PO-1980 Use of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) to facilitate patient-centered communication in radiotherapy

2021 ◽  
Vol 161 ◽  
pp. S1684-S1685
Author(s):  
A. Kristensen ◽  
D. Winther ◽  
R. Baltzer
2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352198925
Author(s):  
Amanda Robinson ◽  
Edith Pituskin ◽  
Colleen M Norris

A descriptive review was conducted to evaluate the evidence of cognitive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following cardiac surgery. The search of electronic databases resulted in 400 unique manuscripts. Nine studies met the criteria to be part of the final review. Results of the review suggest that there are few validated PROMs that assess cognitive function in the cardiac surgical population. Furthermore, PROMs have not been used to assess overall cognitive function following cardiac surgery within the past decade. However, one domain of cognitive function—memory—was described, with up to half of patients reporting a decline postoperatively. Perceived changes in cognitive function may impact health-related quality of life and a patient’s overall view of the success of their surgery. Early identification of cognitive changes measured with PROMs may encourage earlier intervention and improve patient-centered care. In clinical practice, nurses may be in the best position to administer PROMs preoperatively and postoperatively.


2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Yorkston ◽  
Carolyn Baylor

Patient-reported outcome measures contain information that comes directly from the patient without interpretation by anyone else. These measures are an important part of a clinicians' arsenal of assessment approaches and are critical in the development of patient-centered approaches to intervention. In this introduction to patient-reported outcome measurement tools, a history is provided of this approach to measurement and its place within the context of clinical research and practice. The process of instrument development and application will be reviewed, along with examples of measurement tools from the field of neurological communication disorders. This introduction is supplemented by references that provide interested readers with more detailed information.


Author(s):  
Michael de Riesthal ◽  
Katherine B. Ross

In her seminal book on outcome measurement in the field of communication disorders, Carol Frattali (1998) set the path for outcomes research and clinical application in the field of speech-language pathology. In particular, she defined the many possible outcomes that can be measured to examine the influence of an intervention and the ways in which these measures can inform public policy. Of these, patient or client centered measures, which index outcome based on the patient's and family's or caregiver's perspective, have received increasing attention in recent research and clinical practice. These measures examine a variety of patient reported outcomes (PRO) associated with health. PRO measures are being used more commonly in clinical practice and as end points in medical and rehabilitation outcomes research. This perspective reflects the shift in medicine and rehabilitation toward patient-centered care. In this article, we will examine the rationale for using PRO measures, the advantages and challenges for using these tools, and current use of PRO measures in neurological communication disorders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e20026-e20026
Author(s):  
Thomas H. Molina ◽  
Nathan W. Sweeney ◽  
Nolan Cole ◽  
Jenny Ahlstrom

e20026 Background: Whether tandem autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) is superior to single ASCT for new diagnosed multiple myeloma (MM) patients remains a subject of discussion in the era of novel agents. This project analyzed patient-reported outcomes to single ASCT and tandem ASCT utilizing an online patient-centered platform. Methods: We analyzed patient-reported treatment outcomes pertaining to tandem ASCT and single ASCT from HealthTree Cure Hub ( www.healthtree.org ). In this study, we examined whether patients reported a reduction or no reduction in their myeloma after their tandem or single ASCT. The association between stem cell transplant and myeloma outcome was compared by chi-squared test. Results: In this retrospective analysis of 945 MM patients, we compared two groups, those that reported receiving a tandem ASCT (n = 75) and those that reported receiving a single ASCT (n = 870). Our analysis revealed an association between patients who reported receiving a tandem ASCT and a reduction of their myeloma (chi-square (1) = 3.87, p = .04), compared to patients who reported receiving a single ASCT. Conclusions: Tandem ASCT was perceived by patients to be superior over single ASCT in regard to myeloma reduction for the HealthTree patient population. A more in-depth analysis of the patient-provided health data from HealthTree could aid in determining factors related to survival as well as help to quickly answer lingering questions related to tandem ASCT, such as timing, genetic factors, progression free survival, and more.[Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (28_suppl) ◽  
pp. 171-171
Author(s):  
Katherine Eresian Chenok ◽  
Feifei Ye ◽  
Kristen K. McNiff Landrum ◽  
Emma Hoo ◽  
Valerie Kong ◽  
...  

