving patient-clinician communication. Despite evidence demonstrating the potential benefits of PROs and prioritization of these outcomes by patients, their use in kidney disease remains limited. Although there are significant methodological and operational challenges for the widespread integration of PROs, there is now consensus that this area should be at the forefront of clinical research and implementation science. We discuss the current use of PROs for patients with end-stage kidney disease receiving hemodialysis and identify a roadmap for increasing the evidence base and introducing PROs into mainstream clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Elizabeth Anderson
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Research and Development, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Cockwell
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mary Dutton
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Research and Development, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Derek Kyte
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom; NIHR Surgical Reconstruction and Microbiology Research Centre, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Aiyegbusi OL, Kyte D, Cockwell P, Marshall T, Dutton M, Walmsley-Allen N, Slade A, McMullan C, Calvert M. Patient and Clinician Perspectives on Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in the Management of Advanced CKD: A Qualitative Study. Am J Kidney Dis 2019; 74:167-178. [PMID: 31003865 DOI: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2019.02.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 26] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/22/2018] [Accepted: 02/06/2019] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
Abstract
RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE Chronic kidney disease (CKD) can substantially affect patients' health-related quality of life. Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) may capture symptoms and health-related quality of life and assist in the management of CKD. This study explored patient and clinician views on the use of a renal ePROM system. STUDY DESIGN Qualitative study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS 12 patients with stage 4 or 5 CKD (non-dialysis dependent); 22 clinicians (6 CKD community nurses, 1 clinical psychologist, 10 nephrologists, 3 specialist registrars, and 2 renal surgeons) in the United Kingdom. ANALYTICAL APPROACH Semi-structured interviews and focus group discussion during which patients received paper versions of the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 and the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale-Renal to exemplify the type of content that could be included in an ePROM. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts. RESULTS 4 themes were identified: (1) general opinions of PROMs, (2) potential benefits and applications of an ePROM system, (3) practical considerations for the implementation of ePROMs, and (4) concerns, barriers, and facilitators. Patients were willing to complete ePROMs on a regular basis as part of their care despite clinician concerns about patient burden. Patients assessed the questionnaires favorably. Clinicians suggested that the extent of adoption of renal ePROM systems in routine clinical settings should be based on evidence of significant impact on patient outcomes. Clinicians were concerned that an ePROM system may raise patient expectations to unrealistic levels and expose clinicians to the risk for litigation. Patients and clinicians identified potential benefits and highlighted issues and concerns that need to be addressed to ensure the successful implementation of the renal ePROM system. LIMITATIONS Transferability of the findings may be limited because only English-speaking participants were recruited to the study. CONCLUSIONS A renal ePROM system may play a supportive role in the routine clinical management of patients with advanced CKD if the concerns of clinicians and patients can be sufficiently addressed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom.
| | - Derek Kyte
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals, Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Paul Cockwell
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Tom Marshall
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Mary Dutton
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Natalie Walmsley-Allen
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Anita Slade
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Christel McMullan
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom; Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Edgbaston, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Anderson NE, Calvert M, Cockwell P, Dutton M, Aiyegbusi OL, Kyte D. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote quality of care in the management of patients with established kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis in the UK (PROM-HD): a qualitative study protocol. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e021532. [PMID: 30373779 PMCID: PMC6224733 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-021532] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patients undergoing haemodialysis (HD) for end-stage kidney disease often report a poor quality of life (QoL) and identify that improving QoL has a higher priority for them than improvements in long-term survival. Research suggests that regular collection and usage of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with chronic conditions may reduce hospitalisation, improve QoL and overall survival. In the UK, despite increased use within research settings, PROMs have not been introduced into the routine clinical care for patients undergoing HD.We report the protocol for 'Using patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote quality of care in the management of patients with established kidney disease requiring treatment with haemodialysis in the UK-PROM-HD'. The study aim is to investigate the methodological basis for the use of routine PROMs assessment, particularly using electronic formats (ePROMs) within clinical and research settings, to maximise the potential of PROM use in the management of the care of this patient group. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The project will use qualitative methodology to explore, by thematic analysis, the views, perceptions and experiences of patients receiving HD and members of the HD multidisciplinary team regarding the collection and use of PROMs in routine clinical care, particularly ePROMs. This will involve interviews with up to 30 patients or until saturation is achieved and three focus group sessions with approximately 18 members of the clinical team delivering care to this patient group, which will be interpreted broadly to include both professional and non-professional staff.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nicola Elzabeth Anderson
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Paul Cockwell
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | - Mary Dutton
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
- Department of Renal Medicine, University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK
| | | | - Derek Kyte
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcomes Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Aiyegbusi OL, Kyte D, Cockwell P, Marshall T, Dutton M, Walmsley-Allen N, Auti R, Calvert M. Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Comput Biol Med 2018; 101:120-127. [DOI: 10.1016/j.compbiomed.2018.08.012] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2018] [Revised: 08/06/2018] [Accepted: 08/09/2018] [Indexed: 12/22/2022]
|
14
|
Slade A, Isa F, Kyte D, Pankhurst T, Kerecuk L, Ferguson J, Lipkin G, Calvert M. Patient reported outcome measures in rare diseases: a narrative review. Orphanet J Rare Dis 2018; 13:61. [PMID: 29688860 PMCID: PMC5914068 DOI: 10.1186/s13023-018-0810-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 117] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/20/2017] [Accepted: 04/16/2018] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Rare diseases can lead to a significant reduction in quality of life for patients and their families. Ensuring the patients voice is central to clinical decision making is key to delivering, evaluating and understanding the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to capture the patient's views about their health status and facilitate our understanding of the impact of these diseases and their treatments on patient's quality of life and symptoms. MAIN TEXT This review explores some of the current issues around the utilisation of PROMs in rare diseases, including small patient populations and dearth of valid PROMs. Difficulties in validating new or current PROMs for use in clinical trials and research are discussed. The review highlights potential solutions for some of the issues outlined in the review and the implementation of PROMs in research and clinical practice are discussed. CONCLUSION Patient input throughout the development of PROMs including qualitative research is essential to ensure that outcomes that matter to people living with rare disease are appropriately captured. Given the large number of rare diseases, small numbers of patients living with each condition and the cost of instrument development, creative and pragmatic solutions to PROM development and use may be necessary. Solutions include qualitative interviews, modern psychometrics and resources such as item banking and computer adaptive testing. Use of PROMs in rare disease research and clinical practice offers the potential to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anita Slade
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK.
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
- Birmingham Health Partners, Birmingham, UK.
| | | | - Derek Kyte
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Tanya Pankhurst
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Larissa Kerecuk
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- Birmingham Childrens and Womens Hospital, Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, Birmingham, UK
| | - James Ferguson
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Graham Lipkin
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Melanie Calvert
- Centre for Patient Reported Outcome Research, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham Edgbaston, Birmingham, B15 2TT, UK
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| |
Collapse
|