scholarly journals 275: A mobile health platform for pediatric cystic fibrosis: Impact on patient-reported outcomes and patient-centered care

2021 ◽  
Vol 20 ◽  
pp. S132-S133
Author(s):  
G. Oates ◽  
R. Geurs ◽  
C. Mims ◽  
R. Bergquist ◽  
A. Hager ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cystic Fibrosis ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care

scholarly journals Using Patient-Reported Outcomes to Assess Healthcare Quality: Toward Better Measurement of Patient-Centered Care in Cardiovascular Disease

2021 ◽  
pp. e1-e9
Author(s):  
Raul Angel Garcia ◽  
John A Spertus
Keyword(s):  
Health Status ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Health Management ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Healthcare Quality ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are elicited directly from patients so they can describe their overall health status, including their symptoms, function, and quality of life. While commonly used as end points in clinical trials, PROs can play an important role in routine clinical care, population health management, and as a means for quantifying the quality of patient care. In this review, we propose that PROs be used to improve patient-centered care in the treatment of cardiovascular diseases given their importance to patients and society and their ability to improve doctor- provider communication. Furthermore, given the current variability in patients’ health status across different clinics and the fact that PROs can be improved by titrating therapy, we contend that PROs have a key opportunity to serve as measures of healthcare quality.

scholarly journals Bringing Patient-Centered Care to the Fore in Diseases of the Pancreas

2015 ◽  
Vol 2015 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sayali A. Pendharkar ◽  
Maxim S. Petrov
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Evidence ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Shared Decision ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Pancreatic Diseases ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Optimal Patient Care ◽  
Centered Care

Diseases of the pancreas are often very challenging for both patients and doctors as well as pose a considerable burden on healthcare system. Emerging evidence on the importance of shared-decision making in medicine stresses the need to integrate best clinical evidence and patient-reported outcomes to deliver optimal patient care. This paper argues that patient-centered care should no longer be a hermit in management of pancreatic diseases in the 21st century.

Patient-reported outcomes and surgical triage: A gap in patient-centered care?

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (11) ◽  
pp. 2845-2851 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Trafford Crump ◽  
Guiping Liu ◽  
Mark Chase ◽  
Jason M. Sutherland
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care

Using patient-reported outcomes for technology assessment (TA) and quality improvement (QI) in prostate cancer brachytherapy

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (18_suppl) ◽  
pp. 5139-5139
Author(s):  
R. C. Chen ◽  
A. L. Zietman ◽  
A. V. D’Amico ◽  
I. Kaplan ◽  
J. A. Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Standard Technique ◽  
Bowel Function ◽  
Ultrasound Guided ◽  
Score Change ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Symptom Index ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care

5139 Background: Despite their sensitivity, validity and increasing prominence in clinical reports, patient-reported outcomes have played little role in TA and QI. We used our validated disease-specific instrument to compare outcomes after alternative brachytherapy techniques for early prostate cancer, both experimental vs. standard technique and between implementations of the standard technique. Methods: One radiation oncologist performed experimental MRI-guided brachytherapy (MRB) on protocol and 2 performed standard ultrasound-guided brachytherapy (USB1 and USB2). We prospectively measured urinary and bowel function of 237 men before brachytherapy and at 1, 3 and 12 months after treatment. Each symptom index is scored from 0 (no dysfunction) to 100 (maximum dysfunction). We report outcomes both as mean change in scale score from baseline and as the distribution of functional categories, grouped by pretreatment functional level: normal, intermediate, and poor (severe dysfunction). Results: Among all patients, MRB caused less urinary obstruction/irritation at 3 months after treatment than ultrasound-guided brachytherapy (mean score change 9.2 vs. 23.6, p<.001). Significant differences in outcome also existed between USB1 and USB2 (19.5 vs. 29.0, p=.01). When baseline function was normal, 15% of MRB patients reported severe 3-month dysfunction, compared to 50% of USB1 and 71% of USB2 patients ( Table ). Outcomes of patients with pretreatment urinary dysfunction differed less. Preliminary results documenting inferior outcomes prompted modification of the USB2 brachytherapy technique, producing a trend toward improved outcomes in small patient numbers (mean score change: 30.4 vs. 22.8, p=.25). Bowel symptom outcomes varied less. Conclusions: Patient-reported outcomes can provide sensitive and valid indicators of TA and QI that may contribute to optimal patient-centered care. [Table: see text] No significant financial relationships to disclose.

