Search

Background: Little research has focused on implementation of electronic Patient Reported Outcomes (e-PROs) for meaningful use in patient management in 'real-world' oncology practices. Our quality improvement collaborative used multi-faceted implementation strategies including audit and feedback, disease-site champions and practice coaching, core training of clinicians in a person-centered clinical method for use of e-PROs in shared treatment planning and patient activation, ongoing educational outreach and shared collaborative learnings to facilitate integration of e-PROs data in multi-sites in Ontario and Quebec, Canada for personalized management of generic and targeted symptoms of pain, fatigue, and emotional distress (depression, anxiety). Patients and methods: We used a mixed-methods (qualitative and quantitative data) program evaluation design to assess process/implementation outcomes including e-PROs completion rates, acceptability/use from the perspective of patients/clinicians, and patient experience (surveys, qualitative focus groups). We secondarily explored impact on symptom severity, patient activation and healthcare utilization (Ontario sites only) comparing a pre/post population cohort not exposed/exposed to our implementation intervention using Mann Whitney U tests. We hypothesized that the iPEHOC intervention would result in a reduction in symptom severity, healthcare utilization, and higher patient activation. We also identified key implementation strategies that sites perceived as most valuable to uptake and any barriers. Results: Over 6000 patients completed e-PROs, with sites reaching 51%–95% population completion rates depending on initial readiness. e-PROs were acceptable to patients for communicating symptoms (76%) and by clinicians for treatment planning (80%). Patient experience was better than the provincial average. Compared to the pre-population, we observed a significant reduction in levels of anxiety (p = 0.008), higher levels of patient activation (p = 0.045), and reduced hospitalization rates (12.3% not exposed vs 10.1% exposed, p = 0.034). A pre/post population trend towards significance for reduced emergency department visit rates (14.8% not exposed vs 12.8% exposed, p = 0.081) was also noted. Conclusion: This large-scale pragmatic quality improvement project demonstrates the impact of implementation strategies and a collaborative improvement approach on acceptability of using PROs in clinical practice and their potential for reducing anxiety and healthcare utilization; and improving patient experience and patient activation when implemented in 'real-world' multi-site oncology practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Distress is prevalent among cancer patients at all stages of illness and has been endorsed as the 6th Vital Sign in cancer care. Despite its prevalence, and calls to be monitored, few cancer programs are Screening for Distress in a standardized manner. In this paper, the implementation strategy employed in Canada to change practice by integrating Screening for Distress in routine care is described. Methods: The process from inception of the concept of distress to the implementation of Screening for Distress is discussed. Pioneering work pertinent in laying the foundation for Screening for Distress as a National initiative is highlighted. Additionally, the experience of four jurisdictions currently Screening for Distress is utilized to demonstrate steps to successful implementation and strategies for overcoming challenges. Results: Integrating Screening for Distress into practice requires endorsements from key stakeholders, developing and disseminating national recommendations and guidelines, and utilizing a coordinated and standardized method focused on practice change. At a local level successful implementations engage stakeholders, provide thorough and targeted education, establish interprofesionnal teams, and utilize a phased approach to implementation. Common challenges cited include time, buy-in and lack of resources. Conclusions: Establishing a national approach to implementing Screening for Distress is both feasible and beneficial. A coordinated approach encourages collaboration beyond the walls of any particular center and provides the opportunity for all patients to be provided with improved person-centered care. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]