171 Background: Few patient-reported outcome performance measures (PRO-PMs) have been validated for the cancer population. The testing that has occurred mostly focuses on advanced cancers despite the fact that the majority of people with cancer are diagnosed with earlier stage disease. We developed and tested PRO-PMs to assess quality of life, pain and fatigue in adult patients completing curative-intent chemotherapy for breast, colon and non-small cell lung cancers. Our goal is to develop measures that target symptoms that impact entry into the survivorship phase. Methods: We recruited 20 diverse test sites from the Michigan Oncology Quality Collaborative (MOQC) and the Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC). Test sites enrolled patients, administered surveys, and collected clinical and demographic data. A Technical Expert Panel and the Patient and Caregiver Council selected PROMs and provided testing guidance. We assessed data collection feasibility and clinician/staff/patient burden throughout the testing process. Results: PROMIS instruments were selected due to psychometric testing in the target population, public availability and acceptability to patients and test sites. 1,753 patients were enrolled between 10/1/19 – 3/31/21. The COVID public health emergency disrupted testing and resulted in lower than expected enrolled patients/completed surveys; however, adaptations led to expansions in survey administration methods. Preliminary practice-level performance results from 10 sites show variation across sites for pain interference (mean = 50.5, SD = 2.8, with a range of 44.6—54.6) and fatigue (mean 49.2, SD = 2.8, with a range of 44.6--54.3). Some test sites reported PRO implementation to be burdensome; however, most patients evaluated did not find survey completion to be burdensome. Conclusions: Next steps include testing risk adjustment variables/model, creating adjusted performance scores, reliability and validity testing. Despite the consensus goal of PRO-PMs in oncology, barriers to implementation persist and important methodologic barriers exist (e.g., ability to achieve sufficient sample size in an oncology practice; defining the most appropriate numerator calculation that reports the desired quality concept and is appropriate for the PROM being used; analytic best practices for PRO-PM adjustment/testing). This project is contributing to the knowledge base as we seek to ensure that PRO-PMs provide meaningful, actionable, patient-centered quality data with benefits that outweigh the burden of implementation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
A J Fauci ◽  
A Acampora ◽  
C Cadeddu ◽  
C Angioletti ◽  
A G De Belvis ◽  
...  

Abstract Background There is emerging interest in integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into the assessment of care quality. This study protocol aims at testing the collection and use of PROMs for evaluating and comparing health outcomes by patients with colorectal cancer. This is part of a project of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità and Gruppo Italiano di Reti Oncologiche (GIRO) aimed at promoting Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) for performance evaluation of oncological healthcare providers. Methods A multicentric prospective observational study will be conducted at the seven GIRO oncological hospitals. For each hospital, 40 colorectal cancer patients undergoing either surgery or surgery plus neoadjuvant therapy, will be recruited (20 colon; 20 rectum) over 12 months. The data will be collected twice (before and after surgery) or three times for patients undergoing neoadjuvant therapy, by using EORTC-C30, a generic module for cancer patients and EORTC-CR29, a specific module for colorectal cancer patients. Collected data will be analyzed descriptively and the scores of each hospital will be compared to the overall scores of all the centers. Additional medical information will be used to adjust for the center casemix. Feedback from health professionals and patients will be collected through structured questionnaires and focus groups. Results The results will be interpreted to assess and compare the health outcomes reported by the patients among the GIRO hospitals. Feedback from health professionals and patients will help identify barriers and facilitators of implementation of PROs collection. Conclusions PROMs have the potential to systematically incorporate the patient perspective into the health outcome measurements for performance evaluation and benchmarking, which is essential to delivering high-value patient-centered care. The PROMs collected in this study will be integrated in a set of process and outcome indicators previously defined within same project. Key messages Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have the potential to systematically incorporate the patient perspective, which is essential to delivering high-value patient-centered care. It is critical to integrate PROMs in performance evaluation and comparison among oncological healthcare providers for improving the quality of care in a Value-Based Healthcare perspective.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document