Advertisement

Quality of Life Research

, Volume 24, Issue 7, pp 1707–1718 | Cite as

Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice

  • Maria J. Santana
  • Lotte Haverman
  • Kate Absolom
  • Elena Takeuchi
  • David Feeny
  • Martha Grootenhuis
  • Galina Velikova
Article

Abstract

Introduction

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) were originally developed for comparing groups of people in clinical trials and population studies, and the results were used to support treatment recommendations or inform health policy, but there was not direct benefit for the participants providing PROs data. However, as the experience in using those measures increased, it became obvious the clinical value in using individual patient PROs profiles in daily practice to identify/monitor symptoms, evaluate treatment outcomes and support shared decision-making. A key issue limiting successful implementation is clinicians’ lack of knowledge on how to effectively utilize PROs data in their clinical encounters.

Methods

Using a change management theoretical framework, this paper describes the development and implementation of three programs for training clinicians to effectively use PRO data in routine practice. The training programs are in three diverse clinical areas (adult oncology, lung transplant and paediatrics), in three countries with different healthcare systems, thus providing a rare opportunity to pull out common approaches whilst recognizing specific settings. For each program, we describe the clinical and organizational setting, the program planning and development, the content of the training session with supporting material, subsequent monitoring of PROs use and evidence of adoption. The common successful components and practical steps are identified, leading to discussion and future recommendations.

Results

The results of the three training programs are described as the implementation. In the oncology program, PRO data have been developed and are currently evaluated; in the lung transplant program, PRO data are used in daily practice and the integration with electronic patient records is under development; and in the paediatric program, PRO data are fully implemented with around 7,600 consultations since the start of the implementation.

Conclusion

Adult learning programs teaching clinicians how to use and act on PROs in clinical practice are a key steps in supporting patient engagement and participation in shared decision-making. Researchers and clinicians from different clinical areas should collaborate to share ideas, develop guidelines and promote good practice in patient-centred care.

Keywords

Patient-reported outcome measures Training clinicians Use and implementation in clinical practice 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to our colleagues for their interest and participation in the training sessions. Dr. David Feeny has a proprietary interest in Health Utilities Incorporated (HUInc), Dundas, Ontario, Canada. HUInc distributes copyrighted HUI materials and provides methodological advice on the use of HUI. The other co-authors report no other conflict of interest in this work.

