Dataset Information

Implementation of a cloud-based electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) platform in patients with advanced cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been associated with improved symptom management and quality of life in patients with cancer. However, the implementation of PROs in an academic clinical practice has not been thoroughly described. Here we report on the execution, feasibility and healthcare utilization outcomes of an electronic PRO (ePRO) application for cancer patients at an academic medical center.

Methods

We conducted a randomized trial comparing an experimental ePRO arm to standard of care in patients with advanced cancer in the thoracic, gastrointestinal, and genitourinary oncology groups at Stanford Cancer Center from March 2018 to November 2019. We describe the pre-implementation, implementation, and post-implementation phases of the ePRO arm, technological barriers, electronic health record (EHR) integration, clinician burden, and patient data privacy and security. Feasibility was pre-specified to be at least 70% completion of all questionnaires. Acceptability was based on patient and clinician feedback. Ambulatory healthcare utilization was assessed by reviewing numbers of phone messages, electronic portal messages, and referrals for supportive care.

Results

Of 617 ePRO questionnaires sent to 72 patients, 445 (72%) were completed. Most clinicians (87.5%) and patients (93%) felt neutral or positive about the ePRO tool's ease of use. Exposure to ePRO did not cause a measurable change in ambulatory healthcare utilization, with a median of less than two phone messages and supportive care referrals, and 5-6 portal messages.

Conclusions

Web-based ePRO tools for patients with advanced cancer are feasible and acceptable without increasing clinical burden. Key lessons include the importance of pilot testing, engagement of stakeholders at all levels, and the need for customization by disease group. Future directions for this work include completion of EHR integration, expansion to other centers, and development of integrated workflows for routine clinical practice.

SUBMITTER: Generalova O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8443731 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionCancer patients experience different complications and outcomes during or after medical treatments. Electronic reporting of the outcomes by patients is a solution that facilitates communication with physicians and improve patient health status. The aim of this study was to develop a smartphone-based application for electronic reporting of outcomes by patients with prostate cancer.MethodsThe present research was conducted in 2021 in two phases. In the first phase, initially, users' requirements were identified based on reviewing the related literature, existing applications, and guidelines. Then, a questionnaire was designed and the specialists' opinions about the users' requirements were investigated. The specialties included urologists, hemato-oncologists, uro-oncologists, and radiotherapists (n = 15). In the second phase, the application was designed, and patients with prostate cancer (n = 21) and specialists (n = 10) evaluated it using the post-study system usability questionnaire (PSSUQ). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics.ResultsThe findings of the first phase of the research showed that out of 108 data elements and functions proposed for the application, 91 items were found essential by the specialists. Data elements were categorized into the patient data, general complications of prostate cancer and side effects of drug therapy, surgery, chemotherapy, cryotherapy, radiation therapy, and hormone therapy. Necessary functions for the application included presenting a patient care summary, communication between the patient and the specialist, free text explanation for complications and sides effects, generating reports, reminder and alert, completing quality of life questionnaire, and calculating the score for the questionnaire. In the second phase of the research, the application was developed and evaluated. The mean value for user satisfaction was (5.95 ± 0.55) out of 7.ConclusionThe developed application can help to accelerate communication with the specialists. It can improve quality of care, reduce unnecessary treatment visits and side effects, and improve timely data collection for a variety of research purposes. However, further research on the cost-effectiveness and usefulness of the collected data is recommended.

Project description:BackgroundElectronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms, and (2) to develop and undertake usability testing of an ePRO solution for use in a study of cell therapy seeking to provide early evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment and test the feasibility of the system for use in later phase studies.MethodsAn ePRO system was designed to be used in a single arm, multi-centre, phase II basket trial investigating the safety and activity of the use of ORBCEL-C™ in the treatment of patients with inflammatory conditions. ORBCEL-C™ is an enriched Mesenchymal Stromal Cells product isolated from human umbilical cord tissue using CD362+ cell selection. Usability testing sessions were conducted using cognitive interviews and the 'Think Aloud' method with patient advisory group members and Research Nurses to assess the usability of the system.ResultsNine patient partners and seven research nurses took part in one usability testing session. Measures of fatigue and health-related quality of life, the PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 global tolerability question were included in the ePRO system. Alert notifications to the clinical team were triggered by PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 scores. Patient participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app. Two patients were unable to complete the testing session, due to technical issues. Research Nurses suggested minor modifications to improve functionality and the layout of the clinician dashboard and the training materials.ConclusionBy testing the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of our novel ePRO system (PROmicsR), we learnt that most people with an inflammatory condition found it easy to report their symptoms using an app on their own device. Their experiences using the PROmicsR ePRO system within a trial environment will be further explored in our upcoming feasibility testing. Research nurses were also positive and found the clinical dashboard easy-to-use. Using ePROs in early phase trials is important in order to provide evidence of therapeutic responses and tolerability, increase the evidence based, and inform methodology development.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN80103507. Registered 01 April 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80103507.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Mobile 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. OBJECTIVE:The 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. METHODS:In 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. RESULTS:In 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. CONCLUSIONS:This 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.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.ObjectivesWe assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.DesignA process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).MethodsLongitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.ResultsData were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.ConclusionTraining clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.RegistrationNCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.