Patient Perspectives on the Completion and Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Surveys in Routine Clinical Care for Heart Failure

Clinical Impact of Routine Assessment of Patient-Reported Health Status in Heart Failure Clinic: The PRO-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

The impact of routine clinic use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures on clinical outcomes in patients with heart failure (HF) has not been well-characterized. We tested if clinic-based use of a disease-specific PRO improves patient-reported quality of life at 1 year.

METHODS

The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic) was an open-label, parallel, patient-level randomized clinical trial of routine PRO assessment or usual care at an academic HF clinic between August 30, 2021, and June 30, 2022, with 1 year of follow-up. In the PRO assessment arm, participants completed the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) at each HF clinic visit, and results were shared with their treating clinician. The usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 at randomization and 1 year later, which was not shared with the treating clinician. The primary outcome was the KCCQ-12 overall summary score (OSS) between 12 and 15 months after randomization. Secondary outcomes included domains of the KCCQ-12, hospitalization and emergency department visit rates, HF medication therapy, clinic visit frequency, and testing rates.

RESULTS

Across 17 clinicians, 1248 participants were enrolled and randomized to PRO assessment (n=624) or usual care (n=624). The median age was 63.9 years (interquartile range [IQR], 51.8-72.8), 38.9% were women, and the median baseline KCCQ-12 OSS was 82.3 (IQR, 58.3-94.8). Final KCCQ-12 (available in 87.9% of the PRO arm and 85.1% in usual care; P=0.16) median OSS were 87.5 (IQR, 68.8-96.9) in the PRO arm and 87.6 (IQR, 69.7-96.9) in the usual care arm with a baseline-adjusted mean difference of 0.2 ([95% CI, -1.7 to 2.0]; P=0.85). The results were consistent across prespecified subgroups. A post hoc analysis demonstrated a significant interaction with greater benefit among participants with a baseline KCCQ-12 OSS of 60 to 80 but not in less or more symptomatic participants. No significant differences were found in 1-year mortality, hospitalizations, emergency department visits, medication therapy, clinic follow-up, or testing rates between arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Routine PRO assessment in HF clinic visits did not impact patient-reported quality of life or other clinical outcomes. Alternate strategies and settings for embedding PROs into routine clinical care should be tested.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

The value of using patient-reported outcomes for health screening during long-term follow-up after paediatric stem cell transplantation for nonmalignant diseases

INTRODUCTION

The assessment of using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) within comprehensive care follow-up programmes, specifically focused on health screening, remains largely unexplored. PROs were implemented in our late effects and comprehensive care programme after paediatric hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) for nonmalignant diseases. The programme focuses solely on screening of physical and mental health and on discussing PROs during the consultation.

METHODS

The primary method of this study was semistructured interviews to explore the perspective of both patients and healthcare providers' (HCP) on the use of PROs, which were thematically analyzed. Additionally, an explorative quantitative approach with patient-reported experience measures (PREMS) was used, with a pretest-posttest design, to assess whether the use of PROs was accompanied by more patient-centred care.

RESULTS

From the patient-interviews (N = 15) four themes were extracted: use of PROs (1) help to discuss topics; (2) make the patients feel understood; (3) create a moment of self-reflection; and (4) make consultations more efficient. Pre- and postimplementation analysis of PREMs (N = 40) did not show significant differences in terms of patient-centeredness.

CONCLUSION

Our results demonstrate the added value of integrating PROs for health screening purposes within the long-term follow-up programme after paediatric HSCT, as perceived by both patient and HCP. With the active use of PROs, patients are stimulated to consciously assess their health status.

PATIENT CONTRIBUTION

This study included patients as participants. Caregivers were approached if patients were below a certain age. Additionally, preliminary results were shared with all patients (including nonparticipants) during a patient conference day.

Person-Centered Models for Cardiovascular Care: A Review of the Evidence: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association

Cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death and disability in the United States and globally. Disease burden continues to escalate despite technological advances associated with improved life expectancy and quality of life. As a result, longer life is associated with multiple chronic cardiovascular conditions. Clinical guidelines provide recommendations without considering prevalent scenarios of multimorbidity and health system complexities that affect practical adoption. The diversity of personal preferences, cultures, and lifestyles that make up one's social and environmental context is often overlooked in ongoing care planning for symptom management and health behavior support, hindering adoption and compromising patient outcomes, particularly in groups at high risk. The purpose of this scientific statement was to describe the characteristics and reported outcomes in existing person-centered care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions. We conducted a scoping review using Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, Web of Science, CINAHL Complete, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials through Ovid, and ClinicalTrials.gov from 2010 to 2022. A range of study designs with a defined aim to systematically evaluate care delivery models for selected cardiovascular conditions were included. Models were selected on the basis of their stated use of evidence-based guidelines, clinical decision support tools, systematic evaluation processes, and inclusion of the patient's perspective in defining the plan of care. Findings reflected variation in methodological approach, outcome measures, and care processes used across models. Evidence to support optimal care delivery models remains limited by inconsistencies in approach, variation in reimbursement, and inability of health systems to meet the needs of patients with chronic, complex cardiovascular conditions.

