Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With New Oral Chemotherapy Prescriptions at an Academic Site and a Community Site

2021 ◽  
pp. 631-640
Author(s):  
Jim W. Doolin ◽  
Jonathan L. Berry ◽  
Natalia S. Forbath ◽  
Noah X. Tocci ◽  
Tenzin Dechen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Emergency Department Visit ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Oral Chemotherapy ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Historical Cohort ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Historical Group ◽  
Community Site

PURPOSE Oral chemotherapy challenges providers' abilities to safely monitor patients' symptoms, adherence, and financial toxicity. COVID-19 has increased the urgency of caring for patients remotely. Collection of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) has demonstrated efficacy for patients on intravenous chemotherapy, but limited data support their use in oral chemotherapy. We undertook a pilot project to assess the feasibility of implementing an ePRO system for patients starting oral chemotherapy at our cancer center, which includes both an academic site and a community site. METHODS Patients initiating oral chemotherapy were asked to participate. A five-question tool was built in REDCap. Concerning responses triggered outreach within one business day. The primary outcome was time to first symptom assessment. For comparison, we used a historical cohort of patients who had been prescribed oral chemotherapies by providers in the same disease groups at the cancer center. RESULTS Twenty-five of 62 (40%) patients completed ePRO assessments. Fifty historical charts were reviewed. Time to first symptom assessment was 7 days (IQR, 4-14 days) in the historical group compared with 3 days (IQR, 2-4 days) in the ePRO group. Time to clinical action was 14 days (7-35 days) in the historical group compared with 8 days (4-19 days) in the ePRO group. No statistically significant differences were detected in 30-day emergency department visit or hospitalization (12% for both groups) or 90-day emergency department visit or hospitalization rates (historical 28% and ePRO 20%). CONCLUSION An ePRO tool monitoring patient concerns about adherence, cost, and toxicities for patients with new oral chemotherapy regimens is feasible and improves time to symptom assessment. Further investigation is needed to improve patient engagement with ePROs and evaluate the long-term impacts for patients on oral chemotherapy.

Utilizing patient reported outcomes for patients recieving oral chemotherapy.

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (8_suppl) ◽  
pp. 190-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emily R. Mackler ◽  
Kathleen W. Beekman ◽  
Laura Bushey ◽  
Anne Gentz ◽  
Kathleen Davis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Side Effects ◽  
Side Effect ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Symptom Burden ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Oral Chemotherapy ◽  
Severe Side Effect ◽  
Management Support ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale

190 Background: Management of oral chemotherapy presents many challenges to oncology practitioners. The purpose of this study is to describe how incorporation of patient reported outcomes (PRO) for patients receiving oral chemotherapy can identify those patients who are experiencing moderate to severe symptom burden and nonadherence. Methods: As part of a statewide quality collaborative, we wished to improve our monitoring of patients receiving oral chemotherapy. The quality collaborative created a PRO assessment that includes a revised Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), a single-item adherence question, reasons for nonadherence, the patient’s most bothersome symptom and questions related to patient confidence. Our medical assistants provide the assessment to the patient before each appointment. Results: Patients completing the PRO during the first 3 months (7/7/16 – 9/27/16) were evaluated. We had 32 assessments completed by 23 patients. The oral chemotherapy prescribed were capecitabine (48%), erlotinib (13%), temozolomide (13%), and not recorded (26%). Of the 29 completed ESAS assessments, 72% included at least 1 moderate side effect, and 48% included at least 1 severe side effect. 29% of patients reported low-moderate confidence to self-manage their symptoms. Less than excellent adherence (<80% adherence) was reported in 30% of patients with the most commonly reported reason being related to side effects or concerns about side effects. Conclusions: Use of PROs in our oral chemotherapy population identified a large proportion of patients experiencing moderate to severe side effects. Further assessment of how this compares to what patients report to their oncologist during their visits will be reviewed. In addition, we found that approximately 30% of our patients are nonadherent to their oral chemotherapy. This is consistent with recent publications. We plan to continue assessing patient outcomes and utilizing the data we collect to improve patient self-management support.

scholarly journals Integrative Oncology Physician Consultations at a Comprehensive Cancer Center: Analysis of Demographic, Clinical and Patient Reported Outcomes

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 395-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriel Lopez ◽  
Jennifer McQuade ◽  
Lorenzo Cohen ◽  
Jane T Williams ◽  
Amy R Spelman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Comprehensive Cancer Center ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Integrative Oncology ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care): Multicenter Pragmatic Nonrandomized Trial

10.2196/19685 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (10) ◽  
pp. e19685
Author(s):  
Afaf Girgis ◽  
Ivana Durcinoska ◽  
Anthony Arnold ◽  
Joseph Descallar ◽  
Nasreen Kaadan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Diverse Population ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Patients With Cancer ◽  
Patient Reported

