A tale of 2,000 charts: Measuring provider response to patient-reported outcome measures.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 157-157
Author(s):  
Gillian Hurwitz ◽  
Zahra Ismail ◽  
Lesley Moody ◽  
Lisa Catherine Barbera
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Physical Symptoms ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Assessment System ◽  
Screening Methods ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Chart Audit ◽  
Symptom Screening ◽  
Patient Reported

157 Background: Patients undergoing cancer treatment often experience physical and psychosocial symptoms that go undetected by clinicians, which highlights the need to incorporate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care. Systematic symptom screening for cancer patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (ESAS) is standard practice in Ontario. However, provider response to PROMs is essential to addressing symptom burden. To measure provider response, Regional Cancer Centre (RCC) Leads and Cancer Care Ontario developed a chart audit process. The objective was to determine whether the clinical team acknowledged, assessed and/or addressed symptoms identified by ESAS screening. Methods: RCCs received a chart audit tool with preset options and a data dictionary. Sites audited at least 140 charts for seven of the ESAS symptoms. Sites used a business intelligence tool to access patient charts based on sampling parameters. RCCs were required to audit charts of patients whose ESAS symptom scores were moderate to severe (4-10), with at least five charts in the moderate range (4-6). Results: 2,380 charts from 13 RCCs were audited based on ESAS scores from September to December 2016. Symptoms were most often acknowledged when the intensity was severe (69.9%), regardless of symptom type. Acknowledgement (71.5%), assessment (67.7%) and intervention (55.8%) were most often offered to patients reporting pain. Patients reporting depression and anxiety were the least likely to have the symptom acknowledged (44.5%, 45.0%, respectively) and be offered assessments (45.8%, 50.1%, respectively) and interventions (35.7%, 36.6%, respectively). Patients reporting moderate to severe depression and anxiety most commonly declined interventions (7.8%, 7.7%, respectively). Conclusions: These data show that providers disproportionately respond to physical symptoms, which may be easiest to treat due to clear management plans and referral pathways. To truly offer person-centred care, the emotional burden related to cancer must also be addressed, and providers must be trained to properly respond to psychosocial symptoms. Chart audits identify gaps in symptom management and areas for quality improvement.

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

Preoperative Opioid Use in Patients Undergoing Common Hand Surgeries

Hand ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 155894472097412
Author(s):  
Ali Aneizi ◽  
Dominique Gelmann ◽  
Dominic J. Ventimiglia ◽  
Patrick M. J. Sajak ◽  
Vidushan Nadarajah ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Hand Surgery ◽  
Patient Characteristics ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Pain Scale ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Measurement Information ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Opioid Users

Background: The objectives of this study were to determine the baseline patient characteristics associated with preoperative opioid use and to establish whether preoperative opioid use is associated with baseline patient-reported outcome measures in patients undergoing common hand surgeries. Methods: Patients undergoing common hand surgeries from 2015 to 2018 were retrospectively reviewed from a prospective orthopedic registry at a single academic institution. Medical records were reviewed to determine whether patients were opioid users versus nonusers. On enrollment in the registry, patients completed 6 Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) domains (Physical Function, Pain Interference, Fatigue, Social Satisfaction, Anxiety, and Depression), the Brief Michigan Hand Questionnaire (BMHQ), a surgical expectations questionnaire, and Numeric Pain Scale (NPS). Statistical analysis included multivariable regression to determine whether preoperative opioid use was associated with patient characteristics and preoperative scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Results: After controlling for covariates, an analysis of 353 patients (opioid users, n = 122; nonusers, n = 231) showed that preoperative opioid use was associated with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists class (odds ratio [OR], 2.88), current smoking (OR, 1.91), and lower body mass index (OR, 0.95). Preoperative opioid use was also associated with significantly worse baseline PROMIS scores across 6 domains, lower BMHQ scores, and NPS hand scores. Conclusions: Preoperative opioid use is common in hand surgery patients with a rate of 35%. Preoperative opioid use is associated with multiple baseline patient characteristics and is predictive of worse baseline scores on patient-reported outcome measures. Future studies should determine whether such associations persist in the postoperative setting between opioid users and nonusers.

scholarly journals Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e044888
Author(s):  
Rita McMorrow ◽  
Barbara Hunter ◽  
Christel Hendrieckx ◽  
Dominika Kwasnicka ◽  
Leanne Cussen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Type 2 Diabetes ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Diabetes Distress ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported

IntroductionType 2 diabetes is a global health priority. People with diabetes are more likely to experience mental health problems relative to people without diabetes. Diabetes guidelines recommend assessment of depression and diabetes distress during diabetes care. This systematic review will examine the effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress using patient-reported outcome measures in improving outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes.Methods and analysisMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycInfo, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be searched using a prespecified strategy using a prespecified Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcomes, Setting and study design strategy. The date range of the search of all databases will be from inception to 3 August 2020. Randomised controlled trials, interrupted time-series studies, prospective and retrospective cohort studies, case–control studies and analytical cross-sectional studies published in peer-reviewed journals in the English language will be included. Two review authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer, if required, using Covidence software. Two reviewers will undertake risk of bias assessment using checklists appropriate to study design. Data will be extracted using prespecified template. A narrative synthesis will be conducted, with a meta-analysis, if appropriate.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this review of published studies. Presentation of results will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. Findings will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020200246.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document