Evaluating the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic: A Qualitative Assessment

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) may improve care for patients with heart failure. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) is a patient survey that captures symptom frequency, symptom burden, physical limitations, social limitations, and quality of life. Despite the utility of PROs and the KCCQ-12, the implementation and routine use of these measures can be difficult. We conducted an evaluation of clinician perceptions of the KCCQ-12 to identify barriers and facilitators to implementation into clinical practice.

METHODS

We conducted interviews with cardiologists from 4 institutions across the United States and Canada (n=16) and observed clinic visits at 1 institution in Northern California (n=5). Qualitative analysis was conducted in 2 rounds: (1) rapid analysis constructed around major themes related to the aims of the study and (2) content analysis with codes derived from the rapid analysis and implementation science.

RESULTS

Most heart failure physicians and advanced practice clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 was acceptable, appropriate, and useful in clinical care. Clinician engagement efforts, trialability, and the straightforward design of the KCCQ-12 facilitated its use in clinical care. Further opportunities identified to facilitate implementation include more streamlined integration into the electronic health record and comprehensive staff education on PROs. Participants highlighted that the KCCQ-12 was useful in clinic visits to improve the consistency of patient history taking, focus patient-clinician conversations, collect a more accurate account of patient quality of life, track trends in patient well-being over time, and refine clinical decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

In this qualitative study, clinicians reported that the KCCQ-12 enhanced several aspects of heart failure patient care. Use of the KCCQ-12 was facilitated by a robust clinician engagement campaign and the design of the KCCQ-12 itself. Future implementation of PROs in heart failure clinic should focus on streamlining electronic health record integration and providing additional staff education on the value of PROs.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical, Mental, and Social Health Measures After Left Ventricular Assist Device Implantation and Implications for Patient Care

BACKGROUND

A better understanding is needed of the burdens and benefits of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation on patients' physical, mental, and social well-being. The purpose of this report was to evaluate the validity of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures for LVAD patients and to estimate clinically important score differences likely to have implications for patient treatment or care.

METHODS

Adults from 12 sites across all US geographic regions completed PROMIS measures ≥3 months post-LVAD implantation. Other patient-reported outcomes (eg, Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 item), clinician ratings, performance tests, and clinical adverse events were used as validity indicators. Criterion and construct validity and clinically important differences were estimated with Pearson correlations, ANOVA methods, and Cohen d effect sizes.

RESULTS

Participants' (n=648) mean age was 58 years, and the majority were men (78%), non-Hispanic White people (68%), with dilated cardiomyopathy (55%), long-term implantation strategy (57%), and New York Heart Association classes I and II (54%). Most correlations between validity indicators and PROMIS measures were medium to large (≥0.3; p<0.01). Most validity analyses demonstrated medium-to-large effect sizes (≥0.5) and clinically important differences in mean PROMIS scores (up to 14.8 points). Ranges of minimally important differences for 4 PROMIS measures were as follows: fatigue (3-5 points), physical function (2-3), ability to participate in social roles and activities (3), and satisfaction with social roles and activities (3-5).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings provide convincing evidence for the relevance and validity of PROMIS physical, mental, and social health measures in patients from early-to-late post-LVAD implantation. Findings may inform shared decision-making when patients consider treatment options. Patients with an LVAD, their caregivers, and their clinicians should find it useful to interpret the meaning of their PROMIS scores in relation to the general population, that is, PROMIS may help to monitor a return to normalcy in everyday life.

Impact of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Heart Failure Clinic on Clinician Health Status Assessment and Patient Experience: A Substudy of the PRO-HF Trial

BACKGROUND

Clinicians typically estimate heart failure health status using the New York Heart Association Class, which is often discordant with patient-reported health status. It is unknown whether collecting patient-reported health status improves the accuracy of clinician assessments.

METHODS

The PRO-HF trial (Patient-Reported Outcomes in Heart Failure Clinic) is a randomized, nonblinded trial evaluating routine Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12 (KCCQ-12) collection in heart failure clinic. Patients with a scheduled visit to Stanford heart failure clinic between August 30, 2021 and June 30, 2022 were enrolled and randomized to KCCQ-12 assessment or usual care. In this prespecified substudy, we evaluated whether access to the KCCQ-12 improved the accuracy of clinicians' New York Heart Association assessment or patients' perspectives on their clinician interaction. We surveyed clinicians regarding their patients' New York Heart Association Class, quality of life, and symptom frequency. Clinician responses were compared with patients' KCCQ-12 responses. We surveyed patients regarding their clinician interactions.

