Dataset Information

An implementation study of electronic assessment of patient-reported outcomes in inpatient radiation oncology.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Despite evidence for clinical benefits, recommendations in guidelines, and options for electronic data collection, routine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is mostly not implemented in clinical practice. This study aimed to plan, conduct and evaluate the implementation of electronic PRO (e-PRO) assessment in the clinical routine of an inpatient radiation oncology clinic.

Methods

The guideline- and evidence-based, stepwise approach of this single-center implementation study comprised preparatory analyses of current practice, selection of assessment instruments and times, development of staff training, and evidence-based recommendations regarding the use of the e-PRO assessment, as well as on-site support of the implementation. Process evaluation focused on potential clinical benefit (number of documented symptoms and supportive measures), feasibility and acceptance (patient contacts resulting in completion/non-completion of the e-PRO assessment, reasons for non-completion, preconditions, facilitators and barriers of implementation), and required resources (duration of patient contacts to explain/support the completion).

Results

Selection of instruments and assessment times resulted in initial assessment at admission (EORTC QLQ-C30, QSR 10), daily symptom monitoring (EORTC single items), and assessment at discharge (EORTC QLQ-C30). Recommendations for PRO-based clinical action and self-management advice for patients concerning nine core symptoms were developed. Staff training comprised group and face-to-face meetings and an additional e-learning course was developed. Analyses of clinical records showed that e-PRO assessment identified more symptoms followed by a higher number of supportive measures compared to records of patients without e-PRO assessment. Analysis of n = 1597 patient contacts resulted in n = 1355 (84.9%) completed e-PROs (initial assessment: n = 355, monitoring: n = 967, final assessment: n = 44) and n = 242 (15.2%) non-completions. Instructions or support to complete e-PROs took on average 5.5 ± 5.3 min per patient contact. The most challenging issue was the integration of the results in clinical practice.

Conclusion

E-PRO assessment in oncologic inpatient settings is acceptable for patients and can support symptom identification and the initiation of supportive measures. The challenge of making the "data actionable" within the clinical workflow and motivating clinical staff to use the results became evident.

SUBMITTER: Nordhausen T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9296709 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:PurposeOur 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 materialsPatients 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.ResultsBetween 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.ConclusionsBy 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.

Project description:PurposeFinancial toxicity is highly prevalent in oncology. Early identification of at-risk patients is essential because financial toxicity is associated with inferior outcomes. Validated general oncology screening tools are cumbersome and not specific to challenges related to radiation therapy, such as daily treatments. In the population of radiation oncology patients, no standardized, validated, rapid screening tool exists. We sought to develop a rapid, no-cost, and reliable financial-toxicity screening tool for clinical radiation oncology.Methods and materialsWe retrospectively analyzed data from a prospective survey study conducted at a large referral center with a heterogeneous population. Before treatment, a 25-item modified comprehensive survey for financial toxicity incorporating subjective and objective patient-reported measures was administered to identify factors linked to the risk of developing financial toxicity, which was defined as radiation therapy resulting in any of the following: loss of income, job, or spouse or difficulty paying for meals, housing, or transportation. We applied a logistic regression model with a stepwise, backward model selection procedure. Estimated probabilities of experiencing financial toxicity were computed using the inverse-logit transformation of the sum of patient-specific predictor values multiplied by the coefficients of the selected logistic regression model. The Youden index was used to determine a reasonable risk threshold.ResultsA total of 157 patients completed the questionnaire, and 34 (22%) were assessed as experiencing financial toxicity. The model retained 3 factors: age, money owed, and copayment-related worries. It resulted in a concordance statistic of 0.85, developed with a risk threshold of 18% (Youden index, 0.59). This model conferred a sensitivity of 89%, specificity of 70%, positive predictive value of 44%, and negative predictive value of 96%.ConclusionsOur proposed financial-toxicity screen is rapid, free, sensitive, and specific, and in this study, it identified early-onset, patient-reported financial toxicity after radiation therapy with just 3 simple variables: age, money owed, and copayment-related concerns. Future research steps should include a validation cohort and identification of interventions to mitigate financial toxicity.

Project description:IntroductionChemotherapy plus radiation (Cis-RT + CP) did not demonstrate superiority in prolonging relapse-free survival compared to chemotherapy alone in patients with stage III or IVA endometrial carcinoma. The impact of treatment on quality of life (QOL), neurotoxicity (NTX) and psychometric properties of the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale during treatment and up to 1 year are described herein.MethodsQOL assessments were scheduled at baseline, 6 weeks (post completion of RT (Cis-RT + CP) or prior to cycle 3 (CP)), then 18 weeks (end of treatment) and 70 weeks (1 year after the end of treatment) after starting treatment. QOL instruments included the FACT-En TOI, FACT/GOG-neurotoxicity (Ntx) subscale (short), and the gastrointestinal (GI) symptoms subscale.ResultsAt the end of treatment, patients receiving Cis-RT + CP reported a statistically significant decreased QOL when compared to CP. The decline in QOL was reflected in physical well-being, functional well-being, and endometrial cancer specific concerns, but the minimally important differences (MID) were not considered clinically meaningful. Patients in both groups reported increased chemotherapy-induced Ntx symptoms with the CP group having worse scores and reaching peak symptoms at the time of chemotherapy completion. Patients on Cis-RT + CP reported statistically significantly worse GI symptoms after radiation therapy compared to patients on CP, this occurred across assessment intervals, though the MID was not meaningful. Psychometric evaluations indicated that the GI symptom scale is reliable, valid, and responsive to change.ConclusionsPROs indicate that the chemoradiotherapy group experienced worse HRQoL and GI toxicity compared to patients randomized to chemotherapy alone for locally advanced endometrial cancer though based on the MID, these were not clinically meaningful differences. The GI symptom subscale was a reliable and valid scale that has value for future trials.Trial registrationNCT00942357.