Skip to main content
Top
Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 6/2018

01-12-2018 | Practical Application

Oh, the Places We’ll Go: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Health Records

Authors: Sarah G. Gensheimer, Albert W. Wu, Claire F. Snyder, PRO-EHR Users’ Guide Steering Group, PRO-EHR Users’ Guide Working Group

Published in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Issue 6/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

The growing measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and adoption of electronic health records (EHRs) presents an unprecedented opportunity to improve health care for patients and populations. The integration of PROs into EHRs can promote patient-centered care and advance quality improvement initiatives, research, and population health. Despite these potential benefits, there are few best practices to help organizations achieve integration. To integrate PROs into EHRs, organizations should evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of various approaches within three themes: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Planning considerations for integration include what strategy will be used, how the integrated system will be governed, ethical and legal issues, and how data from multiple EHRs can be pooled across organizations. Selection considerations involve identifying which patient population to target for PRO data collection on the basis of the intended use of the data in the health care system, and then choosing specific outcomes and their measures. Engagement considerations include how, where, and with what frequency patients will respond to PRO measures, how to display PRO data in EHRs, how clinical teams will act upon PRO data, and how to train, support and incent clinical teams and patients to incorporate PRO data into care. There is no most effective model that will work in all contexts. Organizations wishing to integrate PROs and EHRs should assemble the multidisciplinary expertise needed to evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the various approaches for their particular context. We specifically recommend that organizations think carefully about stakeholder participation; design their system with data sharing in mind; develop a framework to aid in PRO selection; create guidelines to support PRO interpretation and action for patients and clinicians; and ensure patients have access to their own PRO data.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, Rothman M. 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.CrossRef Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, Rothman M. 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.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Reg. 2009;74:65132–3. United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. Patient reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Fed Reg. 2009;74:65132–3.
5.
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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Moinpour CM, Basch E, Reeve BB, Wu AW, International Society for Quality of Life Research. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1060–70. https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0b013e318268aaff.CrossRefPubMed Ahmed S, Berzon RA, Revicki DA, Lenderking WR, Moinpour CM, Basch E, Reeve BB, Wu AW, International Society for Quality of Life Research. The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Med Care. 2012;50(12):1060–70. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1097/​MLR.​0b013e318268aaff​.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Segal JB, Wu AW. Patient-reported outcomes: putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S73–9.CrossRef Snyder CF, Jensen RE, Segal JB, Wu AW. Patient-reported outcomes: putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Med Care. 2013;51(8 Suppl 3):S73–9.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Basch E, Frank L, Wu AW. All together now: findings from a PCORI workshop to align patient-reported outcomes in the electronic health record. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5(6):561–7.CrossRef Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Basch E, Frank L, Wu AW. All together now: findings from a PCORI workshop to align patient-reported outcomes in the electronic health record. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5(6):561–7.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Collins FS, Hudson KL, Briggs JP, Lauer MS. PCORnet: turning a dream into reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):576–7.CrossRef Collins FS, Hudson KL, Briggs JP, Lauer MS. PCORnet: turning a dream into reality. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):576–7.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Fleurence RL, Curtis LH, Califf RM, Platt R, Selby JV, Brown JS. Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):578–82.CrossRef Fleurence RL, Curtis LH, Califf RM, Platt R, Selby JV, Brown JS. Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21(4):578–82.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Weber GM, Murphy SN, McMurry AJ, MacFadden D, Nigrin DJ, Churchill S, Kohane IS. The Shared Health Research Information Network (SHRINE): a prototype federated query tool for clinical data repositories. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(5):624–30.CrossRef Weber GM, Murphy SN, McMurry AJ, MacFadden D, Nigrin DJ, Churchill S, Kohane IS. The Shared Health Research Information Network (SHRINE): a prototype federated query tool for clinical data repositories. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16(5):624–30.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Oh, the Places We’ll Go: Patient-Reported Outcomes and Electronic Health Records
Authors
Sarah G. Gensheimer
Albert W. Wu
Claire F. Snyder
PRO-EHR Users’ Guide Steering Group
PRO-EHR Users’ Guide Working Group
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Issue 6/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Electronic ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0321-9

Other articles of this Issue 6/2018

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 6/2018 Go to the issue