Dataset Information

Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Although patient-reported cancer symptoms and quality-of-life issues (SQLIs) have been promoted as essential to a comprehensive assessment, efficient and efficacious methods have not been widely tested in clinical settings. The purpose of this trial was to determine the effect of the Electronic Self-Report Assessment-Cancer (ESRA-C) on the likelihood of SQLIs discussed between clinicians and patients with cancer in ambulatory clinic visits. Secondary objectives included comparison of visit duration between groups and usefulness of the ESRA-C as reported by clinicians.

Patients and methods

This randomized controlled trial was conducted in 660 patients with various cancer diagnoses and stages at two institutions of a comprehensive cancer center. Patient-reported SQLIs were automatically displayed on a graphical summary and provided to the clinical team before an on-treatment visit (n = 327); in the control group, no summary was provided (n = 333). SQLIs were scored for level of severity or distress. One on-treatment clinic visit was audio recorded for each participant and then scored for discussion of each SQLI. We hypothesized that problematic SQLIs would be discussed more often when the intervention was delivered to the clinicians.

Results

The likelihood of SQLIs being discussed differed by randomized group and depended on whether an SQLI was first reported as problematic (P = .032). Clinic visits were similar with regard to duration between groups, and clinicians reported the summary as useful.

Conclusion

The ESRA-C is the first electronic self-report application to increase discussion of SQLIs in a US randomized clinical trial.

SUBMITTER: Berry DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3068053 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:The electronic self report assessment - cancer (ESRA-C), has been shown to reduce symptom distress during cancer therapy The purpose of this analysis was to evaluate aspects of how the ESRA-C intervention may have resulted in lower symptom distress (SD).Patients at two cancer centers were randomized to ESRA-C assessment only (control) or the Web-based ESRA-C intervention delivered to patients' homes or to a tablet in clinic. The intervention allowed patients to self-monitor symptom and quality of life (SxQOL) between visits, receive self-care education and coaching to report SxQOL to clinicians. Summaries of assessments were delivered to clinicians in both groups. Audio-recordings of clinic visits made 6 weeks after treatment initiation were coded for discussions of 26 SxQOL issues, focusing on patients'/caregivers' coached verbal reports of SxQOL severity, pattern, alleviating/aggravating factors and requests for help. Among issues identified as problematic, two measures were defined for each patient: the percent SxQOL reported that included a coached statement, and an index of verbalized coached statements per SxQOL. The Wilcoxon rank test was used to compare measures between groups. Clinician responses to problematic SxQOL were compared. A mediation analysis was conducted, exploring the effect of verbal reports on SD outcomes.517 (256 intervention) clinic visits were audio-recorded. General discussion of problematic SxQOL was similar in both groups. Control group patients reported a median 75% of problematic SxQOL using any specific coached statement compared to a median 85% in the intervention group (p = .0009). The median report index of coached statements was 0.25 for the control group and 0.31 for the intervention group (p = 0.008). Fatigue, pain and physical function issues were reported significantly more often in the intervention group (all p < .05). Clinicians' verbalized responses did not differ between groups. Patients' verbal reports did not mediate final SD outcomes (p = .41).Adding electronically-delivered, self-care instructions and communication coaching to ESRA-C promoted specific patient descriptions of problematic SxQOL issues compared with ESRA-C assessment alone. However, clinician verbal responses were no different and subsequent symptom distress group differences were not mediated by the patients' reports.NCT00852852; 26 Feb 2009.

Project description:ImportanceHalf of the people who die by suicide make a health care visit within 1 month of their death. However, clinicians lack the tools to identify these patients.ObjectiveTo predict suicide attempts within 1 and 6 months of presentation at an emergency department (ED) for psychiatric problems.Design, setting, and participantsThis prognostic study assessed the 1-month and 6-month risk of suicide attempts among 1818 patients presenting to an ED between February 4, 2015, and March 13, 2017, with psychiatric problems. Data analysis was performed from May 1, 2020, to November 19, 2021.Main outcomes and measuresSuicide attempts 1 and 6 months after presentation to the ED were defined by combining data from electronic health records (EHRs) with patient 1-month (n = 1102) and 6-month (n = 1220) follow-up surveys. Ensemble machine learning was used to develop predictive models and a risk score for suicide.ResultsA total of 1818 patients participated in this study (1016 men [55.9%]; median age, 33 years [IQR, 24-46 years]; 266 Hispanic patients [14.6%]; 1221 non-Hispanic White patients [67.2%], 142 non-Hispanic Black patients [7.8%], 64 non-Hispanic Asian patients [3.5%], and 125 non-Hispanic patients of other race and ethnicity [6.9%]). A total of 137 of 1102 patients (12.9%; weighted prevalence) attempted suicide within 1 month, and a total of 268 of 1220 patients (22.0%; weighted prevalence) attempted suicide within 6 months. Clinicians' assessment alone was little better than chance at predicting suicide attempts, with externally validated area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.67 for the 1-month model and 0.60 for the 6-month model. Prediction accuracy was slightly higher for models based on EHR data (1-month model: AUC, 0.71; 6 month model: AUC, 0.65) and was best using patient self-reports (1-month model: AUC, 0.76; 6-month model: AUC, 0.77), especially when patient self-reports were combined with EHR and/or clinician data (1-month model: AUC, 0.77; and 6 month model: AUC, 0.79). A model that used only 20 patient self-report questions and an EHR-based risk score performed similarly well (1-month model: AUC, 0.77; 6 month model: AUC, 0.78). In the best 1-month model, 30.7% (positive predicted value) of the patients classified as having highest risk (top 25% of the sample) made a suicide attempt within 1 month of their ED visit, accounting for 64.8% (sensitivity) of all 1-month attempts. In the best 6-month model, 46.0% (positive predicted value) of the patients classified at highest risk made a suicide attempt within 6 months of their ED visit, accounting for 50.2% (sensitivity) of all 6-month attempts.Conclusions and relevanceThis prognostic study suggests that the ability to identify patients at high risk of suicide attempt after an ED visit for psychiatric problems improved using a combination of patient self-reports and EHR data.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-centered care is respectful of and responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values. To provide patient-centered care, clinicians need to know and incorporate patients' context into their communication and care with patients. Patient contextual data (PCD) encompass social determinants of health and patients' needs, values, goals, and preferences relevant to their care. PCD can be challenging to collect as a routine component of the time-limited primary care visit.ObjectiveThis study aims to determine if patient-provider communication and patient activation are different for patient users and patient nonusers of an electronic health record (EHR)-integrated PCD tool and assess if the impact of using PCD on patient-provider communication and patient activation differs for Black and White patients.MethodsWe describe a randomized controlled trial of a prospective cohort of non-Hispanic White and Black patients who receive primary care services at a midwestern academic health care system in the United States. We will evaluate whether providing PCD through a consumer informatics tool enhances patient-provider communication, as measured by the Communication Assessment Tool, and we will evaluate patient activation, as measured by the Patient Activation Measure for PCD tool users and nonusers. Furthermore, owing to racial disparities in care and communication, we seek to determine if the adoption and use of the tool might narrow the differences between patient groups.ResultsThe trial was funded in November 2017 and received local ethics review approval in February 2019. The study began recruitment in April 2019 and enrollment concluded in October 2019 with 301 participants. The analysis was completed in May 2020, and trial results are expected to be published in winter 2020.ConclusionsRecently, there has been increased attention to the role of health information technology tools to enable patients to collaborate with providers through the sharing of PCD. The adoption of such tools may overcome the barriers of current EHRs by directly engaging patients to submit their contextual data. Effectively, these tools would support the EHR in providing a more holistic understanding of the patient. Research further supports that individuals who have robust digital engagement using consumer informatics tools have higher participation in treatment follow-up and self-care across populations. Therefore, it is critical to investigate interventions that elicit and share patients' social risks and care preferences with the health care team as a mechanism to improve individualized care and reduce the gap in health outcomes.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT03766841; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03766841.International registered report identifier (irrid)RR1-10.2196/20309.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to reduce opioid overdose fatalities have resulted in tapering (i.e., reducing or discontinuing) opioid prescriptions despite a limited understanding of patients' experiences.ObjectiveTo explore patients' perspectives on opioid taper experiences to ultimately improve taper processes and outcomes.DesignQualitative study.ParticipantsPatients on long-term opioid therapy for chronic pain who had undergone a reduction of opioid daily prescribed dosage of ≥50% in the past 2 years in two distinct medical systems and regions.ApproachFrom 2019 to 2020, we conducted semi-structured interviews that were audio-recorded, transcribed, systematically coded, and analyzed to summarize the content and identify key themes regarding taper experiences overall and with particular attention to patient-provider relationships and provider communication during tapers.Key resultsParticipants (n=41) had lived with chronic pain for an average of 17.4 years (range, 3-36 years) and described generally adverse experiences with opioid tapers, the initiation of which was not always adequately justified or explained to them. Consequences of tapers ranged from minor to substantial and included withdrawal, mobility issues, emotional distress, exacerbated mental health symptoms, and feelings of social stigmatization for which adequate supports were typically unavailable. Narratives highlighted the consequential role of patient-provider relationships throughout taper experiences, with most participants describing significant interpersonal challenges including poor provider communication and limited patient engagement in decision making. A few participants identified qualities of providers, relationships, and communication that fostered more positive taper experiences and outcomes.ConclusionsFrom patients' perspectives, opioid tapers can produce significant physical, emotional, and social consequences, sometimes reducing trust and engagement in healthcare. Patient-provider relationships and communication influence patients' perceptions of the quality and outcomes of opioid tapers. To improve patients' experiences of opioid tapers, tapering plans should be based on individualized risk-benefit assessments and involve patient-centered approaches and improved provider communication.