Dataset Information

Introducing Computed Tomography Simulation-Free and Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes-Monitored Palliative Radiation Therapy into Routine Care: Clinical Outcomes and Implementation Experience.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Our purpose was to report outcomes of a novel palliative radiation therapy protocol that omits computed tomography simulation and prospectively collects electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs).

Methods and materials

Patients receiving extracranial, nonstereotactic, linear accelerator-based palliative radiation therapy who met inclusion criteria (no mask-based immobilization and a diagnostic computed tomography within 4 weeks) were eligible. Global pain was scored with the 11-point numerical pain rating scale (NPRS). Patients were coded as having osseous or soft tissue metastases and no/mild versus severe baseline pain (NPRS ≥ 5). Pain response at 4 weeks was measured according to the international consensus (no analgesia adjustment). Transition to ePRO questionnaires was completed in 3 phases. Initially, pain assessments were collected on paper for 11 months, then pilot ePROs for 1 month and then, after adjustments, revised ePROs from 1 year onwards. ePRO feasibility criteria were established with reference to the paper-based process and published evidence.

Results

Between May 2018 and November 2019, 542 consecutive patients were screened, of whom 163 were eligible (30%), and 160 patients were successfully treated. The proportion of patients eligible for the study improved from approximately 20% to 50% by study end. Routine care pain monitoring via ePROs was feasible. One hundred twenty-seven patients had a baseline NPRS recording. Ninety-five patients had osseous (61% severe pain) and 32 had soft tissue (25% severe pain) metastases. Eighty-four patients (66%) were assessable for pain response at 4 weeks. In the 41 patients with severe osseous pain, overall and complete pain response was 78% and 22%, respectively.

Conclusions

By study completion, 50% of patients receiving palliative extracranial radiation therapy avoided simulation, streamlining the treatment process and maximizing patient convenience. Pain response for patients with severe pain from osseous lesions was equivalent to published evidence.

SUBMITTER: Schuler T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8039552 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDiscrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the status of the routine use of PROMs in palliative care in Japan is presently unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify this complex question. To this end, we administered a questionnaire survey either online or via telephone interviews (questionnaire: sent to 427 designated cancer hospitals, 423 palliative care units [PCUs], and 197 home hospices; interviews: conducted at 13 designated cancer hospitals, nine PCUs, and two home hospices).ResultsQuestionnaires were returned from 458 institutions (44% response rate). We found that 35 palliative care teams (PCTs, 15%), 66 outpatient palliative care services (29%), 24 PCUs (11%) and one (5%) home hospice routinely used PROMs. The most frequently implemented instrument was the Comprehensive Care Needs Survey questionnaire. Moreover, 99 institutions (92%) that routinely used PROMs responded these instruments as useful in relieving patients' symptoms; and moreover, the response rate in regard to usefulness in symptom management was higher than that of institutions that did not routinely use PROMs (p = 0.002); > 50% of the institutions that routinely used PROMs stated that use of these instruments was influenced by disease progression and patients' cognitive function. Moreover, 24 institutions agreed to be interviewed, and interviews demonstrated the benefits of and the barriers to the implementation of PROMs. Effective methods used in the implementation of PROMs were introduced as efforts to reduce the burden placed on patients and to promote healthcare providers' education in the use of PROMs.ConclusionsThis survey quantified the status of the routine use of PROMs within specialized palliative care in Japan, revealed barriers to wider PROM use, and identified needed innovations. Only 108 institutions (24%) routinely used PROMs within specialized palliative care. Based on the results of the study, it is necessary to carefully consider the usefulness of PROs in clinical palliative care, perform careful selection of PROMs according to the patient's condition, and evaluate how specifically to introduce and operate PROMs.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The successful implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical routine faces many challenges, first and foremost the lack of consideration thereof in the patient care process. The aim of this study will be to first identify relevant barriers and facilitators and then design suitable implementation strategies which will be evaluated to improve the effectiveness of a PRO measure assessment in inpatient and outpatient cancer routine care. METHODS:During the preparation phase, interviews with oncological patients (N = 28) and medical staff (N = 4) as well as focus groups with medical staff (N = 18) across five different departments caring for cancer patients were conducted. On the basis of these, qualitative content analysis revealed relevant barriers and facilitators for implementation of PROs in cancer care. Subsequently, implementation strategies and a model of implementation were developed. In the study phase, implementation strategies will be evaluated based on nine different implementation outcomes in five different oncological clinics. Evaluation of the implementation process will take place during three months in each clinic and data will be conducted pre, while and post implementation of the PRO measure. Therefore a sample size of 60 participants of whom 30 staff members and 30 participants will be questioned using existing and newly developed implementation outcome evaluation instruments. DISCUSSION:Key to improving the effectiveness of PRO assessment in the time-critical clinical environment is the utilization of easy-to-use, electronic PRO questionnaires directly linked to patients' records thereby improving consideration of PROs in patient care. In order to validate the effectiveness of this implementation process further, an evaluation parallel to implementation following an observational study design with a mixed-methods approach will be conducted. This study could contribute to the development of adequate evaluation processes of implementation of PROs to foster sustainable integration of PRO measures into routine cancer care. TRIAL REGISTRATION:This study was registered at Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/y7xce/).

Project description:BackgroundTo realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.MethodA controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.ResultsA total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of 'organizational readiness for implementing change' (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).ConclusionThis study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options. Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.