Background Despite the acceptability and efficacy of e–patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems, implementation in routine clinical care remains challenging. Objective This pragmatic trial implemented the PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care) web-based system into existing clinical workflows and evaluated its effectiveness among a diverse population of patients with cancer. Methods Adult patients with solid tumors receiving active treatment or follow-up care in four cancer centers were enrolled. The PROMPT-Care intervention supported patient management through (1) monthly off-site electronic PRO physical symptom and psychosocial well-being assessments, (2) automated electronic clinical alerts notifying the care team of unresolved clinical issues following two consecutive assessments, and (3) tailored online patient self-management resources. Propensity score matching was used to match controls with intervention patients in a 4:1 ratio for patient age, sex, and treatment status. The primary outcome was a reduction in emergency department presentations. Secondary outcomes were time spent on chemotherapy and the number of allied health service referrals. Results From April 2016 to October 2018, 328 patients from four public hospitals received the intervention. Matched controls (n=1312) comprised the general population of patients with cancer, seen at the participating hospitals during the study period. Emergency department visits were significantly reduced by 33% (P=.02) among patients receiving the intervention compared with patients in the matched controls. No significant associations were found in allied health referrals or time to end of chemotherapy. At baseline, the most common patient reported outcomes (above-threshold) were fatigue (39%), tiredness (38.4%), worry (32.9%), general wellbeing (32.9%), and sleep (24.1%), aligning with the most frequently accessed self-management domain pages of physical well-being (36%) and emotional well-being (23%). The majority of clinical feedback reports were reviewed by nursing staff (729/893, 82%), largely in response to the automated clinical alerts (n=877). Conclusions Algorithm-supported web-based systems utilizing patient reported outcomes in clinical practice reduced emergency department presentations among a diverse population of patients with cancer. This study also highlighted the importance of (1) automated triggers for reviewing above-threshold results in patient reports, rather than passive manual review of patient records; (2) the instrumental role nurses play in managing alerts; and (3) providing patients with resources to support guided self-management, where appropriate. Together, these factors will inform the integration of web-based PRO systems into future models of routine cancer care. Trial Registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000615482; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370633 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.1186/s12885-018-4729-3

A feasibility exploratory study of a novel modality of using patient-reported outcomes (PROsEXPLOR) in the real world

2020 ◽  
Vol 106 (6) ◽  
pp. 464-470
Author(s):  
Federica Grosso ◽  
Stefania Crivellari ◽  
Marinella Bertolotti ◽  
Michela Lia ◽  
Antonina De Angelis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Department ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Exploratory Study ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Routine Clinical Practice ◽  
Satisfaction Survey ◽  
Home Therapy ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Hospital Visits

Introduction: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can help clinicians better evaluate chemotherapy and immunotherapy toxicity based on patient perspectives. In this exploratory study, we tested a simplified PRO questionnaire (sPQ) in routine clinical practice and patient satisfaction with this tool. Methods: We included 16 items related to the main toxicities of chemotherapy and immunotherapy to be filled in by patients. A baseline sPQ was completed by patients before starting treatment and then in the interval between courses for a total of 4 sPQs. Patients communicated the results to a data manager, who alerted the referral oncologist in case of replies differing from the basal or previous sPQ. According to the severity of symptoms, the patient was then referred to the team nurse, the general practitioner, or another specialist. A satisfaction survey was also completed. Results: In a 3-month interval, 27 patients were enrolled. Fatigue and nausea were the most frequent symptoms reported as worsening during treatment. The oncologist was involved in the management of adverse events in 4 cases, home therapy variations were recommended by the dedicated nurse in 14 cases, additional visits were performed in 6 patients, and 1 patient was admitted to the oncology ward. None of the patients had unplanned visits to the emergency department or to the hospital. The sPQ was judged to be simple, useful, and satisfactory. Conclusions: Using sPQs in routine clinical practice was feasible and well-accepted by patients. PROs allowed us to recognize and promptly manage adverse events, reducing unplanned emergency department or hospital visits to zero.

Prospective Validation of the Italian Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF: Italian) In 186 MPN Patients

Blood ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 116 (21) ◽  
pp. 5060-5060
Author(s):  
Robyn Scherber ◽  
Tiziano Barbui ◽  
Alessandro M. Vannucchi ◽  
Francesco Passamonti ◽  
Giovanni Barosi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Research Funding ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Myeloproliferative Neoplasm ◽  
Office Visit ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Advisory Committees ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Eortc Qlq C30 ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Eortc Qlq

