Integrating patient-reported outcomes data into the electronic health record.

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (30_suppl) ◽  
pp. 186-186
Author(s):  
Brandon Bosch ◽  
Scott Hartman ◽  
Lauren Caldarello ◽  
Diane Denny, DBA

186 Background: As a national network of hospitals that specialize in the treatment of patients fighting complex or advanced-stage cancer, the network was an early adopter of using patient reported outcome (PRO) data as part of its routine patient assessment and treatment. Since 2012 an externally validated tool has been used to capture patients’ perceived symptom burden for real-time clinical intervention, from the point of first visit throughout the course of treatment, at intervals of 21 days or greater. Research has demonstrated the use of PRO data as a valuable component of a patient’s treatment plan, promoting improved quality and length of life. Methods: The use of this data across the network was expanded such that results once only accessible on paper and via electronically stored images, has now been fully integrated into the electronic health record (EHR). A multidisciplinary project team formulated the specifications for a successful integration of PRO data into the EHR. Results: The project achieved its goal and went beyond data integration to include implementation of a solution to facilitate documentation of intervention against patients’ symptoms. Provider workflow efficiency is greatly enhanced via single system access and visual notification, with critical values flagged, to focus providers’ attention on severe symptoms. Incorporation of a unified EHR flowsheet provides a paperless, one-stop symptom assessment approach and streamlined mechanism for intervention documentation. The documentation module leverages structured data fields and linkage of PRO data with interventions, such as specialist referrals or medication orders, to support enhanced patient care and quality improvement. Conclusions: The ability to easily view an array of patient reported concerns and document interventions against severe or significantly worsening symptoms provides clinicians an enhanced ability to address quality of life related needs. PRO data is now stored electronically in the enterprise warehouse, thus enabling aggregation with data from which to perform population analysis and eventually, pursue opportunities for predictive modeling.

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 129-140 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather Taffet Gold ◽  
Raj J Karia ◽  
Alissa Link ◽  
Rachel Lebwohl ◽  
Joseph D Zuckerman ◽  
...  

We integrated and optimized patient-reported outcome measures into the electronic health record to provide quantitative, objective data regarding patients’ health status, which is important for patient care, payer contracts, and research. With a multidisciplinary team from information technology, clinical informatics, population health, and physician champions, we used formal human–computer interaction techniques and user-centered design to integrate several technology platforms and computerized adaptive testing for the National Institutes of Health Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. The patient-reported outcome measure system leverages software frequently used by health systems and provides data for research and clinical care via a mobile-responsive web application using Symfony, with REDCap for configuring assessments and de-identified data storage. The system incorporates Oracle databases and Epic flowsheets. Patients complete patient-reported outcome measures, with data viewable in MyChart and Epic Synopsis Reports. Researchers can access data portals. The highly usable, successful patient-reported outcome measures platform is acceptable to patients and clinicians and achieved 73 percent overall completion rates.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Maggie E. Horn ◽  
Emily K. Reinke ◽  
Richard C. Mather ◽  
Jonathan D. O’Donnell ◽  
Steven Z. George

Abstract Background The integration of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into clinical care presents many challenges for health systems. PROMs provide quantitative data regarding patient-reported health status. However, the most effective model for collecting PROMs has not been established. Therefore the purpose of this study is to report the development and preliminary evaluation of the standardized collection of PROMs within a department of orthopedic surgery at a large academic health center. Methods We utilized the Users’ Guide to Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Electronic Health Records by Gensheimer et al., 2018 as a framework to describe the development of PROMs collection initiative. We framed our initiative by operationalizing the three aspects of PROM collection development: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Next, we performed a preliminary evaluation of our initiative by assessing the response rate of patients completing PROMs (no. of PROMs completed/no. of PROMs administered) across the entire department (18 clinics), ambulatory clinics only (14 clinics), and hospital-based clinics only (4 clinics). Lastly, we reported on the mean response rates for the top 5 and bottom 5 orthopaedic providers to describe the variability across providers. Results We described the development of a fully-integrated, population health based implementation strategy leveraging the existing resources of our local EHR to maximize clinical utility of PROMs and routine collection. We collected a large volume of PROMs over a 13 month period (n = 10,951) across 18 clinical sites, 7 clinical specialties and over 100 providers. The response rates varied across the department, ranging from 29 to 42%, depending on active status for the portal to the electronic health record (MyChart). The highest single provider mean response rate was 52%, and the lowest provider rate was 13%. Rates were similar between hospital-based (26%) and ambulatory clinics (29%). Conclusions We found that our standardized PROMs collection initiative, informed by Gensheimer et al., achieved scope and scale, but faced challenges in achieving a high response rate commensurate with existing literature. However, most studies reported a targeted recruitment strategy within a narrow clinical population. Further research is needed to elucidate the trade-off between scalability and response rates in PROM collection initiatives.


Social Determinants of Health (SDoH) are the conditions in which people are born, live, learn, work, and play that can affect health, functioning, and quality-of-life outcomes. The Institute of Medicine charged healthcare institutions with capturing and measuring patient SDoH risk factors through the electronic health record. Following the implementation of a social determinants of health electronic module across a major health institution, the response to institutional implementation was evaluated. To assess the response, a multidisciplinary team interviewed patients and providers, mapped the workflow, and performed simulated tests to trace the flow of SDoH data from survey item responses to visualization in EHR output for clinicians. Major results of this investigation were: 1) the lack of patient consensus about value of collecting SDOH data, and 2) the disjointed view of patient reported SDoH risks across patients, providers, and the electronic health record due to the way data was collected and visualized.


2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (9) ◽  
pp. 1299-1309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jenna M. Evans ◽  
Alysha Glazer ◽  
Rebecca Lum ◽  
Esti Heale ◽  
Marnie MacKinnon ◽  
...  

Background and objectivesThe Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal is a patient-reported outcome measure used to assess physical and psychosocial symptom burden in patients treated with maintenance dialysis. Studies of patient-reported outcome measures suggest the need for deeper understanding of how to optimize their implementation and use. This study examines patient and provider perspectives of the implementation process and the influence of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal on symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication.Design, setting, participants, & measurements Eight in-facility hemodialysis programs in Ontario, Canada, assessed patients using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal every 4–6 weeks for 1 year. Screening and completion rates were tracked, and pre- and postimplementation surveys and midimplementation interviews were conducted with patients and providers. A chart audit was conducted 12 months postimplementation.ResultsIn total, 1459 patients completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal; 58% of eligible patients completed the preimplementation survey (n=718), and 56% of patients who completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal at least once completed the postimplementation survey (n=569). Provider survey response rates were 71% (n=514) and 54% (n=319), respectively. Nine patients/caregivers from three sites and 48 providers from all sites participated in interviews. A total of 1207 charts were audited. Seven of eight sites had mean screening rates over 80%, suggesting that routine use of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal in clinical practice is feasible. However, the multiple data sources painted an inconsistent picture of the value and effect of the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal standardized symptom screening processes across providers and sites; improved patient and provider symptom awareness, particularly for psychosocial symptoms; and empowered patients to raise issues with providers. Yet, there was little, if any, statistically significant improvement in the metrics used to assess symptom management, patient-provider communication, and interdisciplinary communication.ConclusionsThe Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal patient-reported outcome measure may be useful to standardize symptom screening, enhance awareness of psychosocial symptoms among patients and providers, and empower patients rather than to reduce symptom burden.


2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (6) ◽  
pp. e205867 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sigall K. Bell ◽  
Tom Delbanco ◽  
Joann G. Elmore ◽  
Patricia S. Fitzgerald ◽  
Alan Fossa ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document