Characterizing patient-reported outcomes as standard of care

2020 ◽  
Vol 159 ◽  
pp. 271
Author(s):  
S.H. Theodos ◽  
J.M. James ◽  
T.M. Beasley ◽  
A. Gilbert ◽  
J.Y. Pierce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Patient Reported

Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes: A New Standard of Care?

Oncology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 98 (Suppl. 6) ◽  
pp. 327-328
Author(s):  
Paul Martin Putora
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Patient-Reported Outcomes After Opioid-Sparing Surgery Compared With Standard of Care

JAMA Surgery ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maia Anderson ◽  
Alex Hallway ◽  
Chad Brummett ◽  
Jennifer Waljee ◽  
Michael Englesbe ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Opioid Sparing ◽  
Patient Reported

Adoption patterns of an electronic patient-reported outcomes tool in oncology.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19127-e19127
Author(s):  
Fernanda CG Polubriaginof ◽  
Priti K Parekh ◽  
Naga Ravi Shankar Akella ◽  
Peter D. Stetson
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Completion Rate ◽  
Completion Rates ◽  
Demographic Information ◽  
Patient Demographic ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Usage Patterns ◽  
Survey Instruments ◽  
Patient Demographic Information

e19127 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are critical for the delivery of patient-centric care. Previous research has shown that the use of PROs can impact clinical outcomes in Oncology. Despite these benefits, PROs have not been widely implemented as part of standard of care. Significant barriers exist for its adoption including lack of integration between PRO tools and electronic health record systems (EHRs). We developed MSK Engage, a home-grown PRO tool integrated with the EHR and embedded within MSK's patient portal (MyMSK). It was launched in late 2015 and it is currently used enterprise-wide for both standard of care and research purposes. The purpose of this study was to describe the usage patterns of PROs in a real-world setting. Methods: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients that have been assigned at least one MSK Engage survey instrument between 2015 and 2019. Patient demographic information was extracted from the EHR system. Usage patterns including the number of survey instruments assigned and completed were extracted from MSK Engage. Survey completion rates were stratified by patient demographic information and number of assigned surveys. We performed univariate and multivariate analyses to identify factors associated with survey completion rates. Results: During the study period, 57 survey instruments were implemented, with the majority being used for standard of care (41 for standard of care only, 9 for research protocols, 6 for standard of care and research, and one for a quality improvement initiative). In total, 246,638 patients were assigned 557,559 surveys. Of those, 146,505 patients completed a total of 265,174 surveys, with a median completion time of 3 minutes. Among the patients that were assigned a survey, 73.7% were women. Women in our sample were older than men, with median age 52 and 47 years old, respectively. Men were more likely to complete the assigned surveys with 61.2% completion rate among men and 43.3% among women (p < 0.001). On multivariate analysis, men were less likely to miss surveys than women (odds ratio [OR], 0.49; 95% CI, 0.48-0.49). We also identified a significant correlation between the survey completion rate and number of assigned surveys, demonstrating that assigning a large number of surveys for each patient can lead to a reduced survey response. Conclusions: Providers have quickly adopted MSK Engage demonstrating that it is feasible to incorporate PROs as part of standard of care. Patients are willing to answer PROs; however, it is important to mindful when assigning surveys to avoid negative effects of survey burden.

Impact of crizotinib on patient-reported symptoms and quality of life (QOL) compared with single-agent chemotherapy in a phase III study of advanced ALK+ non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8108-8108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vera Hirsh ◽  
Fiona Helen Blackhall ◽  
Dong-Wan Kim ◽  
Benjamin Besse ◽  
Hiroshi Nokihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Lung Cancer ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Single Agent ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Rank Test ◽  
Cancer Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported

8108 Background: PROFILE 1007 compared the efficacy and safety of the ALK inhibitor crizotinib (N=172) with that of standard-of-care chemotherapy (pemetrexed [PEM; N=99] or docetaxel [DOC; N=72]) in patients with advanced ALK+ NSCLC. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival. The main objective of our present post-hoc analyses was to compare patient-reported outcomes in the crizotinib arm with those of the DOC and PEM subgroups in the chemotherapy arm. Methods: Patient-reported outcomes were assessed at baseline, on day 1 of each cycle, and at the end of treatment using EORTC QLQ-C30 and lung cancer module QLQ-LC13. Higher scores (range 0−100) indicate higher symptom severity or better functioning/QOL. Time to deterioration (TTD) was defined as time from randomization to the earliest time with a ≥10-point increase from baseline for pain in chest, dyspnea, or cough and was compared between groups using an unstratified log-rank test. Repeated measures mixed-effects analyses were performed to compare change from baseline scores, with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. Results: Completion rates at baseline were ≥90% in each group and scores were well balanced. Crizotinib treatment was associated with a significantly longer TTD compared with PEM (median, 5.6 vs. 1.9 mo; HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.48−0.92; P=0.013) or DOC (median, 5.6 vs. 0.9 mo; HR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.26−0.54; P<0.0001). A significantly greater improvement from baseline was observed with crizotinib compared with either the PEM or DOC subgroups for global QOL (P<0.01), cough (P<0.001), dyspnea (P<0.0001), pain in arm or shoulder (P<0.0001), pain in chest (P<0.0001), pain in other parts (P<0.01), fatigue (P<0.05), insomnia (P<0.05), and pain (P<0.0001). A significantly greater improvement was also observed with crizotinib compared with DOC for functioning (P<0.05), alopecia (P<0.0001), and hemoptysis (P<0.0001). Conclusions: Crizotinib treatment showed a significantly greater improvement from baseline in key patient-reported lung cancer symptoms and global QOL compared with DOC and PEM, in addition to improved efficacy previously reported. Clinical trial information: NCT00932893.

P048 QUALITY OF LIFE AND OTHER PATIENT REPORTED OUTCOMES IN PATIENTS WITH POUCHITIS

2020 ◽  
Vol 158 (3) ◽  
pp. S107
Author(s):  
Edward Barnes ◽  
Millie Long ◽  
Laura Raffals ◽  
Xian Zhang ◽  
Anuj Vyas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document