scholarly journals Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in ambulatory oncology in Alberta: Digital reporting at the micro, meso and macro level

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Watson ◽  
Andrea Delure ◽  
Siwei Qi ◽  
Claire Link ◽  
Lindsi Chmielewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Capacity Planning ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Patient Portal ◽  
Ambulatory Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported

AbstractCancer patients experience numerous distressing symptoms and concerns across the course of their illness, which negatively influence their quality of life. Regardless of cancer type, unmanaged symptoms can lead to adverse downstream consequences. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) can be used to inform patient care and lead to targeted symptom management but simply gathering this information does not improve outcomes for the patient. Patient generated information must be easy for the clinicians to access and interpret if it is to be used to inform care delivery in ambulatory oncology facilities. This pragmatic work responded to this need. One Canadian provincial ambulatory oncology jurisdiction implemented digital tracking of PROMs over time in the provincial Electronic Medical Record (EMR) to support full integration of PROMs into standard care workflows and processes. Due to an inability within the EMR for direct patient entry, a hybrid data-entry was designed where the patient completes a paper-based PROM in the waiting room, and after clinical review, a clinician documents this along with their clinical assessment in the EMR. Several digital dashboards were developed which report PROMs data at the micro (individual), meso (clinic) and macro (program) levels. Using PROMs routinely in these provincial practice settings has numerous benefits including enhanced patient-clinician communication, assisting with problem detection, management of symptoms, and improving outcomes for patients. There are over 60,000 unique patients represented in our PROMs database, and over 300,000 unique screening events captured. The PROMs data is now used at all levels of the provincial cancer jurisdiction to provide targeted person centred care (micro), to staff appropriately at a clinic or program level (meso), and for capacity planning for provincial programs (macro). A new provincial EMR is currently being implemented which has an associated patient portal. Based on the success of this work, integration of direct entry of PROMs by the patient prior to the appointment and an associated workflow for symptom management is underway in this jurisdiction.

scholarly journals Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review

10.2196/15588 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. e15588 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Meirte ◽  
Nick Hellemans ◽  
Mieke Anthonissen ◽  
Lenie Denteneer ◽  
Koen Maertens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Completion Time ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Patient Reported

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs. Objective The aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs). Methods We performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study. Results Results were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the “digital divide.” Conclusions In conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs. Trial Registration PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795

scholarly journals Benefits and Disadvantages of Electronic Patient-reported Outcome Measures: Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jill Meirte ◽  
Nick Hellemans ◽  
Mieke Anthonissen ◽  
Lenie Denteneer ◽  
Koen Maertens ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Quality ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Symptom Management ◽  
Completion Time ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Technologies ◽  
Patient Reported

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are important in clinical practice and research. The growth of electronic health technologies provides unprecedented opportunities to systematically collect information via PROMs. OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to provide an objective and comprehensive overview of the benefits, barriers, and disadvantages of the digital collection of qualitative electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs). METHODS We performed a systematic review of articles retrieved from PubMED and Web of Science. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed during all stages. The search strategy yielded a total of 2333 records, from which 32 met the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The relevant ePROM-related information was extracted from each study. RESULTS Results were clustered as benefits and disadvantages. Reported benefits of ePROMs were greater patient preference and acceptability, lower costs, similar or faster completion time, higher data quality and response rates, and facilitated symptom management and patient-clinician communication. Tablets were the most used ePROM modality (14/32, 44%), and, as a platform, Web-based systems were used the most (26/32, 81%). Potential disadvantages of ePROMs include privacy protection, a possible large initial financial investment, and exclusion of certain populations or the “digital divide.” CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, ePROMs offer many advantages over paper-based collection of patient-reported outcomes. Overall, ePROMs are preferred over paper-based methods, improve data quality, result in similar or faster completion time, decrease costs, and facilitate clinical decision making and symptom management. Disadvantages regarding ePROMs have been outlined, and suggestions are provided to overcome the barriers. We provide a path forward for researchers and clinicians interested in implementing ePROMs. CLINICALTRIAL PROSPERO CRD42018094795; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=94795

Impact of Depression on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures After Lumbar Spine Decompression

Spine ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 434-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert K. Merrill ◽  
Lukas P. Zebala ◽  
Colleen Peters ◽  
Sheeraz A. Qureshi ◽  
Steven J. McAnany
Keyword(s):  
Lumbar Spine ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document