scholarly journals Establishing a global quality of care benchmark report

2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 146045822110157
Author(s):  
Fanny Sampurno ◽  
Justin Cally ◽  
Jacinta L Opie ◽  
Ashwini Kannan ◽  
Jeremy L Millar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Data Display ◽  
Patient Reported

Background: The Movember funded TrueNTH Global Registry (TNGR) aims to improve care by collecting and analysing a consistent dataset to identify variation in disease management, benchmark care delivery in accordance with best practice guidelines and provide this information to those in a position to enact change. We discuss considerations of designing and implementing a quality of care report for TNGR. Methods: Eleven working group sessions were held prior to and as reports were being built with representation from clinicians, data managers and investigators contributing to TNGR. The aim of the meetings was to understand current data display approaches, share literature review findings and ideas for innovative approaches. Preferred displays were evaluated with two surveys (survey 1: 5 clinicians and 5 non-clinicians, 83% response rate; survey 2: 17 clinicians and 18 non-clinicians, 93% response rate). Results: Consensus on dashboard design and three data-display preferences were achieved. The dashboard comprised two performance summary charts; one summarising site’s relative quality indicator (QI) performance and another to summarise data quality. Binary outcome QIs were presented as funnel plots. Patient-reported outcome measures of function score and the extent to which men were bothered by their symptoms were presented in bubble plots. Time series graphs were seen as providing important information to supplement funnel and bubble plots. R Markdown was selected as the software program principally because of its excellent analytic and graph display capacity, open source licensing model and the large global community sharing program code enhancements. Conclusions: International collaboration in creating and maintaining clinical quality registries has allowed benchmarking of process and outcome measures on a large scale. A registry report system was developed with stakeholder engagement to produce dynamic reports that provide user-specific feedback to 132 participating sites across 13 countries.

Nurse, oncologist, and patient impressions of electronic symptom monitoring via patient-reported outcomes in community oncology practices: Qualitative results from the U.S. national PRO-TECT trial (AFT-39, NCT03249090).

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 7044-7044
Author(s):  
Ethan M. Basch ◽  
Randall Teal ◽  
Amylou C. Dueck ◽  
Jennifer Jansen ◽  
Sydney Henson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Positive Impact ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Routine Care ◽  
Office Visits ◽  
Symptom Monitoring ◽  
Community Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported

7044 Background: There is growing interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes in oncology practices for symptom monitoring. It is not well known what nurse, physician, and patient impressions of benefits, acceptability, and challenges are in routine care use. Methods: PRO-TECT is an ongoing U.S. national trial including 26 community oncology practices across 15 states that implemented PRO symptom monitoring [NCT03249090]. Patients complete weekly PROs between visits, nurses receive alerts for severe/worsening symptoms, and oncologists review PROs at office visits. Interviews were conducted with 147 stakeholders including nurses (N = 46), oncologists (N = 27), data managers (N = 15), and patients (N = 59). Each stakeholder group had different interview guides with overlapping topics to explore experiences with the PRO system. Interviews lasted 15-60 minutes, were digitally recorded, transcribed, and entered into a qualitative analysis software program. A codebook was developed from the research questions, interview guides, and discussions with the project team. Standardized coding methods were applied, with transcripts double coded for thematic analysis. Feedback surveys were also completed by nurses (N = 57), oncologists (N = 38), and patients (N = 435). Results: Key benefits perceived across stakeholder groups included increased patient self-awareness of symptoms; improved direct communication of patients with care teams; more open and honest conveying of symptom experiences; ability to track symptoms over time; and increased involvement of patients in their own care. Most stakeholders felt PRO symptom monitoring had a positive impact on quality of care delivery, and believed benefits of PROs outweighed necessary staff efforts. Challenges included additional work by nurses to review and respond to alerts, staff turnover requiring retraining, and limited time of oncologists. In the survey, 39/56 (70%) nurses felt the PRO system improved quality of care; 27/33 (82%) oncologists noted PROs were useful for team discussions and care delivery; and 320/434 (74%) patients agreed that weekly PRO reporting improved discussions with their care team. Conclusions: Clinicians and patients perceived weekly PRO symptom monitoring between visits to be valuable despite added staff effort. Results of additional analyses are forthcoming. Clinical trial information: NCT03249090 .

