Patient-reported Experience Measure for Neuro-oncology Telephone Clinics during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ghimire P
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7438996 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Patient-reported Experience Measure for Neuro-oncology Telephone Clinics during the COVID-19 Pandemic.
Ghimire P P Lavrador J P JP Onyiriuka L L Robinson C C La J J Mullens L L Hurwitz V V Cikurel K K Al-Salihi O O Swampillai A A Brazil L L Bhangoo R R Vergani F F Gullan R R Ashkan K K
Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) 20200820 1
Similar Datasets
Project description:AimThe COVID-19 pandemic led to limit patients' visits to the neuro-urology department. Telemedicine was seen as a pragmatic solution to provide follow-up care. This study aimed to assess the efficiency and satisfaction of a telephone consultation in neuro-urology.MethodsDuring the pandemic, the scheduled medical visits were converted into telephone consultation. For each teleconsultation, the physician assessed the efficiency and the patient-rated global satisfaction of the teleconsultation. The physician and the patient assessed whether this teleconsultation replaced a physical visit.ResultsAbout 358 neurologic patients were included in the study. The mean efficiency of the telephone consultation was 9.3/10 (±1.5). The mean global satisfaction was 9.0/10 (±1.3). The majority of the patients (52.4%) would prefer a physical consultation. 90.2% might convert some clinic visits to teleconsultations in the future. No agreement was found between the patient and the physician when they were asked if the teleconsultation replaced the physical consultation initially scheduled (weight kappa = 0.02; 95% confidence interval = [-0.06 to 0.11]). Cognitive impairment, difficulty to obtain relevant information, and lack of physical examination were unfavorable to the efficiency of the teleconsultation. Cognitive impairment, embarrassing nature of the teleconsultation, and preference for a physical consultation were unfavorable to satisfaction of the patient.ConclusionTelemedicine in neuro-urology was associated with a high satisfaction of the patients and was described as efficient by the physicians. Despite this, the majority of the patients reported a preference for physical consultation. The COVID-19 pandemic might be an opportunity to refine our practices in neuro-urology and to develop telemedicine.
| S-EPMC8251389 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPatient perceptions of primary care telephone and video telemedicine and whether COVID-19 pandemic-related telemedicine exposure shifted patients' visit preference is unknown.ObjectivesWe examined patient surveys to understand the health care experience of patients seeking primary care through telemedicine and how patients expected their preferences to shift as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.Research design/subjectsIn an integrated delivery system that shifted to a "telemedicine-first" health care model during the COVID-19 pandemic, we sampled monthly and collected 1000 surveys from adults with primary care telemedicine visits scheduled through the online patient portal between 3/16/2020 and 10/31/2020.MeasuresParticipants reported their preferred primary care visit modality (telephone, video, or in-person visits) across 3 time points: before, during and (hypothetically) after the COVID-19 pandemic, and reported their general assessment of primary care visits during the pandemic.ResultsThe majority of participants preferred in-person visits before (69%) and after the COVID-19 pandemic (57%). However, most participants reported a preference for telemedicine visits during the pandemic and continue to prefer telemedicine visits at a 12% higher rate post-pandemic. Many participants (63%) expressed interest in using telemedicine at least some of the time. Among participants reporting a recent telemedicine visit, 85% agreed that the visit addressed their health needs.ConclusionAs primary care visit modality preferences continue to evolve, patients anticipate that they will continue to prefer telemedicine visits, both video and telephone, at an increased rate than before the COVID-19 pandemic.
| S-EPMC10592113 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFacial cancer surgery involving the midface (comprising the lower eyelids, nose, cheeks, and upper lip) can have debilitating life-changing functional, social, and psychological impacts on the patient. Midface symptoms are inadequately captured by existing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). PROMs are increasingly used for individual patient care, quality improvement, and standardized reporting of treatment outcomes. This study aimed to present our findings from the first phase of the development of a midface, specifically periocular and nasal, PROM.MethodsAfter international guidance for PROM development, the first phase comprised identification of salient issues and item generation. Fifteen patients who had midface surgery and 10 clinicians from various specialties with more than 5 years' experience treating these patients were recruited. Semi-structured interviews explored aesthetic, functional, social, and psychological outcomes, with specific attention to deficiencies in current PROMs. Thematic analysis was used to develop an item pool, and group interviews with clinicians were carried out to create and refine PROM scales.ResultsQualitative data from patient interviews were grouped into aesthetic, functional, and psychosocial domains for the eyelids and nose. Ninety-nine draft items were generated across these domains. Following focus group discussions, the final version of the midface-specific PROM contained 31 items (13 eye-specific, 10-nose-specific, eight general midface items).ConclusionsThis midface-specific PROM is valuable in assessing and comparing patient-reported outcomes in those who have undergone complex resection and reconstruction of the midface. This PROM is currently undergoing field testing.
