Search

ObjectiveDashboards can support person-centered care by helping people partner with their clinicians to coproduce care based on preferences, shared decision-making, and evidence-based treatments. We engaged caregivers of children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), adults with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and clinicians in a pilot study to assess their experiences and the utility and impact of an electronic previsit questionnaire and point-of-care dashboard to support coproduction of rheumatology care.MethodsWe employed a mixed-methods design to assess users' perceptions of a customized electronic health record rheumatology module at four pediatric rheumatology practices and two adult rheumatology practices. We surveyed a convenience sample of caregivers of children with JIA (n = 113), adults with RA (n = 116), and clinicians (n = 12). We conducted semistructured interviews with 13 caregivers and patients and six care teams. Experiences were evaluated using descriptive statistics and thematic analyses.ResultsCaregivers of children with JIA and adults with RA reported the dashboards were useful during discussions (88%) and helped them talk about what mattered most (82%), make health care decisions (83%), and create a treatment plan (77%). Clinicians provided similar feedback. Two-thirds (67%) of caregivers and adults and 55% of clinicians would recommend the dashboard to peers. System usability scores (77.1 ± 15.6) were above average. Dashboards helped users make sense of health information, communicate more effectively, and make decisions. Improvements to the dashboards and workflows could enhance patient self-management and clinician efficiency.ConclusionVisual point-of-care dashboards can support caregivers, patients, and clinicians to coproduce rheumatology care. Findings demonstrate a need to spread and scale for broader benefit and impact.

Background: Shared decision making (SDM) is the process by which patients and clinicians exchange information and preferences to come to joint healthcare decisions. Clinical dashboards can support SDM by collecting, distilling, and presenting critical information, such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs), to be shared at points of care and in between appointments. We describe the implementation strategies and outcomes of a multistakeholder collaborative process known as "co-design" to develop a PRO-informed clinical dashboard to support SDM for patients with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD). Methods: Across 14 sessions, two multidisciplinary teams comprising patients, care partners, clinicians, and other stakeholders iteratively co-designed an SDM dashboard for either advanced cancer (N = 25) or CKD (N = 24). Eligible patients, care partners, and frontline clinicians were identified by six physician champions. The co-design process included four key steps: (1) define "the problem", (2) establish context of use, (3) build a consensus on design, and (4) define and test specifications. We also evaluated our success in implementing the co-design strategy using measures of fidelity, acceptability, adoption, feasibility, and effectiveness which were collected throughout the process. Results: Mean (M) scores across implementation measures of the co-design process were high, including observer-rated fidelity and adoption of co-design practices (M = 19.1 on a 7–21 scale, N = 36 ratings across 9 sessions), as well as acceptability based on the perceived degree of SDM that occurred during the co-design process (M = 10.4 on a 0 to 12 adapted collaboRATE scale). Capturing the feasibility and adoption of convening multistakeholder co-design teams, min–max normalized scores (ranging from 0 to 1) of stakeholder representation demonstrated that, on average, 95% of stakeholder types were represented for cancer sessions (M = 0.95) and 85% for CKD sessions (M = 0.85). The co-design process was rated as either "fully" or "partially" effective by 100% of respondents, in creating a dashboard that met its intended objective. Conclusions: A co-design process was successfully implemented to develop SDM clinical dashboards for advanced cancer and CKD care. We discuss key strategies and learnings from this process that may aid others in the development and uptake of patient-centered healthcare innovations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The Cystic Fibrosis (CF) Foundation sponsored the design, pilot testing, and implementation of the CF Learning Network (CFLN) to explore how the Foundation's Care Center Network (CCN) could become a learning health system. Six years after the design, the Foundation commissioned a formative mixed methods evaluation of the CFLN to assess: CFLN participants' understanding of program goals, attributes, and perceptions of current and future impact. Methods: We performed semi‐structured interviews with CFLN participants to identify perceived goals, attributes, and impact of the network. Following thematic analyses, we developed and distributed a survey to CFLN members and a matched sample of CCN programs to understand whether the themes were unique to the CFLN. Results: Interviews with 24 CFLN participants were conducted. Interviewees identified the primary CFLN goal as improving outcomes for people living with CF, with secondary goals of providing training in quality improvement (QI), creating a learning community, engaging all stakeholders in improvement, and spreading best practices to the CCN. Project management, use of data, common QI methods, and the learning community were seen as critical to success. Survey responses were collected from 103 CFLN members and 25 CCN members. The data revealed that CFLN respondents were more likely than CCN respondents to connect with other CF programs, routinely use data for QI, and engage patient and family partners in QI. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the CFLN provides value beyond that achieved by the CCN. Key questions remain about whether spread of the CFLN could improve outcomes for more people living with CF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS. Methods A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities. Results Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients). Conclusions The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To assess the use of a co-designed patient-reported outcome (PRO) clinical dashboard and estimate its impact on shared decision-making (SDM) and symptomatology in adults with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Materials and Methods: We developed a clinical PRO dashboard within the Northwestern Medicine Patient-Reported Outcomes system, enhanced through co-design involving 20 diverse constituents. Using a single-group, pretest-posttest design, we evaluated the dashboard's use among patients with advanced cancer or CKD between June 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients had a visit with a participating clinician, completed at least two dashboard-eligible visits, and consented to follow-up surveys. PROs were collected 72 h prior to visits, including measures for chronic condition management self-efficacy, health-related quality of life (PROMIS measures), and SDM (collaboRATE). Responses were integrated into the EHR dashboard and accessible to clinicians and patients., Results: We recruited 157 participants: 66 with advanced cancer and 91 with CKD. There were significant improvements in SDM from baseline, as assessed by collaboRATE scores. The proportion of participants reporting the highest level of SDM on every collaboRATE item increased by 15 percentage points from baseline to 3 months, and 17 points between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Additionally, there was a clinically meaningful decrease in anxiety levels over study period (T-score baseline: 53; 3-month: 52; 6-month: 50; P < .001), with a standardized response mean (SRM) of -0.38 at 6 months., Discussion: PRO clinical dashboards, developed and shared with patients, may enhance SDM and reduce anxiety among patients with advanced cancer and CKD., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Background: Depression is common in Parkinson's disease (PD) but is underrecognized clinically. Although systematic screening is a recommended strategy to improve depression recognition in primary care practice, it has not been widely used in PD care., Methods: The 15-item Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) was implemented at 5 movement disorders clinics to screen PD patients. Sites developed processes suited to their clinical workflow. Qualitative interviews with clinicians and patients provided information on feasibility, acceptability, and perceived utility., Results: Prior to implementation, depression screening was recorded in 12% using a formal instrument; 64% were screened informally by clinical interview, and no screening was recorded in 24%. Of 1406 patients seen for follow-up care during the implementation period, 88% were screened, 59% using the GDS-15 (self-administered in 51% and interviewer administered in 8%), a nearly 5-fold increase in formal screening. Lack of clinician or staff time and inability to provide the GDS-15 to the patient ahead of the visit were the most commonly cited reasons for lack of screening using the GDS-15; 378 (45%) patients completing the GDS-15 screened positive for depression, and 137 were enrolled for a 12-month prospective follow-up. Mean GDS-15 scores improved from 8.8 to 7.0 (P < 0.0001) and the 39-item Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire emotional subscore from 42.2 to 36.7 (P = 0.0007)., Conclusions: Depression screening in PD using a formal instrument can be achieved at much higher levels than is currently practiced, but there are barriers to implementing this in clinical practice. An individual site-specific process is necessary to optimize screening rates., (© 2024 The Author(s). Movement Disorders Clinical Practice published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.)