Creation of a standardized set of patient-centered outcomes for advanced prostate cancer: An international effort.

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 282-282
Author(s):  
Alicia Katherine Morgans ◽  
Annelotte van Bommel ◽  
Caleb Stowell ◽  
David F. Penson ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Clinical Data ◽  
Advanced Prostate Cancer ◽  
International Health ◽  
Bowel Dysfunction ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported

282 Background: Clinical trials and international registries assess outcomes considered relevant to men with advanced prostate cancer (CaP). However, we lack a single standardized set of outcomes, making direct comparisons between populations and quality of care assessments challenging. We sought to create a minimum standardized set of outcomes relevant to men with advanced CaP. Methods: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement assembled a multi-disciplinary working group to create a minimum set of measures to collect for men with advanced CaP. We used a modified Delphi method to establish pertinent measures and case-mix characteristics. Results: Approximately 24 experts, including clinicians and patient advocates, from North America, Europe, and Australia participated. We defined the included population as men with metastatic prostate cancer or biochemical recurrence who failed or were ineligible for salvage therapy. Outcomes important to all men with advanced CaP, such as overall survival, and measures specific to subgroups, such as time to metastasis, were identified. Measures gathered from clinical data include risk-stratification characteristics and measures of disease control. Patient-reported outcome measures, like pain control, depression, and erectile, urinary, and bowel dysfunction, were also identified. Conclusions: Standardized outcome measures are necessary to assess quality of care across different populations, and are critical to ensure value in health care. Our international, multi-disciplinary team identified clinical data and patient-reported outcomes to provide a basis for international health outcome comparisons and future assessments of quality of care for men with advanced CaP.

A digital oncology patient-reported outcomes platform: Building innovative electronic patient symptom assessments in epic mychart to improve the quality of life and survival of patients with advanced cancer.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18312-e18312 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sidharth Anand ◽  
Anne Margaret Walling ◽  
Sarah F. DAmbruoso ◽  
Neil Wenger ◽  
Jennifer Singer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Overall Survival ◽  
Advanced Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Response Rate ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Practice Advisory

e18312 Background: Establishing a system to monitor patient reported outcomes (“PRO”) has been demonstrated to be essential for a well-functioning cancer system. Studies have shown that routine collection of PROs allows providers to address medical issues earlier and impacts a patient’s overall survival. Unmet needs for symptom management are prevalent in the cancer population, especially patients with advanced cancer. Approximately 35% of UCLA Hematology-Oncology patients with advanced cancer in 2016 presented to Emergency Rooms for symptom-related complaints such as nausea, pain, constipation, dehydration, and fatigue. We hypothesize that the creation of an electronic PRO platform through EPIC MyChart will ensure patients receive timely evaluation of their symptoms, resulting in improved quality of life, and decreased ER and hospital utilization. Methods: We developed an innovative PRO platform through Epic MyChart along with a Best Practice Advisory alert system to identify patients at risk for worsening symptoms, ER visits, and inpatient admissions. We then built an electronic version of the Edmonson Symptoms Assessment System, which providers can push to patients through Epic MyChart, with results stored within the Flowsheets section of Epic. We also built a passive alert using Epic’s Best Practice Advisory (“BPA”) system, to notify providers when a patient’s MyChart ESAS Assessment Scores have exceeded a defined threshold. Results: Preliminary data from surveys sent to a series of advanced cancer patients seen in an outpatient palliative oncology clinic over 1 month, demonstrated a 100% response rate (6/7) surveys completed when sent one week prior to patient’s being seeing in clinic, and 17% response rate (1/6) when sent two to three weeks prior to clinic visit. The average total ESAS score reported was 40, with average individual score of 4/10 for any given symptom. Conclusions: We will implement this electronic PRO platform in multiple oncology clinics at UCLA, and measure provider and patient satisfaction, completion rates, and monitor outcomes such as ED visits and inpatient admissions. We hope this system will lead to an overall survival benefit. This project demonstrates the potential of developing innovative PRO platforms through Epic MyChart and the importance of clinical workflows in the implementation process.