| S-EPMC10959565 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSatisfaction with insulin-delivery devices has been shown to improve treatment adherence, translating into better glycemic control. The Diabetes Pen Experience Measure (DPEM) is a new patient-reported outcome measure to evaluate patients' experience when using an injection device.MethodsThe DPEM was developed using literature review and concept elicitation interviews with clinical experts and patients. This led to a theoretical model and a draft measure of the diabetes pen experience, which was refined following cognitive debriefing. Validation entailed a web-based, noninterventional survey; psychometric analyses conducted according to a statistical analysis plan; and refinement and finalization of the DPEM and theoretical model.ResultsIn total, 42 patients participated in concept elicitation interviews. Analysis of the qualitative interviews resulted in a preliminary theoretical model. Based on this model, DPEM items were generated; the preliminary version of the DPEM contained 30 items. Following cognitive debriefing, the validation-ready version comprised 28 items. These were later reduced to 7 higher-order items owing to ceiling/floor effects. In total, 300 patients participated in the web-based validation study. The item statistics were all adequate. Item-to-item correlations were good. Item-to-total correlations displayed acceptable associations between each item against the rest of the items, with correlations of 0.68 to 0.79. The internal consistency was adequate, with a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91. The DPEM is scored by summing the 7 item scores and transforming the sum onto a 100-point scale.ConclusionThe evidence presented supports the use of the DPEM in clinical trials to evaluate the patients' experience with diabetes injection devices.
| S-EPMC10210123 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Abstract BACKGROUND The American Academy of Neurology Institute and Society for Neuro-Oncology recommend multidisciplinary tumor board (MTB) meetings as a quality metric in neuro-oncology. With the COVID-19 pandemic resulting in travel restrictions, we expanded our existing MTB by transitioning to a virtual format that maintained our commitment to providing consultation for primary CNS tumor cases. This transition permitted participation by neuro-oncology teams from over 30 Brain Tumor Trials Collaborative (BTTC)/National Cancer Institute-Comprehensive Oncology Network Evaluating Rare CNS Tumors (NCI-CONNECT) centers across the United States. Here, we describe results from opening our MTB remotely to these teams. METHODS We retrospectively reviewed records from remote MTB meetings held between April 2020 and March 2021. To gauge the impact of our MTB on clinical management, we administered a brief survey querying BTTC members. RESULTS Twenty-eight providers presented 41 cases during 24 virtual MTB meetings (range: 1-4 cases per meeting). Two cases (5%) were presented only for educational value. Approximately half (54%) of the cases discussed dealt with diagnosis/management of an NCI-CONNECT rare CNS tumor. During MTB discussions of the 39 cases seeking diagnosis/management recommendations, 32% received clinical trial recommendations, 10% were suggested to enroll in the NCI Neuro-Oncology Branch (NOB) Natural History Study (NCT02851706), 17% received a recommendation to obtain central neuropathology review, and 100% received recommendations for further disease management. Most BTTC survey respondents (83%) found these recommendations impactful in the management/treatment of their presented case or generally useful/informative for their clinical practice. CONCLUSION We describe the feasibility and utility of an innovative virtual multi-institutional MTB. These novel remote meetings allowed for discussion of complex neuro-oncology cases and recommendations from experts, particularly important for those with rare CNS tumors. Our study’s findings during the COVID-19 pandemic of the value of providing remote access to MTBs should apply post-pandemic.
| S-EPMC8598475 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIt remains unknown how the COVID-19 pandemic has changed neuro-oncology clinical practice, training, and research efforts.MethodsWe performed an international survey of practitioners, scientists, and trainees from 21 neuro-oncology organizations across 6 continents, April 24-May 17, 2020. We assessed clinical practice and research environments, institutional preparedness and support, and perceived impact on patients.ResultsOf 582 respondents, 258 (45%) were US-based and 314 (55%) international. Ninety-four percent of participants reported changes in their clinical practice. Ninety-five percent of respondents converted at least some practice to telemedicine. Ten percent of practitioners felt the need to see patients in person, specifically because of billing concerns and pressure from their institutions. Sixty-seven percent of practitioners suspended enrollment for at least one clinical trial, including 62% suspending phase III trial enrollments. More than 50% believed neuro-oncology patients were at increased risk for COVID-19. Seventy-one percent of clinicians feared for their own personal safety or that of their families, specifically because of their clinical duties; 20% had inadequate personal protective equipment. While 69% reported increased stress, 44% received no psychosocial support from their institutions. Thirty-seven percent had salary reductions and 63% of researchers temporarily closed their laboratories. However, the pandemic created positive changes in perceived patient satisfaction, communication quality, and technology use to deliver care and mediate interactions with other practitioners.ConclusionsThe pandemic has changed treatment schedules and limited investigational treatment options. Institutional lack of support created clinician and researcher anxiety. Communication with patients was satisfactory. We make recommendations to guide clinical and scientific infrastructure moving forward and address the personal challenges of providers and researchers.