Patient-reported outcomes for performance measurement: Multi-institution challenges.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 211-211
Author(s):  
Constance Barysauskas ◽  
Kristen K. McNiff ◽  
Stephen Flaherty ◽  
Mary Ellen Morba ◽  
Tracy E. Spinks ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Quality Of Healthcare ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Aggregated Data ◽  
Cancer Centers ◽  
Care Experience ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Centered Care

211 Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are self-reported measures of a patient’s health or healthcare experience. PRO utilization is driven by the movement toward patient-centered care and emerging evidence which suggests patients (pts) more involved in their care experience better outcomes. The infrastructure to capture PROs is evolving and PROs are now used for performance measurement (PM). PRO-PMs assess the quality of healthcare for improvement and/or accountability; but implementation is challenging. Success of PRO-PM requires identification of pts, ongoing data collection and data aggregation across institutions. The Alliance of Dedicated Cancer Centers (ADCC) identified challenges of PRO use for PM. Methods: The validated tool, Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite, evaluating pt function and bother from treatment (trt), administered to new localized prostate pts at three independent cancer centers was retrospectively collected. Surveys administered before and after trt measured change from trt. Results: Institutions implementing PROs following local standards resulted in a high degree of variation. The aggregated data presented challenges in identifying eligible pt populations who received surveys before and after trt within a timeframe. We identified a pragmatic and meaningful pt population and survey implementation window. Pts were stratified by center and trt modality for analysis. Conclusions: The aggregation of dissimilar data sources led to the identification of institution implementation and data capture differences, however, the ADCC identified variation for PRO measure development. Clear guidance, policies and procedures are essential to ensure adequate homogeneity and reduced variability, to assure meaningful PM and reduce confounding by institution. [Table: see text]

Oncology team perception and patient experience discordances in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) care.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e19176-e19176
Author(s):  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
Rebecca R Crawford ◽  
Tamar Sapir ◽  
Jeffrey D. Carter
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Options ◽  
Primary Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered Care ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
Patient Treatment ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Actual Patient ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Centered Care

e19176 Background: In TNBC, ensuring patients understand their treatment options and engaging them in shared decision-making (SDM) is vital to patient centered care; however, system-, team-, and individual-level barriers may challenge optimal SDM. As part of a quality improvement, accredited initiative, we identified areas of discordance between oncology healthcare professionals (HCP) perception and actual patient reported experiences. Methods: From 02/2019 – 10/2019, we administered surveys to assess challenges, barriers, attitudes, and experiences of HCP who care for patients with TNBC (N = 77) and their patients with TNBC (N = 65) at 6 community oncology practices. Results: Despite indications of high levels of SDM – 86% of patients indicated that they are always or mostly involved with treatment decisions – survey responses highlight discordances. For example, when asked to identify the most influential factors to patient treatment choice, HCP most commonly indicated side effects (94%), while patients most commonly indicated quality of life (48%). Additionally, when asked to identify the side effect of greatest concern to patients, 61% of patients indicated alopecia, while 45% of HCP indicated gastrointestinal (GI) distress. While both HCP and their patients indicate that the oncology team is the most useful source of patient education, HCP underestimated the extent to which patients rely on their primary care providers (PCPs). Patients and HCP each identified limited time as a barrier to SDM, but patients indicated not knowing what to ask, while HCP indicated that low health literacy was the top barrier to SDM. 31% of patients and their care team identified that improvements in discussions about realistic prognosis were vital to improved care. Conclusions: These survey findings reveal discordances between oncology HCP’s perceptions and patient reported experiences when receiving treatment for TNBC. These findings may highlight areas for improvement in co-productive patient-centered care. [Table: see text]

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document