scholarly journals Does accreditation of general practice promote patient-reported quality of care? A natural cluster randomised experiment

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. e034465
Author(s):  
Helle Riisgaard ◽  
Frans Boch Waldorff ◽  
Merethe Kirstine Andersen ◽  
Line Bjørnskov Pedersen
Keyword(s):  
General Practice ◽  
Patient Satisfaction ◽  
Quality Of Care ◽  
General Practitioner ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Negative Relationship ◽  
Secondary Outcome ◽  
Cluster Randomised ◽  
Patient Reported

ObjectiveTo investigate whether accreditation of general practice in Denmark promotes patient-reported quality of care and patient satisfaction.DesignA national cluster randomised case control study based on an online version of the Danish Patients Evaluate Practice questionnaire. Mixed effects ordered logit regression models taking account of clustering of patients in different municipalities were used in the analyses.SettingGeneral practice in Denmark.ParticipantsA representative sample of the Danish population.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcome measure was patient-reported quality of care, and patient satisfaction with general practice and patient satisfaction with the general practitioner served as secondary outcome measures.ResultsIn total, 3609 respondents answered the survey. We found no statistically significant relationships between patient-reported quality of care and practice accreditation (2016: OR=0.89, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.07 and 2017: OR=0.85, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.02) and between patient satisfaction with the general practitioner and accreditation (2016: OR=0.93, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.13 and 2017: OR=0.86, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.04). However, there was a statistically significant negative relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and recent practice accreditation compared with satisfaction with practices not yet accredited (OR=0.81, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.97) but no significant relationship between patient satisfaction with the general practice and previous accreditation (OR=0.91, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.09).ConclusionAccreditation does not promote patient-reported quality of care or patient satisfaction. On the contrary, patient satisfaction with the general practice decreases when general practice is recently accredited.

scholarly journals Improving osteoarthritis management in primary healthcare: results from a quasi-experimental study

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Østerås ◽  
Irma Brandeggen Blaker ◽  
Tore Hjortland ◽  
Elizabeth Cottrell ◽  
Jonathan G. Quicke ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Weight Control ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Interrupted Time Series ◽  
Treatment Modalities ◽  
Implementation Phase ◽  
Logistic Regression Models ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Referral Letters

Abstract Background To improve quality of care for patients with hip and knee osteoarthritis (OA), general practitioners (GPs) and physiotherapists (PTs) in a Norwegian municipality initiated an intervention. The intervention aimed to increase provision of core OA treatment (information, exercise, and weight control) prior to referral for surgery, rational use of imaging for assessing OA and improve communication between healthcare professionals. This study assessed the effectiveness of this intervention. Methods Forty-eight PTs and one hundred one GPs were invited to the intervention that included two interactive workshops outlining best practice and an accompanying template for PT discharge reports. Using interrupted time series research design, the study period was divided into three: pre-implementation, transition (implementation) and post-implementation. Comparing the change between pre- and post-implementation, the primary outcome was patient-reported quality of OA care measured with the OsteoArthritis Quality Indicator questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were number of PT discharge reports, information included in GP referral letters to orthopaedic surgeon, the proportion of GP referral letters indicating use of core treatment, and the use of imaging within OA assessment. Analyses involved linear mixed and logistic regression models. Results The PT workshop had 30 attendees, and 31 PTs and 33 GPs attended the multidisciplinary workshop. Two hundred eight and one hundred twenty-five patients completed the questionnaire during pre- and post-implementation, respectively. The adjusted model showed a small, statistically non-significant, increase in mean total score for quality of OA care (mean change = 4.96, 95% CI -0.18, 10.12, p:0.057), which was mainly related to items on OA core treatment. Patients had higher odds of reporting receipt of information on treatment alternatives (odds ratio (OR) 1.9, 95% CI 1.08, 3.24) and on self-management (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.33, 4.32) in the post-implementation phase. There was a small, statistically non-significant, increase in the proportion of GP referral letters indicating prior use of core treatment modalities. There were negligible changes in the number of PT discharge reports, in the information included in the GP referral letters, and in the use of imaging for OA assessment. Conclusion This study suggests that a primary care intervention including two inter-active workshops can shift the quality of care towards best practice recommendations. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02876120.