References

  1. 1.
    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration. (2014) Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Jensen, R. E., Snyder, C. F., Abernethy, A. P., et al. (2013). Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. Journal of Oncology Practice, 10, 215–222.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wu, A. W., Kharrazi, H., Boulware, L. E., & Snyder, C. F. (2013). Measure once, cut twice—Adding patient-reported outcome measures to the electronic health record for comparative effectiveness research. Journal Clinical Epidemiology, 66, S12–S20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ahmed, S., Berzon, R. A., Revicki, D. A., et al. (2012). The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) within comparative effectiveness research: Implications for clinical practice and health care policy. Medical Care, 50, 1060–1070.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Snyder, C. F., Jensen, R. E., Segal, J. B., & Wu, A. W. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): putting the patient perspective in patient-centered outcomes research. Medical Care, 51, S73–S79.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Banerjee, A. K., Okun, S., Edwards, I. R., et al. (2013). Patient-reported outcome measures in safety event reporting: PROSPER consortium guidance. Drug Safety, 36, 1129–1149.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deyo, R. A., & Patrick, D. L. (1989). Barriers to the use of health status measures in clinical investigation, patient care, and policy research. Medical Care, 27, S254–S268.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Boyce, M. B., Browne, J. P., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality & Safety, 23, 508–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenhalgh, J., & Meadows, K. (1999). The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: A literature review. Journal Evaluation Clinical Practice, 5, 401–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Johnson, J. A., et al. (2010). Assessing the use of health-related quality of life measures in the routine clinical care of lung-transplant patients. Quality Life Research, 19, 371–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelen, V., Detmar, S., Koopman, H., et al. (2012). Reporting health-related quality of life scores to physicians during routine follow-up visits of pediatric oncology patients: is it effective? Pediatric Blood Cancer, 58, 766–774.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Greenhalgh, J., Abhyankar, P., McCluskey, S., Takeuchi, E., & Velikova, G. (2013). How do doctors refer to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in oncology consultations? Quality Life Research, 22, 939–950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Velikova, G., Sheppard, S., Campbell, L., Smith, A., Awad, N., Selby, P., & Brown, J. (2008). Randomized trial of quality-of-life measurement in oncology practice: Do oncologists need to know. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 26, 15S.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Berwick, D. M. (2003). Disseminating innovations in health care. JAMA, 289, 1969–1975.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fleuren, M., Wiefferink, K., & Paulussen, T. (2004). Determinants of innovation within health care organizations: Literature review and Delphi study. International Journal Quality Health Care, 16, 107–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Grol, R. (1997). Personal paper. Beliefs and evidence in changing clinical practice. BMJ, 315, 418–421.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Velikova, G., Awad, N., Coles-Gale, R., Wright, E. P., Brown, J. M., & Selby, P. J. (2008). The clinical value of quality of life assessment in oncology practice—A qualitative study of patient and physician views. Psychooncology, 17, 690–698.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    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 Clinical Oncology, 22, 714–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wright, P., Marshall, L., Smith, A. B., Velikova, G., & Selby, P. (2008). Measurement and interpretation of social distress using the social difficulties inventory (SDI). European Journal Cancer, 44, 1529–1535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Knowles, M. (1978). The adult learner: A neglected species. Houston: Gulf Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rogers, C. R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become (pp. 114, 199–217). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holch, P., Absolom, K., & Velikova, G. (2014). Development and preliminary evaluation of guidelines for emotional distress management in oncology practise. Psychooncology, 23(suppl. 2), 13.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Absolom, K., Takeuchi, E., Warrington, L., et al. (2014). Using a patient reported outcome measure in chemotherapy review consultations: The impact of an interactive doctor training session. Quality of Life Research (Submitted).Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Santana, M. J., & Feeny, D. (2013). Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management. Quality Life Research, 9(3), 371–379.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Santana, M. J., & Feeny, D. H. (2009). Using the health utilities index in routine clinical care: Process, feasibility, and acceptability: A randomized controlled trial. Patient, 2, 159–167.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Haverman, L., & Engelen, V. (2011). Van Rossum MA, Heymans HS, Grootenhuis MA (2011) Monitoring health-related quality of life in paediatric practice: Development of an innovative web-based application. BMC Pediatrics, 11, 3–10.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leaf, P. J., Owens, P. L., Leventhal, J. M., et al. (2004). Pediatricians’ training and identification and management of psychosocial problems. Clinical Pediatrics (Phila), 43, 355–365.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baars, R. M., van der Pal, S. M., Koopman, H. M., & Wit, J. M. (2004). Clinicians’ perspective on quality of life assessment in paediatric clinical practice. Acta Paediatrica, 93, 1356–1362.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Engelen, V., Haverman, L., Koopman, H., et al. (2010). Development and implementation of a patient reported outcome intervention (QLIC-ON PROfile) in clinical paediatric oncology practice. Patient Education and Counseling, 81, 235–244.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wallander, J. L., & Varni, J. W. (1998). Effects of pediatric chronic physical disorders on child and family adjustment. Journal Child Psychology Psychiatry, 39, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Stam, H., Grootenhuis, M. A., Brons, P. P., Caron, H. N., & Last, B. F. (2006). Health-related quality of life in children and emotional reactions of parents following completion of cancer treatment. Pediatric Blood Cancer, 47, 312–319.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Varni, J. W., Burwinkle, T. M., & Lane, M. M. (2005). Health-related quality of life measurement in pediatric clinical practice: An appraisal and precept for future research and application. Health Quality Life Outcomes, 3, 34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Detmar, S. B., Muller, M. J., Schornagel, J. H., Wever, L. D., & Aaronson, N. K. (2002). Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: A randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288, 3027–3034.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Snyder, C. F., Aaronson, N. K., Choucair, A. K., et al. (2012). Implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice: A review of the options and considerations. Quality Life Research, 21, 1305–1314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Greenhalgh, J., Long, A. F., & Flynn, R. (2005). The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: Lack of impact or lack of theory? Social Science and Medicine, 60, 833–843.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Judson, T. J., Bennett, A. V., Rogak, L. J., et al. (2013). Feasibility of long-term patient self-reporting of toxicities from home via the Internet during routine chemotherapy. Journal Clinical Oncology, 31, 2580–2585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maria J. Santana
    • 1
  • Lotte Haverman
    • 2
  • Kate Absolom
    • 3
  • Elena Takeuchi
    • 3
  • David Feeny
    • 4
  • Martha Grootenhuis
    • 2
  • Galina Velikova
    • 3
  1. 1.W21C Research and Innovation Centre, Institute of Public Health, Faculty of MedicineUniversity of CalgaryCalgaryCanada
  2. 2.Psychosocial Department, Emma Children’s HospitalAcademic Medical CenterAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.University of LeedsLeedsUK
  4. 4.Department of EconomicsMcMaster UniversityHamiltonCanada

Personalised recommendations