PDF herunterladen
CC BY 4.0 · ACI open 2024; 08(02): e79-e88
DOI: 10.1055/a-2461-3027
Research Article
Special Section on Patient-Reported Outcomes and Informatics

Stakeholder Perspectives on the Meaningful Integration of Clinical Informatics Interventions Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Healthcare

David Russell
1   Department of Sociology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, United States
,
Yashika Sharma
2   Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
,
Andrew P. Ambrosy
3   Department of Cardiology, Kaiser Permanente San Francisco Medical Center, San Francisco, California, United States
,
Kelly Axsom
4   Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, United States
,
Janejira J. Chaiyasit
5   University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Margaret O. Cuomo
4   Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, United States
,
Christi Deaton
4   Columbia University Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons, New York, New York, United States
5   University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom
,
Anne J. Goldberg
2   Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
,
Parag Goyal
6   Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York, United States
,
Angel Guan
2   Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
,
Fernanda C. G. Polubriaginof
7   Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, United States
,
Lucy McGurk
1   Department of Sociology, Appalachian State University, Boone, North Carolina, United States
,
Alexander T. Sandhu
8   Division of Cardiology and Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, United States
,
John A. Spertus
9   University of Missouri - Kansas City's Healthcare Institute for Innovations in Quality and Saint Luke's Mid America Health Institute, Kansas City, Missouri, United States
,
Meghan Reading Turchioe
2   Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
,
David K. Vawdrey
10   Geisinger, Danville, Pennsylvania, United States
,
Ruth Masterson Creber
2   Columbia University School of Nursing, New York, New York, United States
› Institutsangaben Funding We acknowledge that this work has been funded by R01HL161458 (PI: Masterson Creber).
› Weitere Informationen
Auch verfügbar auf
   Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) capture where patients are on their disease trajectory and can identify changes in health status from their perspective.

Objectives This study applied the equity and sustainability-informed RE-AIM framework (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) to gain insights into clinical informatics interventions for collection and use of PROs across health systems.

Methods A total of 14 health informatics and clinical professionals were interviewed about the development and use of PROs within their health systems and individual practices. Directed content analysis was performed to highlight patterns, similarities, and differences in stakeholder perspectives across RE-AIM domains.

Results The reach of clinical informatics interventions using PROs varied across clinical practices and settings based upon institutional commitment and support, integration of clinical information systems, and engagement with patients and families. Although interventions using PROs were viewed as effective for enabling focused conversations with patients and facilitating shared decision-making, barriers to adoption included licensing requirements associated with PRO instruments, lack of incentives for their use, limited integration of PRO results into electronic medical record systems, and poor support for patients with low technology and/or health literacy. Implementation of interventions using PROs was facilitated through training and support staff who aided clinicians with clinical workflow integration, availability of questionnaires in multiple languages, identifying thresholds and strategies for action, and presenting interpretable visualizations showing changes over time alongside significant clinical events. Maintenance of interventions using PROs was enabled through multimodal data collection approaches and data governance groups that evaluated organizational requests to track new measures.

Conclusion Initiatives to increase the reach of clinical informatics interventions using PROs will require health system investments into medical record system integration, education, and implementation support for clinicians and patients, and efforts to reach patient populations with language barriers or limited technology literacy.

Keywords

patient-reported outcomes - qualitative - RE-AIM - equity - sustainability

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This qualitative interview study of health informatics and medical professionals about factors for their use of patient-reported outcome measures was determined to pose no more than minimal risk to subjects by the Institutional Review Board at Columbia University (Protocol#AAAU9136).