Abstract Abstract 5060 Background: The Myeloproliferative Neoplasm Symptom Assessment Form (MPN-SAF) is a concise instrument of patient reported outcomes (PRO) designed to assess the unique spectrum of symptoms present in the majority of patients (Mesa et. al. Cancer 2007). We sought to validate the Italian Translation of the MPN-SAF which addresses 19 separate symptoms reported by MPN patients. Methods: Translation: We utilized the standard practice of PRO translation in which 3 independent translations are created by 3 independent translators fluent in both languages. A fourth translator then discussed the translations with the other translators and a consensus translation was obtained. Validation: Patients self completed the MPN-SAF: Italian at the time of a physician office visit and the Italian EORTC-QLQ-C30 (a widely used instrument of PRO for cancer patients) was co-administered for validation purposes. Results: Patients and Symptomatic Burden: 186 patients were prospectively enrolled (ET (N=88; 47%), PV (N=69; 37%) and MF (N=29; 16%)) a median of 6 years (range:0-29) from their diagnosis. Patients were of a median age (62; range 29–91 years) and gender (56% females) typical of the disease. 72% (N=135) had received some form of non-aspirin medical therapy for their disease, and 68% were on therapy at the time of completing the questionnaire. Patients frequently had a history of either thrombotic events (31%) and/or hemorrhagic events (13%). The MPN-SAF measured 19 items in the enrolled patients (data summarized in Table 1). Validation Analysis: EORTC-QLQ-C30: Consistent with our experience with the MPN-SAF:English, Pearson correlations between MPN-SAF:Italian individual symptom scores and the Italian EORTC-QLQ C30 showed excellent correlations with co-validation questions including fatigue, pain, insomnia, (all p<0.001). Excellent correlations were demonstrated between EORTC-QLQ-C30 subscales and corresponding MPN-SAF measurements. Comparison with MPN-SAF:English: Comparison with 102 patients prospectively completing the MPN-SAF: English (ET=20, PV=23, MF=59) in the USA indicated very strong correlations (when controlling for MPN subtype) in the prevalence of all 19 items assessed and only subtle differences in terms of symptomatic severity for fatigue, itching and insomnia. Conclusions: The MPN-SAF:Italian is an easy to administer, clear, 19-item inventory of patient-reported outcomes that is specific to MPNs. Additionally, the instrument is validated by 1) comparison to previously validated Italian instruments and 2) the correlation with the MPN-SAF:English. Utilization of the instrument in Italian MPN clinical trials will allow for useful comparison to patients completing the MPN-SAF in other countries and will serve as a valuable clinical marker of disease symptom severity. Disclosures: Vannucchi: Novartis: Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees. Mesa:SBio: Research Funding; Novartis: Research Funding; Celgene: Research Funding; Incyte: Research Funding; Roche: Research Funding; eisai: Research Funding; telik: Research Funding.

The effect of a lay health worker-led symptom assessment intervention for patients on patient-reported outcomes, healthcare use, and total costs.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6502-6502
Author(s):  
Manali I. Patel ◽  
David Ramirez ◽  
Richy Agajanian ◽  
Jay Bhattacharya ◽  
Arnold Milstein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Worker ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Symptom Assessment ◽  
Healthcare Use ◽  
Lay Health Worker ◽  
Patient Reported

Patient-reported outcomes during hospitalization for patients with late discharge after an open surgery for GYN tumors.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18078-e18078
Author(s):  
Xin Shelley Wang ◽  
Qiuling Shi ◽  
Charles S. Cleeland ◽  
Ting-Yu Chen ◽  
Araceli Garcia-Gonzalez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Perioperative Care ◽  
Open Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Enhanced Recovery ◽  
Dry Mouth ◽  
Major Surgery ◽  
Cancer Center ◽  
Post Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Md Anderson

e18078 Background: Using patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in perioperative care is increasingly common in patients undergoing major surgery. Few reports relate the patient’s symptomatic status using validated PROs during hospitalization with other outcomes, such as length of stay (LOS). Methods: Patients with GYN tumors scheduled for open surgery at MD Anderson Cancer Center were recruited prospectively. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory gynecology perioperative care module (MDASI-PeriOp-GYN) was used to assess symptoms daily during hospitalization. Longitudinal analysis compared patient’s PROs between groups who were discharged within and beyond the median LOS. Results: From Feb 2018–Dec 2018, 83 patients were evaluable. The median LOS was 3 days. 70% of patients were discharged within 3 days, and 30% were hospitalized longer (defined as late discharge group, range 4-10 days). The median LOS for the two groups was 5.64 vs. 2.41 days, P < .0001. Compared to patients who were discharged within 3 days, late discharge patients had longer surgical time (310 min vs. 209 min, P < .0001), and greater operative blood loss (668mL vs. 289 mL, P < .001). Additionally, more patients in the late discharge group had a worse performance status (ECOG PS 2-3: 24% vs. 3.5%, P < .05), and higher comorbidity (Charlson comorbidity Index > 1: 92% vs. 69%, P < .05), and more used opioids within 6 month pre-surgery (16% vs. 1.7%, P < .05). For all patients, the 5 worst symptoms during the first 3 hospital days were pain, fatigue, drowsiness, dry mouth, bloating. Late discharge patients reported significant more severe pain, distress, dry mouth, and interference with walking during the first 3 days post-surgery (all P < .05). Conclusions: Despite all patients undergoing standardized perioperative care on an Enhanced Recovery pathway, this study demonstrates how baseline and intraoperative factors are associated with longer LOS and more severe symptom burden, especially pain and interference with walking.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document