Impact of adoption of patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice on the accuracy of symptom reporting in medical records of cancer patients (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Lancet Oncology, 2006
The Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) are used as standard practice in trials of cancer treatments by clinicians to elicit and report toxic effects. Alternatively, patients could report this information directly as patient-reported outcomes, but the accuracy of these reports compared with clinician reports remains unclear. We aimed to compare the reporting of symptom severity reported by patients and clinicians. Between March and May, 2005, a questionnaire with 11 common CTCAE symptoms was given to consecutive outpatients and their clinicians (physicians and nurses) in lung and genitourinary cancer clinics in the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA. Patients completed a version that used language adapted from the CTCAE for patient self-reporting. The results from the questionnaire were compared with clinician reporting of the same symptoms. Of 435 patients and their clinicians asked to take part in the study, 400 paired surveys were completed. For most symptoms, agreement between patient and clinician was high, and most discrepancies were within a grade difference of one point. Agreement was higher for symptoms that could be observable directly, such as vomiting and diarrhoea, than for more subjective symptoms, such as fatigue and dyspnoea. Differences in symptom reporting rarely would have changed treatment decisions or dosing, and patients assigned greater severity to symptoms more than did clinicians. No significant differences were recorded between the results when the questionnaire was completed by the patient before or after the clinician. Patient reporting of symptoms could add to the current approach to symptom monitoring in cancer treatment trials. Future research should assess the effect of self reporting on clinical outcomes and efficiency, and the use of real-time collection of patient-reported outcomes for early detection of potentially serious adverse events.
The Oncologist, 2019
Background Recent studies have demonstrated improved outcomes with real-time patient-reported outcome questionnaires (PRO questionnaires) using questions adapted for patient use from the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). Outside of the clinical trial setting, limited information exists on factors affecting the completion of PRO questionnaires in routine practice. The primary aim of this prospective cross-sectional study was to evaluate patient willingness to complete PRO questionnaires on a regular basis and to better understand responder biases to improve patient feedback. Materials and Methods Patients performing PRO-CTCAE toxicity and symptom PRO questionnaires in oncology clinics at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre from 2013 to 2016 were assessed for their willingness to complete PRO questionnaires using a nine-item, tablet-based acceptability survey. Patient-reported characteristics (i.e., age, sex, language, marital status, ...
Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology / ESMO, 2015
This review focused on the identification of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in routine cancer clinical practice, the impact on patient, provider and system outcomes and the implementation factors influencing uptake. A scoping review of the published health literature was conducted using empirical databases, namely, Ovid Medline (2003 to September 2013), CINAHL (2003-2013) and PsycINFO (2003-2013). Scoping reviews are systematic literature reviews in a broad topic area that provide relevant and quantified results about the knowledge available on a particular topic and aim to rapidly map and synthesize the evidence to highlight what is known. From a total of 2447 unique publications, 30 articles that met eligibility criteria were reviewed. PRO use appears to be acceptable to patients, enables earlier detection of symptoms and may improve communication between clinicians and patients. However, the impact of routine PROMs collection on health outcomes is less clear and h...
Journal of Patient Experience
Background: Despite increased incorporation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures into clinical trials, information generated from PROs remains largely absent from drug labeling and electronic health records, giving rise to concerns that such information is not adequately informing clinical practice. Objective: To evaluate oncologists’ perceptions concerning the availability and quality of information generated from PRO measures. Additionally, to identify whether an association exists between perceptions of availability and attitudes concerning quality. Method: An online, 11-item questionnaire was developed to capture clinician perspectives on the availability and use of PRO data to inform practice. The survey also asked respondents to rate information on the basis of 4 quality metrics: “usefulness,” “interpretability,” “accessibility,” and “scientific rigor.” Results: Responses were received from 298 of 1301 invitations sent (22.9% response rate). Perceptions regarding the ava...
Supportive Care in Cancer, 2019
Introduction Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the gold standard to describe subjective symptoms. Nurses can be successfully involved in collecting symptom information, because of their direct relationship with the patient. In order to improve clinical management of outpatients receiving active anti-cancer treatment, we introduced in routine clinical practice an assessment of patient-reported symptoms and toxicities, starting from January 2018. Our hypothesis was that this could help to better control symptoms, improving patients' quality of life (QoL). Methods Eligible patients were receiving an active anti-cancer treatment, as outpatients. Patients included in the control group (treated in 2017) underwent Busual^visits (group A), while patients treated in 2018, before each visit received a questionnaire by a dedicated nurse, in order to provide information about symptoms and toxicities (group B). Primary objective was the comparison of QoL changes, measured by EORTC QLQ-C30. Results A total of 211 patients have been analyzed (119 group A; 92 group B). After 1 month, mean change from baseline of global QoL was − 1.68 in group A and + 2.54 in group B (p = 0.004, effect size 0.20). Group B showed significantly better mean changes for fatigue, pain, and appetite loss. Proportion of patients obtaining a clinically significant improvement in global QoL score was higher in group B (32.6%) compared to group A (19.3%, p = 0.04). Patients' satisfaction with questionnaire was high. Conclusion Introduction of PROs in clinical practice, thanks to an active role of nurses, was feasible, produced high patients' satisfaction and a significant QoL improvement, compared to the traditional modality of visit.