Supplementary Material



Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 28. März 2024

Angenommen: 10. September 2024

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
17. Dezember 2024

© 2024. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Basch E, Deal AM, Dueck AC. et al. Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA 2017; 318 (02) 197-198
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 2 Basch E, Schrag D, Henson S. et al. Effect of electronic symptom monitoring on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022; 327 (24) 2413-2422
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 3 Blinder VS, Deal AM, Ginos B. et al. Financial toxicity monitoring in a randomized controlled trial of patient-reported outcomes during cancer treatment (Alliance AFT-39). J Clin Oncol 2023; 41 (29) 4652-4663
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 4 Baker A, Mitchell EJ, Partlett C, Thomas KS. Evaluating the effect of weekly patient-reported symptom monitoring on trial outcomes: results of the Eczema Monitoring Online randomized controlled trial. Br J Dermatol 2023; 189 (02) 180-187
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 5 Sandhu AT, Zheng J, Kalwani NM. et al. Impact of patient-reported outcome measurement in heart failure clinic on clinician health status assessment and patient experience: a substudy of the PRO-HF Trial. Circ Heart Fail 2023; 16 (02) e010280
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 6 Butler J, Shahzeb Khan M, Lindenfeld J. et al. Minimally clinically important difference in health status scores in patients with HFrEF vs HFpEF. JACC Heart Fail 2022; 10 (09) 651-661
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 7 Brown-Johnson C, Calma J, Amano A. et al. Evaluating the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in heart failure clinic: a qualitative assessment. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2023; 16 (05) e009677
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 8 Zhang R, Burgess ER, Reddy MC. et al. Provider perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record. JAMIA Open 2019; 2 (01) 73-80
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 9 Harle CA, Listhaus A, Covarrubias CM. et al. Overcoming barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record: a case report. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016; 23 (01) 74-79
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 10 Rotenstein LS, Agarwal A, O'Neil K. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (05) 964-968
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 11 Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013; 346: f167
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 12 Liu TC, Ohueri CW, Schryver EM, Bozic KJ, Koenig KM. Patient-identified barriers and facilitators to pre-visit patient-reported outcomes measures completion in patients with hip and knee pain. J Arthroplasty 2018; 33 (03) 643-649.e1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 13 Unni E, Coles T, Lavallee DC, Freel J, Roberts N, Absolom K. Patient adherence to patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) completion in clinical care: current understanding and future recommendations. Qual Life Res 2024; 33 (01) 281-290
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 14 Bakken S, Ruland CM. Translating clinical informatics interventions into routine clinical care: how can the RE-AIM framework help?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2009; 16 (06) 889-897
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 15 Shelton RC, Chambers DA, Glasgow RE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health 2020; 8: 134
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 16 Turchioe MR, Mangal S, Goyal P. et al. A RE-AIM evaluation of a visualization-based electronic patient-reported outcome system. Appl Clin Inform 2023; 14 (02) 227-237
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 17 Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. SAGE Publications;; 2014
    Suche in Google Scholar
  • 18 Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 2007; 19 (06) 349-357
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 19 Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15 (09) 1277-1288
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 20 Saeb S, Korst LM, Fridman M, McCulloch J, Greene N, Gregory KD. Capacity-building for collecting patient-reported outcomes and experiences (PRO) data across hospitals. Matern Child Health J 2023; 27 (09) 1460-1471
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 21 Sisodia RC, Rodriguez JA, Sequist TD. Digital disparities: lessons learned from a patient reported outcomes program during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (10) 2265-2268
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 22 Calvert MJ, Cruz Rivera S, Retzer A. et al. Patient reported outcome assessment must be inclusive and equitable. Nat Med 2022; 28 (06) 1120-1124
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 23 Aiyegbusi OL, Roydhouse J, Rivera SC. et al. Key considerations to reduce or address respondent burden in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection. Nat Commun 2022; 13 (01) 6026
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rodriguez HP, Kyalwazi MJ, Lewis VA, Rubio K, Shortell SM. Adoption of patient-reported outcomes by health systems and physician practices in the USA. J Gen Intern Med 2022; 37 (15) 3885-3892
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 25 Nolla K, Rasmussen LV, Rothrock NE. et al. Seamless integration of computer-adaptive patient reported outcomes into an electronic health record. Appl Clin Inform 2024; 15 (01) 145-154
    Thieme ConnectPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 26 Stover A, Irwin DE, Chen RC. et al. Integrating patient-reported outcome measures into routine cancer care: cancer patients' and clinicians' perceptions of acceptability and value. EGEMS (Wash DC) 2015; 3 (01) 1169
    PubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 27 Roberts NA, Janda M, Stover AM, Alexander KE, Wyld D, Mudge A. ISOQOL PROMs/PREMs in Clinical Practice Implementation Science Work Group. The utility of the implementation science framework “Integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services” (i-PARIHS) and the facilitator role for introducing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in a medical oncology outpatient department. Qual Life Res 2021; 30 (11) 3063-3071
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar
  • 28 Maharaj AD, Roberts N, Jefford M, Ng J, Rutherford C, Koczwara B. The use of patient reported outcome measures in oncology clinical practice across Australia and New Zealand. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2024; 8 (01) 1
    CrossrefPubMedSuche in Google Scholar