Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study.
Outcome assessment
Palliative care
Palliative medicine
Patient-reported outcome measures
Journal
BMC palliative care
ISSN: 1472-684X
Titre abrégé: BMC Palliat Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088685
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Jan 2023
14 Jan 2023
Historique:
received:
11
05
2022
accepted:
19
12
2022
entrez:
14
1
2023
pubmed:
15
1
2023
medline:
18
1
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards. A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation. A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'. While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards.
METHOD
METHODS
A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation.
RESULTS
RESULTS
A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).
Identifiants
pubmed: 36641450
doi: 10.1186/s12904-022-01123-y
pii: 10.1186/s12904-022-01123-y
pmc: PMC9839955
doi:
Types de publication
Observational Study
Multicenter Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
6Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Palliat Med. 2017 Mar;31(3):275-282
pubmed: 27383636
BMJ Support Palliat Care. 2019 Jun;9(2):175-182
pubmed: 26758469
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Nov 24;19(1):178
pubmed: 33234116
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2006 May;15(2):125-32
pubmed: 16643259
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 May 19;33(2):
pubmed: 33909051
Int J Palliat Nurs. 2002 Nov;8(11):540-7
pubmed: 12514464
Radiother Oncol. 2020 Aug;149:94-103
pubmed: 32360828
Palliat Support Care. 2019 Oct;17(5):561-568
pubmed: 30841947
Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):1045-1057
pubmed: 31185804
Palliat Med. 2014 Feb;28(2):158-75
pubmed: 23801463
Am J Clin Oncol. 1982 Dec;5(6):649-55
pubmed: 7165009
J Palliat Med. 2018 Jan;21(S1):S76-S80
pubmed: 29283866
Palliat Med. 2021 Feb;35(2):397-407
pubmed: 33249996
Palliat Med. 2016 Jan;30(1):6-22
pubmed: 26068193
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Dec;48(6):1211-21
pubmed: 24879998
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Apr 4;19(1):45
pubmed: 32247316
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Mar;49(3):611-24
pubmed: 25135657
Ann Oncol. 2022 Sep;33(9):878-892
pubmed: 35462007
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Lancet. 2001 Jan 6;357(9249):7-8
pubmed: 11197385
Ann Palliat Med. 2018 Oct;7(Suppl 3):S253-S261
pubmed: 30180734
Qual Life Res. 2017 Aug;26(8):1925-1954
pubmed: 28293821
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2005 Jul;30(1):51-62
pubmed: 16043007
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Sep 21;8:104
pubmed: 20858248
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Jan 05;16(1):6
pubmed: 29304818
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 Dec 8;19(1):187
pubmed: 33292204
Qual Health Res. 2019 Mar;29(4):510-521
pubmed: 29542400