Thresholds in PROMIS Scores Anchored to Subsequent Unscheduled Health Service Use Among People Diagnosed With Cancer.

PURPOSE: To establish thresholds in the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pain interference, physical function, fatigue, and depression scores on the basis of their association with subsequent use of the emergency department (ED) or urgent care by people diagnosed with cancer. METHODS: Retrospective data from 952 people seen at Henry Ford Cancer and insured through the Health Alliance Plan were analyzed using generalized linear mixed-effects models. The log odds of ED or urgent care use during 14 or 30 days after each patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment were related to PRO scores, while adjusting for comorbidity, sociodemographic, and tumor characteristics. RESULTS: Pain interference and physical function were associated with subsequent ED or urgent care visits, but fatigue and depression were not, and the results for 14- and 30-day visits were similar. Thresholds anchored in the likelihood of these visits differed according to cancer stage. For people with advanced cancer, a pain interference score of 60 or higher (odds ratio [OR] 3.75, [95% CI, 1.53 to 7.87]) and a physical function score lower than 40 (OR 2.94, [95% CI, 1.22 to 7.06]) produced the largest ORs with narrowest CIs for 30-day visits. For people with nonadvanced cancer, the thresholds of 65 for pain interference (OR 2.64, [95% CI, 1.40 to 5.01]) and 35 for physical function (OR 1.87, [95% CI, 1.01 to 3.45]) produced largest ORs with narrowest CIs for 30-day visits. CONCLUSION: These anchor-based thresholds in PROMIS scores can inform clinicians' actions with the goal of preventing ED or urgent care visits.

Clinic-based perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in a tertiary cancer center.

PURPOSE: This study examines providers' and clinic staff's perspectives on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) implementation at an academic medical center. METHODS: An anonymous and voluntary survey was administered to Henry Ford Cancer providers and clinic staff 18 months after PROs program implementation in September 2020, to obtain their feedback on perceived barriers, impact on workflows, and PROs administration frequency in routine cancer care. RESULTS: A total of 180 providers and 40 clinic staff were invited to complete the survey; 31% and 63% completed the survey, respectively. Approximately 68% of providers reported that electronically integrated PROs scores were either beneficial or somewhat beneficial to their patients, while only 28% of the clinic staff reported that PROs were beneficial or somewhat beneficial to patients. According to the clinic staff, the most common barriers to PROs completion included lack of patients' awareness of the utility of the program with respect to their care, patients' health status at check-in, and PROs being offered too frequently. CONCLUSION: There is favorable acceptance of the PROs program by providers, but clinic staff found it less favorable. Interventions to address barriers and improve program engagement are needed to ensure broad adoption of PROs in oncology practice.

Real time patient-reported outcome measures in patients with cancer: Early experience within an integrated health system.

BACKGROUND: While patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have benefit in cancer clinical trials, real-world applications are lacking. This study describes the method of implementation of a cancer enterprise-wide PROMs platform. METHODS: After establishing a multispecialty stakeholder group within a large integrated health system, domain-specific instruments were selected from the National Institutes of Health's Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) instruments (pain interference, fatigue, physical function, and depression) and were administered at varying frequencies throughout each patient's cancer journey. All cancer patients with an oncologic visit were eligible to complete the PROMs prior to the visit using a patient portal, or at the time of the visit using a tablet. PROMs were integrated into clinical workflow. Clinical partnerships were essential for successful implementation. Descriptive preliminary data were compared using multivariable logistic regression to determine the factors associated with method of PROMs completion. RESULTS: From September 16, 2020 to July 23, 2021, 23 of 38 clinical units (60.5%) implemented PROMs over 2392 encounters and 1666 patients. Approximately one third of patients (n = 629, 37.8%) used the patient portal. Black patients (aOR 0.70; 95% CI: 0.51-0.97) and patients residing in zip codes with higher percentage of unemployment (aOR: 0.07, 95% CI: 0.01-0.41) were among the least likely to complete PROMs using the patient portal. CONCLUSIONS: Successful system-wide implementation of PROMs among cancer patients requires engagement from multispecialty stakeholders and investment from clinical partners. Attention to the method of PROMs collection is required in order to reduce the potential for disparities, such as Black populations and those residing in areas with high levels of unemployment.