RESULTS

Of the 1248 enrolled patients, 1051 (84.2%) attended a visit during the substudy. KCCQ-12 results were given to the clinicians treating the 528 patients in the KCCQ-12 arm; the 523 patients in the usual care arm completed the KCCQ-12 without the results being shared. The correlation between New York Heart Association Class and KCCQ-12 Overall Summary Score was stronger when clinicians had access to the KCCQ-12 (r=-0.73 versus r=-0.61, P<0.001). More patients in the KCCQ-12 arm strongly agreed that their clinician understood their symptoms (95.2% versus 89.7% of respondents [odds ratio' 2.27; 95% CI' 1.32-3.87]). However, patients in both arms reported similar quality of clinician communication and therapeutic alliance.

CONCLUSIONS

Collecting the KCCQ-12 in heart failure clinic improved clinicians' accuracy of health status assessment; correspondingly, patients believed their clinicians better understood their symptoms.

REGISTRATION

URL: https://www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov; Unique identifier: NCT04164004.

Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network: Summary of Results and Future Directions

Heart failure remains among the most common and morbid health conditions. The Heart Failure Strategically Focused Research Network (HF SFRN) was funded by the American Heart Association to facilitate collaborative, high-impact research in the field of heart failure across the domains of basic, clinical, and population research. The Network was also charged with developing training opportunities for young investigators. Four centers were funded in 2016: Duke University, University of Colorado, University of Utah, and Massachusetts General Hospital-University of Massachusetts. This report summarizes the aims of each center and major research accomplishments, as well as training outcomes from the HF SFRN.

The development and initial validation of the PROMIS®+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles

AIMS

Heart failure (HF) is a common and morbid condition impacting multiple health domains. We previously reported the development of the PROMIS®-Plus-HF (PROMIS+HF) profile measure, including universal and HF-specific items. To facilitate use, we developed shorter, PROMIS+HF profiles intended for research and clinical use.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Candidate items were selected based on psychometric properties and symptom range coverage. HF clinicians (n = 43) rated item importance and clinical actionability. Based on these results, we developed the PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles with summary scores (0-100) for overall, physical, mental, and social health. In a cross-sectional sample (n = 600), we measured internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha and Spearman-Brown), test-retest reliability (intraclass coefficient; n = 100), known-groups validity via New York Heart Association (NYHA) class, and convergent validity with Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) scores. In a longitudinal sample (n = 75), we evaluated responsiveness of baseline/follow-up scores by calculating mean differences and Cohen's d and comparing with paired t-tests. Internal consistency was good to excellent (α 0.82-0.94) for all PROMIS+HF-27 scores and acceptable to good (α/Spearman-Brown 0.60-0.85) for PROMIS+HF-10 scores. Test-retest intraclass coefficients were acceptable to excellent (0.75-0.97). Both profiles demonstrated known-groups validity for the overall and physical health summary scores based on NYHA class, and convergent validity for nearly all scores compared with KCCQ scores. In the longitudinal sample, we demonstrated responsiveness for PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 overall and physical summary scores. For the PROMIS+HF overall summary scores, a group-based increase of 7.6-8.3 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.40-0.42). For the PROMIS+HF physical summary scores, a group-based increase of 5.0-5.9 points represented a small to medium change (Cohen's d = 0.29-0.35).

CONCLUSIONS

The PROMIS+HF-27 and PROMIS+HF-10 profiles demonstrated good psychometric characteristics with evidence of responsiveness for overall and physical health. These new measures can facilitate patient-centred research and clinical care, such as improving care quality through symptom monitoring, facilitating shared decision-making, evaluating quality of care, assessing new interventions, and monitoring during the initiation and titration of guideline-directed medical therapy.

Electronic Health Records and Heart Failure

Increasing the global adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) is transforming the delivery of clinical care. EHRs offer tools that are useful in the care of heart failure ranging from individualized risk stratification and decision support to population management. EHR tools can be combined to target specific areas of need such as the standardization of care, improved quality of care, and resource management. Leveraging EHR functionality has been shown to improve select outcomes including guideline-based therapies, reduction in adverse clinical outcomes, and improved cost-efficiency. Central to success is participation by clinicians and patients in the design and feedback of EHR tools.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients with Cardiomyopathy

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

As medicine strives to become more patient-centered, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are often used to describe patients' symptoms, function, and quality of life. This review describes the key concepts of PROs specific to heart failure in clinical trials and their potential role in clinical practice.

RECENT FINDINGS

As the Food and Drug Administration has increasingly emphasized how it values PROs as clinical outcome assessments, including its recent qualification of the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), clinical trials have increasingly used them to evaluate novel therapies. This has been enhanced by an increasing understanding of how to interpret KCCQ scores. Its use in clinical practice, including the importance of providers sharing results with their patients, is just emerging. PROs provide unique insights into the benefits of treatment from patients' perspectives and while their role in clinical care is just beginning, they offer an important opportunity to improve the patient-centeredness of care.