Use of patient-reported outcome measures in quality oncology practice initiative-registered practices: Results of a national survey

Biqi Zhang, Whit Lloyd, Mohammad Jahanzeb, Michael J. Hassett

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been associated with improved survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, this application of PROs is relatively new, and little is known about how practices collect PROs, which PROs are measured, and what challenges are met in implementation. Methods Wesurveyed Quality Oncology Practice Initiative-registered practices in December 2015 to understand the current state of PROs use and identify areas where implementation support may be needed. PRO collectors were asked to describe their views, practices, and challenges with implementation; noncollectors were asked about their interest in and perceived barriers to collection. Results Eighty-nine practices (38% of those that viewed the participation request) completed ≥ 50% of the survey and comprised the analytic sample. Most (79%) responders noted that collecting PROs was a high priority; slightly fewer actually collected PROs (69%). Most collectors (79%) were affiliated with hospitals or medical centers, and nearly all (94%) had electronic health records (EHRs). Collectors saw more patients per week than noncollectors (P < .01). The PROs used by collectors addressed several topics, including patient distress (78%), symptoms (76%), and experience or satisfaction (70%). Perceived implementation challenges were similar for collectors and noncollectors: patient unwillingness to complete questionnaires and insufficient staff support; noncollectors additionally cited lack of PRO integration in the electronic health records. Conclusion Widespread agreement that PRO collection is important has led to early adoption among a sizable minority of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative practices. Reaching consensus regarding which PROs are meaningful and developing and sharing best-practices that overcome implementation barriers could facilitate implementation and maximize PRO utility.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)e602-e609
JournalJournal of Oncology Practice
Volume14
Issue number10
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2018

Fingerprint

Electronic Health Records
Surveys and Questionnaires
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Practice Guidelines
Consensus
Quality of Life
Survival
Neoplasms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Oncology
  • Oncology(nursing)
  • Health Policy

Cite this

Use of patient-reported outcome measures in quality oncology practice initiative-registered practices : Results of a national survey. / Zhang, Biqi; Lloyd, Whit; Jahanzeb, Mohammad; Hassett, Michael J.

In: Journal of Oncology Practice, Vol. 14, No. 10, 01.10.2018, p. e602-e609.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2717c16bb4d245ee89cfc0a638bc18ff,
title = "Use of patient-reported outcome measures in quality oncology practice initiative-registered practices: Results of a national survey",
abstract = "Purpose Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been associated with improved survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, this application of PROs is relatively new, and little is known about how practices collect PROs, which PROs are measured, and what challenges are met in implementation. Methods Wesurveyed Quality Oncology Practice Initiative-registered practices in December 2015 to understand the current state of PROs use and identify areas where implementation support may be needed. PRO collectors were asked to describe their views, practices, and challenges with implementation; noncollectors were asked about their interest in and perceived barriers to collection. Results Eighty-nine practices (38{\%} of those that viewed the participation request) completed ≥ 50{\%} of the survey and comprised the analytic sample. Most (79{\%}) responders noted that collecting PROs was a high priority; slightly fewer actually collected PROs (69{\%}). Most collectors (79{\%}) were affiliated with hospitals or medical centers, and nearly all (94{\%}) had electronic health records (EHRs). Collectors saw more patients per week than noncollectors (P < .01). The PROs used by collectors addressed several topics, including patient distress (78{\%}), symptoms (76{\%}), and experience or satisfaction (70{\%}). Perceived implementation challenges were similar for collectors and noncollectors: patient unwillingness to complete questionnaires and insufficient staff support; noncollectors additionally cited lack of PRO integration in the electronic health records. Conclusion Widespread agreement that PRO collection is important has led to early adoption among a sizable minority of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative practices. Reaching consensus regarding which PROs are meaningful and developing and sharing best-practices that overcome implementation barriers could facilitate implementation and maximize PRO utility.",
author = "Biqi Zhang and Whit Lloyd and Mohammad Jahanzeb and Hassett, {Michael J.}",
year = "2018",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JOP.18.00088",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "14",
pages = "e602--e609",
journal = "Journal of Oncology Practice",
issn = "1554-7477",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "10",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Use of patient-reported outcome measures in quality oncology practice initiative-registered practices

T2 - Results of a national survey

AU - Zhang, Biqi

AU - Lloyd, Whit

AU - Jahanzeb, Mohammad

AU - Hassett, Michael J.

PY - 2018/10/1

Y1 - 2018/10/1

N2 - Purpose Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been associated with improved survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, this application of PROs is relatively new, and little is known about how practices collect PROs, which PROs are measured, and what challenges are met in implementation. Methods Wesurveyed Quality Oncology Practice Initiative-registered practices in December 2015 to understand the current state of PROs use and identify areas where implementation support may be needed. PRO collectors were asked to describe their views, practices, and challenges with implementation; noncollectors were asked about their interest in and perceived barriers to collection. Results Eighty-nine practices (38% of those that viewed the participation request) completed ≥ 50% of the survey and comprised the analytic sample. Most (79%) responders noted that collecting PROs was a high priority; slightly fewer actually collected PROs (69%). Most collectors (79%) were affiliated with hospitals or medical centers, and nearly all (94%) had electronic health records (EHRs). Collectors saw more patients per week than noncollectors (P < .01). The PROs used by collectors addressed several topics, including patient distress (78%), symptoms (76%), and experience or satisfaction (70%). Perceived implementation challenges were similar for collectors and noncollectors: patient unwillingness to complete questionnaires and insufficient staff support; noncollectors additionally cited lack of PRO integration in the electronic health records. Conclusion Widespread agreement that PRO collection is important has led to early adoption among a sizable minority of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative practices. Reaching consensus regarding which PROs are meaningful and developing and sharing best-practices that overcome implementation barriers could facilitate implementation and maximize PRO utility.

AB - Purpose Measuring patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice has been associated with improved survival and quality of life for patients with cancer. However, this application of PROs is relatively new, and little is known about how practices collect PROs, which PROs are measured, and what challenges are met in implementation. Methods Wesurveyed Quality Oncology Practice Initiative-registered practices in December 2015 to understand the current state of PROs use and identify areas where implementation support may be needed. PRO collectors were asked to describe their views, practices, and challenges with implementation; noncollectors were asked about their interest in and perceived barriers to collection. Results Eighty-nine practices (38% of those that viewed the participation request) completed ≥ 50% of the survey and comprised the analytic sample. Most (79%) responders noted that collecting PROs was a high priority; slightly fewer actually collected PROs (69%). Most collectors (79%) were affiliated with hospitals or medical centers, and nearly all (94%) had electronic health records (EHRs). Collectors saw more patients per week than noncollectors (P < .01). The PROs used by collectors addressed several topics, including patient distress (78%), symptoms (76%), and experience or satisfaction (70%). Perceived implementation challenges were similar for collectors and noncollectors: patient unwillingness to complete questionnaires and insufficient staff support; noncollectors additionally cited lack of PRO integration in the electronic health records. Conclusion Widespread agreement that PRO collection is important has led to early adoption among a sizable minority of Quality Oncology Practice Initiative practices. Reaching consensus regarding which PROs are meaningful and developing and sharing best-practices that overcome implementation barriers could facilitate implementation and maximize PRO utility.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85054888633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85054888633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JOP.18.00088

DO - 10.1200/JOP.18.00088

M3 - Article

C2 - 30207853

AN - SCOPUS:85054888633

VL - 14

SP - e602-e609

JO - Journal of Oncology Practice

JF - Journal of Oncology Practice

SN - 1554-7477

IS - 10

ER -