Improving Cancer Care Through the Patient Experience: How to Use Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice

2017 ◽  
Vol 37 ◽  
pp. 695-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathi Mooney ◽  
Donna L. Berry ◽  
Meagan Whisenant ◽  
Daniel Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

Improving Cancer Care Through the Patient Experience: How to Use Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice

2017 ◽  
pp. 695-704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathi Mooney ◽  
Donna L. Berry ◽  
Meagan Whisenant ◽  
Daniel Sjoberg
Keyword(s):  
Patient Experience ◽  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
Population Data ◽  
Population Level ◽  
Clinical Work ◽  
Aggregated Data ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Patient Reported

Poorly controlled symptoms are common and debilitating during cancer treatment and can affect functional status and quality of life, health care resource utilization, treatment adherence, and cancer survivorship. Historically, the patient experience, including symptoms during treatment, has not been tracked or documented in the patient health record. Measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), including symptoms, is an essential component to cancer care focused on the illness impact to the patient and family. PROs can be useful at the individual level for monitoring and promoting symptom care both in the clinic and remotely and at the population level for aggregating population data for use in research and quality improvement initiatives. Implementation of PROs in cancer clinical care requires a carefully thought out process to overcome challenges related to integrating PROs into existing electronic health records and clinical work flow. Issues with implementing PRO collection may include making decisions about measurement tools, modes of delivery, frequency of measurement, and interpretation that are guided by a clarification of the purpose for collecting PROs. We focus on three aspects of PRO use: (1) improving care for individual patients, (2) analyzing aggregated data to improve care and outcomes overall, and (3) considerations in implementing PRO collection.

Between a logic of disruption and a logic of continuation: Negotiating the legitimacy of algorithms used in automated clinical decision-making

2021 ◽  
pp. 136345932199674
Author(s):  
Rikke Torenholt ◽  
Henriette Langstrup
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Involvement ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Diagnostic Procedures ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pro Tools

In both popular and academic discussions of the use of algorithms in clinical practice, narratives often draw on the decisive potentialities of algorithms and come with the belief that algorithms will substantially transform healthcare. We suggest that this approach is associated with a logic of disruption. However, we argue that in clinical practice alongside this logic, another and less recognised logic exists, namely that of continuation: here the use of algorithms constitutes part of an established practice. Applying these logics as our analytical framing, we set out to explore how algorithms for clinical decision-making are enacted by political stakeholders, healthcare professionals, and patients, and in doing so, study how the legitimacy of delegating to an algorithm is negotiated and obtained. Empirically we draw on ethnographic fieldwork carried out in relation to attempts in Denmark to develop and implement Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) tools – involving algorithmic sorting – in clinical practice. We follow the work within two disease areas: heart rehabilitation and breast cancer follow-up care. We show how at the political level, algorithms constitute tools for disrupting inefficient work and unsystematic patient involvement, whereas closer to the clinical practice, algorithms constitute a continuation of standardised and evidence-based diagnostic procedures and a continuation of the physicians’ expertise and authority. We argue that the co-existence of the two logics have implications as both provide a push towards the use of algorithms and how a logic of continuation may divert attention away from new issues introduced with automated digital decision-support systems.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: a review of the options and considerations

2011 ◽  
Vol 21 (8) ◽  
pp. 1305-1314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire F. Snyder ◽  
Neil K. Aaronson ◽  
Ali K. Choucair ◽  
Thomas E. Elliott ◽  
Joanne Greenhalgh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Outcomes Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported

Patient‐reported outcomes and personalised cancer care

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Bogda Koczwara ◽  
James Bonnamy ◽  
Peggy Briggs ◽  
Bena Brown ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported

Glioma patient-reported outcomes: patients and clinicians

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjspcare-2020-002699
Author(s):  
Marthe Peeters ◽  
Germaine Ottenheijm ◽  
Paul Bienfait ◽  
Daniëlle Eekers ◽  
Anja Gijtenbeek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Successful Implementation ◽  
Nurse Specialist ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Semistructured Interviews ◽  
Routine Assessment

IntroductionRoutine assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology has shown to improve the quality of the delivered care and to prolong survival. However, for successful implementation of routine assessment of PROs, more knowledge on their usability in clinical practice is needed.ObjectiveThis study aimed to cross-sectionally assess the perspective of patients and clinicians on the practicality of routinely measuring PROs in clinical practice for glioma patients.MethodsSemistructured interviews were conducted evaluating the role of healthcare professionals (HCP) in discussing results of PRO measures (PROMs), and the preferred topics, methods and frequency of PRO assessment. Glioma patients, their proxies and HCPs involved in the treatment of glioma patients from eight centres in the Netherlands were included.ResultsTwenty-four patients, 16 proxies and 35 HCPs were interviewed. The majority of patients, proxies and HCPs (92%, 81% and 80%, respectively) were willing to discuss PRO results during consultations. Although HCPs prefer that results are discussed with the nurse specialist, only one-third of patients/proxies agreed. Functioning of daily life was considered important in all three groups. Most participants indicated that discussion of PROM results should take place during standard follow-up visits, and completed at home about 1 week in advance. On group level, there was no preference for administration of questionnaires on paper or digitally. Lastly, all centres had staff available to send questionnaires on paper.ConclusionThis study shows that routine assessment of PROs is desired by patients, proxies and HCP’s in neuro-oncological care in Dutch hospitals.

scholarly journals A PRO-cision Medicine Methods Toolkit to Address the Challenges of Personalizing Cancer Care Using Patient-Reported Outcomes

Medical Care ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 57 ◽  
pp. S1-S7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claire Snyder ◽  
Michael Brundage ◽  
Yonaira M. Rivera ◽  
Albert W. Wu
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Care ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document