Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-kp629 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-30T14:50:14.907Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Use of an electronic patient-reported outcome measurement system to improve distress management in oncology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 October 2013

Sophia K. Smith ,
Krista Rowe  and
Amy P. Abernethy
Sophia K. Smith
Affiliation:
Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Duke Cancer Care Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina
Krista Rowe
Affiliation:
Department of Medicine, Division of Cellular Therapy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
Amy P. Abernethy*
Affiliation:
Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina Duke Cancer Care Research Program, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina Department of Medicine, Division of Medical Oncology, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
*
Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Amy P. Abernethy, Duke University Medical Center, Box 3436, Durham, North Carolina. E-mail: amy.abernethy@duke.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objective:

Management of patient distress is a critical task in cancer nursing and cancer practice. Here we describe two examples of how an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measurement system implemented into routine oncology care can practically aid clinical and research tasks related to distress management.

Methods:

Tablet personal computers were used to routinely complete a standardized ePRO review of systems surveys at point of care during every encounter in the Duke Oncology outpatient clinics. Two cases of use implementation are explored: (1) triaging distressed patients for optimal care, and (2) psychosocial program evaluation research.

Results:

Between 2009 and 2011, the ePRO system was used to collect information during 17,338 Duke Oncology patient encounters. The system was used to monitor patients for psychosocial distress employing an electronic clinical decision support algorithm, with 1,952 (11.3%) referrals generated for supportive services. The system was utilized to examine the efficacy of a psychosocial care intervention documenting statistically significant improvements in distress, despair, fatigue, and quality of life (QOL) in 50 breast cancer patients.

Significance of results:

ePRO solutions can guide best practice management of cancer patient distress. Nurses play a key role in implementation and utilization.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcomesOncologyDistress management

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
Palliative & Supportive Care , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 69 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

Abernethy, A.P., Herndon, J.E., Wheeler, J.L., et al. (2008). Improving health care efficiency and quality using tablet personal computers to collect research-quality, patient-reported data. Health Services Research, 43, 1975–1991.Google Scholar
Abernethy, A.P., Herndon, J.E., Wheeler, J.L., et al. (2009). Feasibility and acceptability to patients of a longitudinal system for evaluating cancer-related symptoms and quality of life: Pilot study of an e/tablet data collection system in academic oncology. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 37, 1027–1038.Google Scholar
Abernethy, A.P., Ahmad, A., Zafar, S.Y., et al. (2010 a). Electronic patient-reported data capture as a foundation of rapid learning cancer care. Medical Care, 48, Suppl 6, S32–S38.Google Scholar
Abernethy, A.P., Herndon, J.E., Coan, A., et al. (2010 b). Phase 2 pilot study of Pathfinders: A psychosocial intervention for cancer patients. Supportive Care in Cancer, 18, 893–898.Google Scholar
Abernethy, A.P., Zafar, S.Y., Uronis, H., et al. (2010 c). Validation of the Patient Care Monitor (version 2.0), a review of a systems instrument for cancer patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 40, 545–558.Google Scholar
American College of Surgeons (2012). Commission on Cancer. October 2012 update. http://www.facs.org/cancer/Google Scholar
Brady, M.J., Cella, D.F., Mo, F., et al. (1997). Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast quality-of-life instrument. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 15(3), 974–986.Google Scholar
Bultz, B.D. & Carlson, L.E. (2006). Emotional distress: The sixth vital sign—future directions in cancer care. Psycho-Oncology, 15(2), 93–95.Google Scholar
Fortner, B., Okon, T., Schwartzberg, L., et al. (2003). The cancer care monitor: Psychometric content evaluation and pilot testing of a computer administered system for symptom screening and quality of life in adult cancer patients. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 26, 1077–1092.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fortner, B., Baldwin, S., Schwartzberg, L., et al. (2006). Validation of the cancer care monitor items for physical symptoms and treatment side effects using expert oncology nurse evaluation. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 31, 207–214.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Institute of Medicine. (2008). Cancer care for the whole patient: Meeting psychosocial health needs. Adler, N.E. & Page, A.E.K. (eds.). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.Google Scholar
Llieva, J., Baron, S. & Healey, N.M. (2002). Online surveys in marketing research: Pros and cons. International Journal of Marketing Research, 44, 361–367.Google Scholar
National Comprehensive Cancer Network. (2011). Distress management clinical practice guidelines in oncology. November 2011 update. http://www.nccn.org/professionals/physician_gls/f_guidelines.asp#supportiveGoogle Scholar
Smith, S.K., Herndon, J.E., Lyerly, H.K., et al. (2011). Correlates of quality-of-life–related outcomes in breast cancer patients participating in the Pathfinders pilot. Psycho-Oncology, 20, 559–564.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thompson, L.F., Surface, E.A., Martin, D.L., et al. (2003). From paper to pixels: Moving personnel surveys to the Web. Personnel Psychology, 56(1), 197–227.Google Scholar
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (2011). Guidance for industry. Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. November 2011 update. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdfGoogle Scholar
Velikova, G., Booth, L., Smith, A.B., et al. (2004). Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well being: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(4), 714–724.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed