Dataset Information

Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Patients in Routine Clinical Care: Perspectives of Patients and Providers on ESAS-r:Renal.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

The 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.

Results

In 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.

Conclusions

The 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.

SUBMITTER: Evans JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7480546 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesFatigue is a very common and debilitating symptom and identified by patients as a critically important core outcome to be included in all trials involving patients receiving hemodialysis. A valid, standardized measure for fatigue is needed to yield meaningful and relevant evidence about this outcome. This study validated a core patient-reported outcome measure for fatigue in hemodialysis.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA longitudinal cohort study was conducted to assess the validity and reliability of a new fatigue measure (Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis Fatigue [SONG-HD Fatigue]). Eligible and consenting patients completed the measure at three time points: baseline, a week later, and 12 days following the second time point. Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficient were calculated to assess internal consistency, and Spearman rho was used to assess convergent validity. Confirmatory factor analysis was also conducted. Hemodialysis units in the United Kingdom, Australia, and Romania participated in this study. Adult patients aged 18 years and over who were English speaking and receiving maintenance hemodialysis were eligible to participate. Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis, the Visual Analog Scale for fatigue, the 12-Item Short Form Survey, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue were used.ResultsIn total, 485 participants completed the study across the United Kingdom, Australia, and Romania. Psychometric assessment demonstrated that Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Hemodialysis is internally consistent (Cronbach α =0.81-0.86) and stable over a 1-week period (intraclass correlation coefficient =0.68-0.74). The measure demonstrated convergence with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and had moderate correlations with other measures that assessed related but not the same concept (the 12-Item Short Form Survey and the Visual Analog Scale). Confirmatory factor analysis supported the one-factor model.ConclusionsSONG-HD Fatigue seems to be a reliable and valid measure to be used in trials involving patients receiving hemodialysis.

Project description:Background and objectivesPatient-reported outcome measures invite patients to self-report aspects of their quality of life and have been reported to enhance communication with clinicians. We aimed to examine how routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in in-center hemodialysis units influenced patient-clinician communication.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA concurrent, longitudinal, mixed-methods approach was used. We used data from a cluster randomized controlled trial of 17 hemodialysis units in northern Alberta that introduced a patient-reported outcome measures intervention. Patient-clinician communication was assessed using a modified Communication Assessment Tool. Using interpretive description, we explored patients' and nurses' perceptions of communication pertaining to routine patient-reported outcome measure use. Through purposeful sampling, we interviewed ten patients and eight nurses and conducted six observations in the dialysis units, which were documented in field notes. We reviewed 779 patient responses to open-ended survey questions from randomized controlled trial data. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.ResultsOverall, patient-reported outcome measure use did not substantively improve patient-clinician communication. There was a small positive change in mean total Communication Assessment Tool scores (range, 1-5) from baseline to 12 months in patient-reported outcome measure use units (0.25) but little difference from control group units that did not use patient-reported outcome measures (0.21). The qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into why patient-reported outcome measure use did not improve patient-clinician communication. The purpose of patient-reported outcome measure use was not always understood by patients and clinicians; patient-reported outcome measures were not implemented as originally intended in the trial, despite clinician training; there were challenges using patient-reported outcome measures as a means to communicate; and patient-reported outcome measure use was perceived to have limited value.ConclusionsWhile patient-reported outcome measures use did not improve patient-clinician communication, qualitative data suggest implementation challenges, including limited clarity of purpose and perceived limited value, that may have limited the effectiveness of the intervention.

Project description:BackgroundObtaining patients' views of their health and outcomes of interventions utilising patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a well-established method, but there is still uncertainty about the impact of PROMs on services and patient care. Studies are now needed of alternative ways of implementing PROMs. This paper describes a case study of the introduction of a new PROM to assess musculoskeletal (MSK) problems, known as the Musculoskeletal Health Questionnaire (MSK-HQ).MethodsFollowing an invitation from the Arthritis Research UK (ARUK), 11 groups and organisations agreed to become 'partners' in piloting the MSK-HQ. Twenty-nine interviews and a focus group were carried out with key informants from the partners. Interviews were supplemented with some documentary evidence of partners' meetings. Data were coded and analysed with NVivo software V.10. Analysis was carried out via a framework method.ResultsParticipants reported positive evidence that the MSK-HQ is feasible and practical for use in patient care with content that helped health professionals identify and address patients' main presenting problems. Although mediated and reported through health professionals' judgments, the questionnaire was also seen as very relevant and acceptable to a wide spectrum of patients.There was also broad support for the view that whilst the MSK-HQ is relevant to individual patient care, it could also, when aggregated, reflect the experiences of patients as a group and be used as evidence for third parties concerned with the provision and commissioning of services.The main difficulties revealed by the case study were in the form of logistics and sustainability. It was recognised that electronic systems would be more effective for administration and data processing but they were not feasible to develop and implement within reasonable timelines and available budgets. A sustainable approach to using the PROM required significant long-term commitment of budget, a coherent system, and active support from diverse organisations.ConclusionsThe current study supports the view that a bottom-up approach is a promising method to generate PROM-related insights that are relevant to patients and health professionals. The partnership approach to developing and using PROMs may have wider relevance and potential as a model of implementation.

Project description:PurposeTo assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Head and Neck (MDASI-HN) module in cancer clinics and its effect on patient-reported experience.MethodsWe conducted a prospective, longitudinal study at a tertiary cancer institution between September 2020 and August 2021. Patients with newly diagnosed head and neck (HN) cancer who were evaluated to receive radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy and could communicate in English were approached to participate. The primary outcome was feasibility and acceptability of the MDASI-HN implementation in the radiation oncology department assessed by patient and provider exit surveys. Secondary outcomes were patient-reported experience as recorded by a shortened Your Voice Matters survey (YVM) in 2 cohorts pre- and post-MDASI-HN implementation and symptom scores. Descriptive statistics were used for exit surveys and symptom scores. Mann-Whitney tests were used to assess differences in positive responses between pre- and postimplementation for each YVM question. Cochrane-Armitage tests were used to examine changes in patient-reported experience over time.ResultsFifty-one patients were enrolled in the postimplementation cohort and 29 (60%) responded to the exit survey. Eighty-nine percent of patients reported that MDASI-HN made it easier to remember symptoms, and 86% recommend its use in routine care. Four of the 5 radiation oncology HN providers (80%) responded to exit surveys; 75% felt the MDASI-HN provided clinically relevant information, improved communication with patients, and did not increase clinic time. The overall patient-reported experience was not affected by the implementation (P = .82). The probability of positive responses over time was significant (P = .025) in the clinic coordination domain for the postimplementation cohort.ConclusionsImplementation of MDASI-HN was feasible and acceptable by patients and providers. Although the overall patient-reported experience was not affected by implementation, some aspects improved as treatment progressed.

Project description:ObjectivesThe adoption of research-supported treatments is contingent upon multiple interactional levels, including provider level factors. Provider-level factors have been shown to be critical to uptake. The purpose of this study is to examine the relationship between sociodemographic factors, attitudes, and perceived barriers/facilitators to implementation through a comparative approach involving practitioners trained to facilitate a multiple family group intervention for children with disruptive behavior.MethodsParticipants included 91 practitioners who participated in an intervention study regarding barriers to adopting an evidence-based practice. Demographic characteristics were collected via a socio-demographic questionnaire. Barriers and facilitators were assessed via open-ended questions as well as a scale, developed by the authors and guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research that explored provider views regarding the intervention, the systemic and organizational context, experience facilitating groups and involving families in treatment, and feelings toward involving families in treatment. Between group analyses were conducted to examine demographic and characteristic differences of providers by implementation status. Independent samples t-tests for continuous characteristics and chi-square tests for categorical characteristics were used. Responses to open-ended questions were compiled, reviewed, and coded, and frequencies and percentages were calculated.ResultsResults demonstrated that providers who implemented the intervention were significantly more likely to have favorable attitudes toward the intervention compared to those who did not implement it. Prior experience facilitating groups was significantly associated with implementation. Common barriers to implementation included ineligible caseloads and feeling unqualified to deliver the intervention.ConclusionsFurther attention on improving recruitment rates and promoting adequate training and supervision is needed.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are standardized instruments used for assessing patients' perspectives on their health status at a point in time, including their health-related quality of life, symptoms, functionality, and physical, mental, and social wellbeing. For people with kidney failure receiving hemodialysis, addressing high symptom burden and complexity relies on care team members integrating their expertise to achieve common management goals. In the context of a program-wide initiative integrating PROMs into routine hemodialysis care, we aimed to explore patients' and clinicians' perspectives on the role of PROMs in supporting interdisciplinary symptom management.MethodsWe employed a qualitative descriptive approach using semi-structured interviews and observations. Eligible participants included adult patients receiving intermittent, outpatient hemodialysis for > 3 months, their informal caregivers, and hemodialysis clinicians (i.e., nurses, nephrologists, and allied health professionals) in Southern Alberta, Canada. Guided by thematic analysis, team members coded transcripts in duplicate and developed themes iteratively through review, refinement, and discussion.ResultsThirty-three clinicians (22 nurses, 6 nephrologists, 5 allied health professionals), 20 patients, and one caregiver participated in this study. Clinicians described using PROMs to coordinate care across provider types using the resources available in their units, whereas patients tended to focus on the perceived impact of this concerted care on symptom trajectory and care experience. We identified 3 overarching themes with subthemes related to the role of PROMs in interdisciplinary symptom management in this setting: (1) Integrating care for interrelated symptoms ("You need a team", conducive setting, role clarity and collaboration); (2) Streamlining information sharing and access (symptom data repository, common language for coordinated care); (3) Reshaping expectations (expectations for follow-up, managing symptom persistence).ConclusionsWe found that use of PROMs in routine hemodialysis care highlighted symptom interrelatedness and complexity and helped to streamline involvement of the interdisciplinary care team. Issues such as role flexibility and resource constraints may influence sustainability of routine PROM use in the outpatient hemodialysis setting.