| S-EPMC7928618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is no national, validated, generic patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for children under 15 years of age in Sweden. A recent cross-sectional study found no consensus in how children's voices are heard in paediatric health care, as well as a lack of validated questionnaires.AimThe aim of this study is to translate, adapt and validate the six versions of the Children's and Young People's PREM for use in a Swedish health care context.DesignAn exploratory sequential mixed-method design including cognitive interviews and content validity index (CVI) was used. The interviews focused on evaluating children's understanding of the questionnaire, and the CVI was used to further adjust the relevance of the questionnaire.ParticipantsA convenience sample of 62 children participated in the cognitive interviews and an additional convenience sample of 42 children was included in the CVI testing. The children, aged 8-16 years, were attending routine visits at paediatric departments in a county hospital and a children's hospital in the mid-Sweden region between October 2020 and June 2022.ResultsThe translation, adaptation and validation process identified several issues regarding the understanding of the questionnaire in a Swedish context. Adaptations were made based on issues related to context, wording and the structure of the questions. CVI testing resulted in the removal of 3-10 questions in each of the different versions of the questionnaire.ConclusionThe study has resulted in six face- and content-validated Swedish versions of the questionnaire ready for pilot testing. Although the versions of the original questionnaire were developed in collaboration with children in the United Kingdom, this did not mean that they could automatically be used in a Swedish health care context. This study confirms the importance of a rigorous process of adaptation and validation to ensure quality and applicability to children accessing health care in different countries.Patient or public contributionChildren's views have guided the development of the original instrument and its adaptation to the Swedish health care context. Due to the strong patient involvement in the process of developing the Swedish versions of the questionnaire, the research group made a pragmatic decision to have no other patient contribution in the study.
| S-EPMC10768864 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background and objectivesThe population of patients with kidney failure in the United States using home dialysis modalities is growing rapidly. Unlike for in-center hemodialysis, there is no patient-reported experience measure for assessment of patient experience of care for peritoneal dialysis or home hemodialysis. We sought to develop and establish content validity of a patient-reported experience measure for patients undergoing home dialysis using a mixed methods multiple stakeholder approach.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsWe conducted a structured literature review, followed by concept elicitation focus groups and interviews among 65 participants, including 21 patients on home dialysis, 33 home dialysis nurses, three patient care partners, and eight nephrologists. We generated a list of candidate items for possible measure inclusion and conducted a national prioritization exercise among 91 patients on home dialysis and 39 providers using a web-based platform. We drafted the Home Dialysis Care Experience instrument and conducted cognitive debriefing interviews to evaluate item interpretability, order, and structure. We iteratively refined the measure on the basis of interview findings.ResultsThe literature review and concept elicitation phases supported 15 domains of home dialysis care experience in six areas: communication and education of patients, concern and helpfulness of the care team, proficiency of the care team, patient-centered care, care coordination, and amenities and environment. Focus groups results showed that domains of highest importance for measure inclusion were patient education and communication, care coordination, and personalization of care. Prioritization exercise results confirmed focus group findings. Cognitive debriefing indicated that the final measure was easily understood and supported content validity.ConclusionsThe Home Dialysis Care Experience instrument is a 26-item patient-reported experience measure for use in peritoneal dialysis and home hemodialysis. The Home Dialysis Care Experience instrument represents the first rigorously developed and content-valid English-language instrument for assessment of patient-reported experience of care in home dialysis.
| S-EPMC8092066 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesMeasuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures.DesignPhase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement.ResultsPhase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages.ConclusionThis manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients' experiences of different endoscopic interventions.
| S-EPMC8547355 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly used in various medical fields. However, the potential of mHealth to improve patient care in radiotherapy by acquiring electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) during treatment has been poorly studied so far.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to develop and implement a novel Web app (PROMetheus) for patients undergoing radiotherapy. Herein, we have reported our experience with a focus on feasibility, patient acceptance, and a correlation of ePROMs with the clinical course of the patients.MethodsIn the period between January and June 2018, 21 patients used PROMetheus to score side effects, symptoms, and quality of life-related parameters during and after their treatment. Items of the Patient Reported Outcome version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) were chosen based on the primary site of disease, 27 items for head and neck tumors, 21 items for thoracic tumors, and 24 items for pelvic tumors.ResultsIn total, 17 out of the 21 patients (81%) regularly submitted ePROMs and more than 2500 data points were acquired. An average of 5.2, 3.5, and 3.3 min was required to complete the head and neck, thorax, and pelvis questionnaires, respectively. ePROMS were able to detect the occurrence of both expected and unexpected side effects during the treatment. In addition, a gradual increase in the severity of side effects over the course the treatment and their remission afterward could be observed with ePROMs. In total, 9 out of the 17 patients (53%), mostly those with head and neck and thoracic cancers, reported PRO-CTCAE grade III or IV fatigue with severe impairments of activities of daily life.ConclusionsThis study shows the successful implementation of an ePROM system and a high patient acceptance. ePROMs have a great potential to improve patient care in radiotherapy by providing a comprehensive documentation of symptoms and side effects, especially of ones that are otherwise underreported.
| S-EPMC6685133 | biostudies-literature