Routine patient assessment and the use of patient-reported outcomes in specialized palliative care in Japan.
Palliative care
Patient-reported outcome measures
Patient-reported outcomes
Journal
Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 03 2023
09 03 2023
Historique:
received:
20
07
2022
accepted:
21
02
2023
entrez:
9
3
2023
pubmed:
10
3
2023
medline:
10
3
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Discrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the status of the routine use of PROMs in palliative care in Japan is presently unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify this complex question. To this end, we administered a questionnaire survey either online or via telephone interviews (questionnaire: sent to 427 designated cancer hospitals, 423 palliative care units [PCUs], and 197 home hospices; interviews: conducted at 13 designated cancer hospitals, nine PCUs, and two home hospices). Questionnaires were returned from 458 institutions (44% response rate). We found that 35 palliative care teams (PCTs, 15%), 66 outpatient palliative care services (29%), 24 PCUs (11%) and one (5%) home hospice routinely used PROMs. The most frequently implemented instrument was the Comprehensive Care Needs Survey questionnaire. Moreover, 99 institutions (92%) that routinely used PROMs responded these instruments as useful in relieving patients' symptoms; and moreover, the response rate in regard to usefulness in symptom management was higher than that of institutions that did not routinely use PROMs (p = 0.002); > 50% of the institutions that routinely used PROMs stated that use of these instruments was influenced by disease progression and patients' cognitive function. Moreover, 24 institutions agreed to be interviewed, and interviews demonstrated the benefits of and the barriers to the implementation of PROMs. Effective methods used in the implementation of PROMs were introduced as efforts to reduce the burden placed on patients and to promote healthcare providers' education in the use of PROMs. This survey quantified the status of the routine use of PROMs within specialized palliative care in Japan, revealed barriers to wider PROM use, and identified needed innovations. Only 108 institutions (24%) routinely used PROMs within specialized palliative care. Based on the results of the study, it is necessary to carefully consider the usefulness of PROs in clinical palliative care, perform careful selection of PROMs according to the patient's condition, and evaluate how specifically to introduce and operate PROMs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Discrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the status of the routine use of PROMs in palliative care in Japan is presently unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify this complex question. To this end, we administered a questionnaire survey either online or via telephone interviews (questionnaire: sent to 427 designated cancer hospitals, 423 palliative care units [PCUs], and 197 home hospices; interviews: conducted at 13 designated cancer hospitals, nine PCUs, and two home hospices).
RESULTS
Questionnaires were returned from 458 institutions (44% response rate). We found that 35 palliative care teams (PCTs, 15%), 66 outpatient palliative care services (29%), 24 PCUs (11%) and one (5%) home hospice routinely used PROMs. The most frequently implemented instrument was the Comprehensive Care Needs Survey questionnaire. Moreover, 99 institutions (92%) that routinely used PROMs responded these instruments as useful in relieving patients' symptoms; and moreover, the response rate in regard to usefulness in symptom management was higher than that of institutions that did not routinely use PROMs (p = 0.002); > 50% of the institutions that routinely used PROMs stated that use of these instruments was influenced by disease progression and patients' cognitive function. Moreover, 24 institutions agreed to be interviewed, and interviews demonstrated the benefits of and the barriers to the implementation of PROMs. Effective methods used in the implementation of PROMs were introduced as efforts to reduce the burden placed on patients and to promote healthcare providers' education in the use of PROMs.
CONCLUSIONS
This survey quantified the status of the routine use of PROMs within specialized palliative care in Japan, revealed barriers to wider PROM use, and identified needed innovations. Only 108 institutions (24%) routinely used PROMs within specialized palliative care. Based on the results of the study, it is necessary to carefully consider the usefulness of PROs in clinical palliative care, perform careful selection of PROMs according to the patient's condition, and evaluate how specifically to introduce and operate PROMs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36894802
doi: 10.1186/s41687-023-00565-z
pii: 10.1186/s41687-023-00565-z
pmc: PMC9998740
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
25Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2013 Mar;18(1):15-31
pubmed: 22314942
Qual Life Res. 2012 Oct;21(8):1305-14
pubmed: 22048932
Support Care Cancer. 2018 Jan;26(1):41-60
pubmed: 28849277
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2014 Jun;47(6):973-89
pubmed: 24210705
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jul;59(1):83-91
pubmed: 15087145
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Dec;50(6):842-53.e19
pubmed: 26335764
J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):714-24
pubmed: 14966096
J Clin Oncol. 2016 Feb 20;34(6):557-65
pubmed: 26644527
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 15;2:42
pubmed: 30294712
BMC Palliat Care. 2022 May 2;21(1):60
pubmed: 35501844
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Sep 21;8:104
pubmed: 20858248
Cancer. 2003 May 15;97(10):2605-13
pubmed: 12733160
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2013 Jan;43(1):17-21
pubmed: 23166387
Palliat Med. 2014 Feb;28(2):158-75
pubmed: 23801463
J Palliat Med. 2018 Jan;21(S1):S76-S80
pubmed: 29283866
J Natl Compr Canc Netw. 2016 Sep;14(9):1098-104
pubmed: 27587622
Jpn J Clin Oncol. 2019 Mar 1;49(3):257-262
pubmed: 30668720
Palliat Med. 2016 Jan;30(1):6-22
pubmed: 26068193
Health Serv Insights. 2013 Aug 04;6:61-8
pubmed: 25114561
BMC Health Serv Res. 2013 Jun 11;13:211
pubmed: 23758898
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2015 Mar;49(3):611-24
pubmed: 25135657
BMC Palliat Care. 2018 Jan 4;17(1):12
pubmed: 29301524
Qual Life Res. 2008 Dec;17(10):1297-302
pubmed: 18709564
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2003 Dec;26(6):1093-104
pubmed: 14654261
J Palliat Care. 1991 Summer;7(2):6-9
pubmed: 1714502
BMC Palliat Care. 2020 May 28;19(1):75
pubmed: 32466759
Oncologist. 2019 Jan;24(1):76-85
pubmed: 30266893
BMC Cancer. 2022 Feb 10;22(1):161
pubmed: 35144569
Palliat Med. 2019 Sep;33(8):1045-1057
pubmed: 31185804
Support Care Cancer. 2021 Feb;29(2):573-593
pubmed: 32875373
N Engl J Med. 2010 Mar 11;362(10):865-9
pubmed: 20220181
J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013 Nov;46(5):652-60
pubmed: 23566756