ASCO PRO workgroup update: Patient-reported outcome measures as a quality indicator.

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (7_suppl) ◽  
pp. 276-276 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela M. Stover ◽  
Anne C. Chiang ◽  
Ethan M. Basch
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Underserved Populations ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Symptom Control ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Quality Metric ◽  
Patient Reported

276 Background: Although patient questionnaires are commonly used to assess healthcare experiences (e.g., satisfaction with care), patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures assessing symptoms and physical functioning have not conventionally been used for quality assessment. More typically, quality of care is measured with administrative data, such as hospital readmission rates. There is an opportunity to advance the science of quality measurement by integrating a patient-centered approach. Methods: ASCO established a multi-stakeholder PRO Workgroup (including extensive patient input) to develop and test PRO-based performance measures (PRO-PMs). The ASCO PRO Workgroup outlined three initial PRO-PMs to test for patients receiving moderately/highly emetogenic chemotherapy: 1) process: proportion self-reporting symptoms at, or within 2 weeks, of last visit; 2) outcome: proportion experiencing moderate/high levels of nausea; and 3) outcome: proportion reporting moderate/high pain. We will give an update on progress of the ASCO PRO Workgroup and outline next steps needed to implement PRO measures as a quality metric. Results: Three key methodological advancements are needed before PRO measures can be used as a quality metric. First, areas of cancer care delivery need to be identified that are important to patients when considering quality of care and are amenable to performance evaluation with PRO measures (e.g., symptom control). Second, existing PRO questionnaires need to be systematically identified and evaluated for potential quality use. The review should evaluate psychometric properties, validity and reliability, and feasibility for clinical use. Third, testing is needed in representative practice settings to iteratively refine: 1) logistical strategy for systematically collecting this information at the practice level; 2) approaches for minimizing missing data, particularly from underserved populations; and 3) adjustments for patient characteristics (case-mix). Conclusions: Methodological advancements are necessary before PRO measures can be implemented as a quality metric. PRO measures have the potential to provide quality assessments that are useful to patients making health care decisions.

scholarly journals Guideline-based indicators for adult patients with myelodysplastic syndromes

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (16) ◽  
pp. 4029-4044 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kristina Stojkov ◽  
Tobias Silzle ◽  
Georg Stussi ◽  
David Schwappach ◽  
Juerg Bernhard ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Care ◽  
Myelodysplastic Syndromes ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Health Care Systems ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Practice Performance ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Agreement Score ◽  
Care Systems

Myelodysplastic syndromes (MDSs) represent a heterogeneous group of hematological stem cell disorders with an increasing burden on health care systems. Evidence-based MDS guidelines and recommendations (G/Rs) are published but do not necessarily translate into better quality of care if adherence is not maintained in daily clinical practice. Guideline-based indicators (GBIs) are measurable elements for the standardized assessment of quality of care and, thus far, have not been developed for adult MDS patients. To this end, we screened relevant G/Rs published between 1999 and 2018 and aggregated all available information as candidate GBIs into a formalized handbook as the basis for the subsequent consensus rating procedure. An international multidisciplinary expert panel group (EPG) of acknowledged MDS experts (n = 17), health professionals (n = 7), and patient advocates (n = 5) was appointed. The EPG feedback rates for the first and second round were 82% (23 of 28) and 96% (26 of 27), respectively. A final set of 29 GBIs for the 3 domains of diagnosis (n = 14), therapy (n = 8), and provider/infrastructural characteristics (n = 7) achieved the predefined agreement score for selection (>70%). We identified shortcomings in standardization of patient-reported outcomes, toxicity, and geriatric assessments that need to be optimized in the future. Our GBIs represent the first comprehensive consensus on measurable elements addressing best practice performance, outcomes, and structural resources. They can be used as a standardized instrument with the goal of assessing, comparing, and fostering good quality of care within clinical development cycles in the daily care of adult MDS patients.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document