Electronic health record-integrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation.

BACKGROUND: The integration of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into clinical care presents many challenges for health systems. PROMs provide quantitative data regarding patient-reported health status. However, the most effective model for collecting PROMs has not been established. Therefore the purpose of this study is to report the development and preliminary evaluation of the standardized collection of PROMs within a department of orthopedic surgery at a large academic health center. METHODS: We utilized the Users' Guide to Integrating Patient-Reported Outcomes in Electronic Health Records by Gensheimer et al., 2018 as a framework to describe the development of PROMs collection initiative. We framed our initiative by operationalizing the three aspects of PROM collection development: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Next, we performed a preliminary evaluation of our initiative by assessing the response rate of patients completing PROMs (no. of PROMs completed/no. of PROMs administered) across the entire department (18 clinics), ambulatory clinics only (14 clinics), and hospital-based clinics only (4 clinics). Lastly, we reported on the mean response rates for the top 5 and bottom 5 orthopaedic providers to describe the variability across providers. RESULTS: We described the development of a fully-integrated, population health based implementation strategy leveraging the existing resources of our local EHR to maximize clinical utility of PROMs and routine collection. We collected a large volume of PROMs over a 13 month period (n = 10,951) across 18 clinical sites, 7 clinical specialties and over 100 providers. The response rates varied across the department, ranging from 29 to 42%, depending on active status for the portal to the electronic health record (MyChart). The highest single provider mean response rate was 52%, and the lowest provider rate was 13%. Rates were similar between hospital-based (26%) and ambulatory clinics (29%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that our standardized PROMs collection initiative, informed by Gensheimer et al., achieved scope and scale, but faced challenges in achieving a high response rate commensurate with existing literature. However, most studies reported a targeted recruitment strategy within a narrow clinical population. Further research is needed to elucidate the trade-off between scalability and response rates in PROM collection initiatives.

Perceptions of palliative care among hematologic malignancy specialists: a mixed-methods study.

PURPOSE: Patients with hematologic malignancies are less likely to receive specialist palliative care services than patients with solid tumors. Reasons for this difference are poorly understood. METHODS: This was a multisite, mixed-methods study to understand and contrast perceptions of palliative care among hematologic and solid tumor oncologists using surveys assessing referral practices and in-depth semistructured interviews exploring views of palliative care. We compared referral patterns using standard statistical methods. We analyzed qualitative interview data using constant comparative methods to explore reasons for observed differences. RESULTS: Among 66 interviewees, 23 oncologists cared exclusively for patients with hematologic malignancies; 43 treated only patients with solid tumors. Seven (30%) of 23 hematologic oncologists reported never referring to palliative care; all solid tumor oncologists had previously referred. In qualitative analyses, most hematologic oncologists viewed palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas most solid tumor oncologists viewed palliative care as a subspecialty that could assist with complex patient cases. Solid tumor oncologists emphasized practical barriers to palliative care referral, such as appointment availability and reimbursement issues. Hematologic oncologists emphasized philosophic concerns about palliative care referrals, including different treatment goals, responsiveness to chemotherapy, and preference for controlling even palliative aspects of patient care. CONCLUSION: Most hematologic oncologists view palliative care as end-of-life care, whereas solid tumor oncologists more often view palliative care as a subspecialty for comanaging patients with complex cases. Efforts to integrate palliative care into hematologic malignancy practices will require solutions that address unique barriers to palliative care referral experienced by hematologic malignancy specialists.

Evaluation of Pillars4life: a virtual coping skills program for cancer survivors.

OBJECTIVE: Pillars4Life is an educational program that teaches coping skills to cancer patients in a virtual group setting; it was recently implemented at 17 hospitals across the USA. The cost-effective, scalable, and assessable Pillars4Life curriculum targets psychosocial resources (e.g., self-efficacy and coping skills) as a means to reduce symptoms (e.g., depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress) and enhance quality of life. METHODS: Cancer patients were recruited from hospitals that received the LIVESTRONG Community Impact Project Award to enroll in a pilot study of Pillars4Life. Consenting participants met with a certified instructor weekly for 10 weeks in a virtual environment; the manualized intervention trained participants in personal coping skills. Longitudinal assessments over 6 months were assessed using validated instruments to determine changes in Pillars4Life targeted resources and outcomes. Multiple linear regression models examined the relationship between changes in targeted resources and changes in outcome from baseline to 3 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Participants (n = 130) had the following characteristics: mean age of 56 ± 11 years, 87% women, 11% non-Caucasian, and 77% with college degree. At 3- and 6-month follow-up, mean scores improved on all key outcome measures such as depression (Patient Health Questionnaire), anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder), posttraumatic stress (Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist), fatigue (Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue), and well-being (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General) from baseline (all p < 0.01); results were most pronounced among participants who reported ≥4/10 on the Distress Thermometer at baseline (all p < 0.001). Changes in each targeted resource were associated with 3-month improvements in at least one outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Participation in the Pillars4Life program was associated with statistically and clinically significant improvements in scores on pre-specified outcomes and targeted resources.