Background: Care partners of people with serious illness experience significant challenges and unmet needs during the patient's treatment period and after their death. Learning from others with shared experiences can be valuable, but opportunities are not consistently available., Objective: This study aims to design and prototype a regional, facilitated, and web-based peer support network to help active and bereaved care partners of persons with serious illness be better prepared to cope with the surprises that arise during serious illness and in bereavement., Methods: An 18-member co-design team included active care partners and those in bereavement, people who had experienced serious illness, regional health care and support partners, and clinicians. It was guided by facilitators and peer network subject-matter experts. We conducted design exercises to identify the functions and specifications of a peer support network. Co-design members independently prioritized network specifications, which were incorporated into an early iteration of the web-based network., Results: The team prioritized two functions: (1) connecting care partners to information and (2) facilitating emotional support. The design process generated 24 potential network specifications to support these functions. The highest priorities included providing a supportive and respectful community; connecting people to trusted resources; reducing barriers to asking for help; and providing frequently asked questions and responses. The network platform had to be simple and intuitive, provide technical support for users, protect member privacy, provide publicly available information and a private discussion forum, and be easily accessible. It was feasible to enroll members in the ConnectShareCare web-based network over a 3-month period., Conclusions: A co-design process supported the identification of critical features of a peer support network for care partners of people with serious illnesses in a rural setting, as well as initial testing and use. Further testing is underway to assess the long-term viability and impact of the network., (©Elizabeth A O’Donnell, Aricca D Van Citters, Inas S Khayal, Matthew M Wilson, David Gustafson, Amber E Barnato, Andrea C Buccellato, Colleen Young, Megan M Holthoff, Eugene Korsunskiy, Stephanie C Tomlin, Amelia M Cullinan, Alexandra C Steinbaugh, Jennifer J Hinson, Kristen R Johnson, Andrew Williams, Ruth M Thomson, Janet M Haines, Anne B Holmes, Ann D Bradley, Eugene C Nelson, Kathryn B Kirkland. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 08.05.2024.)

Background: Despite progress in developing learning health systems (LHS) and associated metrics of success, a gap remains in identifying measures to guide the implementation and assessment of the impact of an oncology LHS. Our aim was to identify a balanced set of measures to guide a person-centered oncology LHS., Methods: A modified Delphi process and clinical value compass framework were used to prioritize measures for tracking LHS performance. A multidisciplinary group of 77 stakeholders, including people with cancer and family members, participated in 3 rounds of online voting followed by 50-minute discussions. Participants rated metrics on perceived importance to the LHS and discussed priorities., Results: Voting was completed by 94% of participants and prioritized 22 measures within 8 domains. Patient and caregiver factors included clinical health (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status, survival by cancer type and stage), functional health and quality of life (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Global-10, Distress Thermometer, Modified Caregiver Strain Index), experience of care (advance care planning, collaboRATE, PROMIS Self-Efficacy Scale, access to care, experience of care, end-of-life quality measures), and cost and resource use (avoidance and delay in accessing care and medications, financial hardship, total cost of care). Contextual factors included team well-being (Well-being Index; voluntary staff turnover); learning culture (Improvement Readiness, compliance with Commission on Cancer quality of care measures); scholarly engagement and productivity (institutional commitment and support for research, academic productivity index); and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging (screening and follow-up for social determinants of health, inclusivity of staff and patients)., Conclusions: The person-centered LHS value compass provides a balanced set of measures that oncology practices can use to monitor and evaluate improvement across multiple domains., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press.)