Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship 3/2016

01-06-2016

Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice

Authors: Albert W. Wu, Sharon M. White, Amanda L. Blackford, Antonio C. Wolff, Michael A. Carducci, Joseph M. Herman, Claire F. Snyder, PatientViewpoint Scientific Advisory Board

Published in: Journal of Cancer Survivorship | Issue 3/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

Our aim was to study how patients and their clinicians evaluated the usability of PatientViewpoint, a webtool designed to allow patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to be used in clinical practice.

Methods

As part of a two-round quality improvement study, breast and prostate cancer patients and their medical and radiation oncology clinicians completed semi-structured interviews about their use of PatientViewpoint. The patient interview addressed different phases of the PRO completion workflow: reminders, completing the survey, and viewing the results. The clinician interviews asked about use of PatientViewpoint, integration with the clinical workflow, barriers to use, and helpful and desired features. Responses were recorded, categorized, and reviewed. After both rounds of interviews, modifications were made to PatientViewpoint.

Results

Across the two rounds, 42 unique patients (n = 19 in round 1, n = 23 in round 2) and 12 clinicians (all in both rounds) completed interviews. For patients, median age was 65, 81 % were white, 69 % were college graduates, 80 % had performance status of 0, 69 % had loco-regional disease, and 81 % were regular computer users. In the quality improvement interviews, patients identified numerous strengths of the system, including its ability to flag issues for discussion with their provider. Comments included confusion about how scores were presented and that the value of the system was diminished if the doctor did not look at the results. Requests included tailoring questions to be applicable to the individual and providing more explanation about the score meaning, including having higher scores consistently indicating either better or worse status. Clinicians also provided primarily positive feedback about the system, finding it helpful in some cases, and confirmatory in others. Their primary concern was with impact on their workflow.

Conclusions

Systematically collected feedback from patients and clinicians was useful to identify ways to improve a system to incorporate PRO measures into oncology practice. The findings and evaluation methods should be useful to others in efforts to integrate PRO assessments into ambulatory care.

Implications for Cancer Survivors

Systems to routinely collect patient-reported information can be incorporated into oncology practices and provide useful information that promote patient and clinician partnership to improve the quality of care.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Wu AW, Jensen RE, Salzberg C, Snyder C. Advances in the use of patient reported outcome measures in electronic health records. Including case studies. 2013. PCORI national workshop to advance the use of PRO measures in electronic health records. Wu AW, Jensen RE, Salzberg C, Snyder C. Advances in the use of patient reported outcome measures in electronic health records. Including case studies. 2013. PCORI national workshop to advance the use of PRO measures in electronic health records.
2.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Aaronson NK. Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet. 2009;374(9687):369–70.CrossRefPubMed Snyder CF, Aaronson NK. Use of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice. Lancet. 2009;374(9687):369–70.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Wu AW, Bradford AN, Velanovich V, Sprangers MA, Brundage M, Snyder C. Clinician’s checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(5):653–61.CrossRefPubMed Wu AW, Bradford AN, Velanovich V, Sprangers MA, Brundage M, Snyder C. Clinician’s checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(5):653–61.CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(8):1305–14.CrossRefPubMed Snyder CF, Aaronson NK, Choucair AK, Elliott TE, Greenhalgh J, Halyard MY, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(8):1305–14.CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6(5):522–31.CrossRefPubMed Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health. 2003;6(5):522–31.CrossRefPubMed
6.
7.
go back to reference Basch E, Abernethy AP. Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:954–6.CrossRefPubMed Basch E, Abernethy AP. Supporting clinical practice decisions with real-time patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:954–6.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Wu AW, Kharrazi H, Boulware LE, Snyder CF. Measure once, cut twice—adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8 Suppl):S12–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wu AW, Kharrazi H, Boulware LE, Snyder CF. Measure once, cut twice—adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(8 Suppl):S12–20.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Detmar SB, Aaronson NK. Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:1181–6.CrossRefPubMed Detmar SB, Aaronson NK. Quality of life assessment in daily clinical oncology practice: a feasibility study. Eur J Cancer. 1998;34:1181–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, et al. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communications. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2002;288:3027–34.CrossRefPubMed Detmar SB, Muller MJ, Schornagel JH, et al. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communications. A randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2002;288:3027–34.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, Brown PM, Lynch P, Brown JM, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:714–24.CrossRefPubMed Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, Brown PM, Lynch P, Brown JM, et al. Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:714–24.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Rose M, Bezjak A. Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:125–36.CrossRefPubMed Rose M, Bezjak A. Logistics of collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice: an overview and practical examples. Qual Life Res. 2009;18:125–36.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Jones JB, Snyder CF, Wu AW. Issues in the design of Internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1407–17.CrossRefPubMed Jones JB, Snyder CF, Wu AW. Issues in the design of Internet-based systems for collecting patient-reported outcomes. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1407–17.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, Basch E, Potosky AL, Roberts AC, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(4):e215–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, Basch E, Potosky AL, Roberts AC, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(4):e215–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
18.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Wolff AC, Carducci MA, Herman JM, Wu AW, et al. Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psychooncology. 2013;22(4):895–901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Snyder CF, Blackford AL, Wolff AC, Carducci MA, Herman JM, Wu AW, et al. Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice. Psychooncology. 2013;22(4):895–901.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Herman JM, White SM, Luber BS, Blackford AL, Carducci MA, et al. When using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice, the measure matters: a randomized controlled trial. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(5):e299–306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Snyder CF, Herman JM, White SM, Luber BS, Blackford AL, Carducci MA, et al. When using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice, the measure matters: a randomized controlled trial. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(5):e299–306.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Langley GJ, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance, 2nd Edition. 2009. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-0-470-19241-2. Langley GJ, Moen R, Nolan KM, Nolan TW, Norman CL, Provost LP. The improvement guide: a practical approach to enhancing organizational performance, 2nd Edition. 2009. Hoboken: Jossey-Bass. ISBN 978-0-470-19241-2.
21.
go back to reference Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.CrossRefPubMed Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85(5):365–76.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Boyes A, et al. The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Cancer. 2000;88:226–37.CrossRefPubMed Sanson-Fisher R, Girgis A, Boyes A, et al. The unmet supportive care needs of patients with cancer. Cancer. 2000;88:226–37.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, et al. The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:133–41.CrossRefPubMed Cella D, Gershon R, Lai JS, et al. The future of outcomes measurement: item banking, tailored short-forms, and computerized adaptive assessment. Qual Life Res. 2007;16 Suppl 1:133–41.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference WA Shewhart. Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. 1939. New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486-65232-7. WA Shewhart. Statistical method from the viewpoint of quality control. 1939. New York: Dover. ISBN 0-486-65232-7.
25.
go back to reference Cleghorn GD, Headrick LA. The PDSA cycle at the core of learning in health professions education. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1996;22(3):206–12.PubMed Cleghorn GD, Headrick LA. The PDSA cycle at the core of learning in health professions education. Jt Comm J Qual Improv. 1996;22(3):206–12.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Jensen RE, Rothrock NE, DeWitt EM, Spiegel B, Tucker CA, Crane HM, et al. The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Med Care. 2015;53(2):153–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jensen RE, Rothrock NE, DeWitt EM, Spiegel B, Tucker CA, Crane HM, et al. The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care. Med Care. 2015;53(2):153–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
27.
go back to reference Varni JW, Magnus B, Stucky BD, Liu Y, Quinn H, Thissen D, et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS ® pediatric scales: precision, stability, and comparison of different scoring and administration options. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(4):1233–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Varni JW, Magnus B, Stucky BD, Liu Y, Quinn H, Thissen D, et al. Psychometric properties of the PROMIS ® pediatric scales: precision, stability, and comparison of different scoring and administration options. Qual Life Res. 2014;23(4):1233–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
29.
go back to reference Wagner LI, Schink J, Bass M, Patel S, Diaz MV, Rothrock N, et al. Bringing PROMIS to practice: brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care. Cancer. 2015;121(6):927–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Wagner LI, Schink J, Bass M, Patel S, Diaz MV, Rothrock N, et al. Bringing PROMIS to practice: brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care. Cancer. 2015;121(6):927–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Nazi KM, Hogan TP, Wagner TH, et al. Embracing a health services research perspective on personal health records: lessons learned from the VA My HealtheVet system. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;251 Suppl 1:62–7.CrossRef Nazi KM, Hogan TP, Wagner TH, et al. Embracing a health services research perspective on personal health records: lessons learned from the VA My HealtheVet system. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;251 Suppl 1:62–7.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kruse CS, Bolton K, Freriks G. The effect of patient portals on quality outcomes and its implications to meaningful use: a systematic review. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(2):e44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference Brundage MD, Smith K, Little EA, Bantug ET, Snyder CF, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2457–72.CrossRefPubMed Brundage MD, Smith K, Little EA, Bantug ET, Snyder CF, PRO Data Presentation Stakeholder Advisory Board. Communicating patient-reported outcome scores using graphic formats: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Qual Life Res. 2015;24:2457–72.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Improving an electronic system for measuring PROs in routine oncology practice
Authors
Albert W. Wu
Sharon M. White
Amanda L. Blackford
Antonio C. Wolff
Michael A. Carducci
Joseph M. Herman
Claire F. Snyder
PatientViewpoint Scientific Advisory Board
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of Cancer Survivorship / Issue 3/2016
Print ISSN: 1932-2259
Electronic ISSN: 1932-2267
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11764-015-0503-6

Other articles of this Issue 3/2016

Journal of Cancer Survivorship 3/2016 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine