Could existing infrastructure for using patient-reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?

Barriers EORTC Facilitating factors Facilitators Implementation Inhibiting factors Integration Patient‐reported outcome measures Patient‐reported outcomes Routine care

Journal

BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 May 2021
Historique:
received: 20 11 2020
accepted: 26 04 2021
entrez: 12 5 2021
pubmed: 13 5 2021
medline: 14 5 2021
Statut: epublish

Résumé

There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management. The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach. The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points. Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified. These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND BACKGROUND
There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management.
METHODS METHODS
The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach.
RESULTS RESULTS
The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points.
DISCUSSION CONCLUSIONS
Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified.
CONCLUSIONS CONCLUSIONS
These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33975586
doi: 10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6
pii: 10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6
pmc: PMC8111716
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

448

Subventions

Organisme : Innovationsfond beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA)
ID : 01VSF17040
Organisme : Innovationsfond beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA)
ID : 01VSF17040
Organisme : Innovationsfond beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA)
ID : 01VSF17040
Organisme : Innovationsfond beim Gemeinsamen Bundesausschuss (G-BA)
ID : 01VSF17040

Références

Support Care Cancer. 2020 Oct;28(10):4589-4612
pubmed: 32533435
Qual Life Res. 2015 Oct;24(10):2457-72
pubmed: 26012839
BMC Health Serv Res. 2021 Apr 20;21(1):366
pubmed: 33879141
Br J Cancer. 2012 Feb 28;106(5):826-38
pubmed: 22315052
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Nov;45(17):3017-26
pubmed: 19765978
Value Health. 2019 Oct;22(10):1197-1226
pubmed: 31563263
Qual Life Res. 2021 Jan;30(1):21-40
pubmed: 32926299
Cancer. 2017 May 15;123(10):1848-1859
pubmed: 28085201
Med Care. 2019 May;57 Suppl 5 Suppl 1:S92-S99
pubmed: 30985602
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2020 Nov;156-157:11-23
pubmed: 32980282
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Oct 3;2:46
pubmed: 30363333
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846-1858
pubmed: 25888610
Am J Clin Oncol. 2017 Oct;40(5):464-469
pubmed: 25811297
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Jan;26(1):41-60
pubmed: 28849277
Lancet Oncol. 2020 May;21(5):e240-e251
pubmed: 32359500
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 11;13:211
pubmed: 23758898
Qual Life Res. 2019 Feb;28(2):345-356
pubmed: 30306533
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Sep 1;22(17):3485-90
pubmed: 15337796
Qual Life Res. 2019 Nov;28(11):2871-2887
pubmed: 31364037
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Sep 21;8:104
pubmed: 20858248
Qual Life Res. 2020 Jul 10;:
pubmed: 32651805
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb 10;20(1):102
pubmed: 32041593

Auteurs

Clara Breidenbach (C)

German Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany. breidenbach@krebsgesellschaft.de.

Christoph Kowalski (C)

German Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.

Simone Wesselmann (S)

German Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.

Nora Tabea Sibert (NT)

German Cancer Society, Kuno-Fischer-Straße 8, 14057, Berlin, Germany.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH