Adoption of Patient-Generated Health Data in Oncology: A Report From the NCCN EHR Oncology Advisory Group

Perspectives of key stakeholders on integrating wearable sensor technology into rehabilitation care: a mixed-methods analysis

Introduction

Rehabilitation is facing a critical practice gap: Patients seek out rehabilitation services to improve their activity in daily life, yet recent work demonstrates that rehabilitation may be having a limited impact on improving this outcome due to lack of objective data on patients' activity in daily life. Remote monitoring using wearable sensor technology is a promising solution to this address this gap. The purpose of this study was to understand patient and clinician awareness of the practice gap and preferences for integrating wearable sensor technology into rehabilitation care.

Methods

This study used a mixed-methods approach consisting of surveys and 1:1 interviews with clinicians (physical and occupational therapists or assistants) employed at an outpatient rehabilitation clinic within an academic medical center and patients seeking care at this clinic. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.

Results

Data saturation was reached from nineteen clinicians and ten patients. Both clinicians and patients recognized the importance of measuring activity outside the clinic and viewed wearable sensor technology as an objective measurement tool. Most clinicians (63%) preferred continuous (vs. intermittent) monitoring within a care episode and most patients (60%) were willing to sync their sensor data as often as instructed by their provider. To maximize integration into clinical workflows, clinicians voiced a preference for availability of sensor data in the electronic health record.

Conclusions

Clinicians and patients value the use of wearable sensor technology to improve measurement of activity outside the clinic environment and expressed preferences for how this technology could best be integrated into routine rehabilitation care.

Getting ready for real-world use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) for patients with cancer: A National Comprehensive Cancer Network ePRO Workgroup paper

Electronic patient‐reported outcome (ePRO) programs may offer advantages for patients with cancer, clinicians, health care systems, payors, and society in general; but developing and maintaining an ePRO program will require cancer centers to navigate defining meaningful problems, collecting ePROs, implementing action when those ePROs require intervention without over‐burdening clinicians, and monitoring the successes and failures of their ePRO programs. Physician informaticists from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Electronic Health Record Advisory Group offer 10 guiding principles to consider when contemplating, building, or refining an ePRO program for patients with cancer.

Managing Critical Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Oncology Settings: System Development and Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Remote monitoring programs based on the collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are being increasingly adopted in oncology practices. Although PROs are a great source of patient data, the management of critical PRO data is not discussed in detail in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

This first-of-its-kind study aimed to design, describe, and evaluate a closed-loop alerting and communication system focused on managing PRO-related alerts in cancer care.

METHODS

We designed and developed a novel solution using an agile software development methodology by incrementally building new capabilities. We evaluated these new features using participatory design and the Fit between Individuals, Task, and Technology framework.

RESULTS

A total of 8 questionnaires were implemented using alerting features, resulting in an alert rate of 7.82% (36,838/470,841) with 13.28% (10,965/82,544) of the patients triggering at least one alert. Alerts were reviewed by 501 staff members spanning across 191 care teams. All the alerts were reviewed with a median response time of 1 hour (SD 185 hours) during standard business hours. The most severe (red) alerts were documented 56.83% (2592/4561) of the time, whereas unlabeled alerts were documented 27.68% (1298/4689) of the time, signaling clinician concordance with the alert thresholds.

CONCLUSIONS

A PRO-based alert and communication system has some initial benefits in reviewing clinically meaningful PRO data in a reasonable amount of time. We have discussed key system design considerations, workflow integration, and the mitigation of potential impact on the burden of care teams. The introduction of a PRO-based alert and communication system provides a reliable mechanism for care teams to review and respond to patient symptoms quickly. The system was standardized across many different oncology settings, demonstrating system flexibility. Future studies should focus on formally evaluating system usability through qualitative methods.