Advertisement

Automating Collection of Pain-Related Patient-Reported Outcomes to Enhance Clinical Care and Research

  • Ashli Owen-Smith
  • Meghan Mayhew
  • Michael C. Leo
  • Alexandra Varga
  • Lindsay Benes
  • Allison Bonifay
  • Lynn DeBar
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Chronic pain is highly prevalent, and the ability to routinely measure patients’ pain and treatment response using validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments is important to clinical care. Despite this recognition, systematic use in everyday clinical care is rare.

Aims

The aims of this study were to (1) describe infrastructure designed to automate PRO data collection, (2) compare study-enhanced PRO completion rates to those in clinical care, and (3) evaluate patient response rates by method of PRO administration and sociodemographic and/or clinical characteristics.

Setting

The Pain Program for Active Coping and Training (PPACT) is a pragmatic clinical trial conducted within three regions of the Kaiser Permanente health care system.

Program Description

PPACT evaluates the effect of integrative primary care-based pain management services on outcomes for chronic pain patients on long-term opioid treatment. We implemented a tiered process for quarterly assessment of PROs to supplement clinical collection and ensure adequate trial data using three methods: web-based personal health records (PHR), automated interactive voice response (IVR) calls, and live outreach.

Program Evaluation

Among a subset of PPACT participants examined (n = 632), the tiered study-enhanced PRO completion rates were higher than in clinical care: 96% completed ≥ 1 study-administered PRO with mean of 3.46 (SD = 0.85) vs. 74% completed in clinical care with a mean of 2.43 (SD = 2.08). Among all PPACT participants at 3 months (n = 831), PRO completion was 86% and analyses of response by key characteristics found only that participant age predicted an increased likelihood of responding to PHR and IVR outreach.

Discussion

Adherence to pain-related PRO data collection using our enhanced tiered approach was high. No demographic or clinical identifiers other than age were associated with differential response by modality. Successful ancillary support should employ multimodal electronic health record functionalities for PRO administration. Using automated modalities is feasible and may facilitate better sustainability for regular PRO administration within health care systems.

Clinical Trials Registration Number: NCT02113592

KEY WORDS

patient-centered outcomes research chronic pain clinical trials primary care electronic health records 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to acknowledge the following people for their efforts with developing and implementing the PRO infrastructure Reesa Laws (at KPNW) and Dana Hankerson-Dyson and Michelle Panneton (at KPGA). Many thanks to Lee Cromwell at KPGA for her analytic assistance.

Funders

UH3 NS088731 (DeBar, Lynn L.)

NINDS

Collaborative Care for Chronic Pain in Primary Care (Primary Care Pain/3318)

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Institutional Review Boards at all study sites approved the study.

Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position or policy of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the US Government.

Prior Presentations

Lancaster, L., Owen-Smith, A., Rowley, A., Laws, R., Bonifay, A., Mayhew, M. & DeBar, L.L. (2016). Automating collection of patient-reported outcomes to enhance clinical care and research. Poster presentation for the American Pain Society 35th Annual Scientific Meeting, May 11–14, 2016.

Conflicts of Interest

Ashli Owen-Smith, Meghan Mayhew, Alexandra Varga, Lindsay Benes, Allison Bonifay, and Lynn DeBar have no conflicts of interest to report. Michael C. Leo received grant funding from several for-profit companies over the past 3 years, each of which is listed below:

Pfizer

(Naleway, Allison L., PhD) 11/14–05/17

Improving immunization coverage in young adolescents (DAIS/3804)

Prelude Corp.

(Linke, Steven, PhD) 3/15–12/16

Multi-marker prognostic profile to predict invasive progression in DCIS patients (Prelude DCIS/3228)

Pfizer

Vesco (PI) 01/14–08/16

Improving diagnosis and management of vulvovaginal atrophy, a health system approach (Pfizer VVA)

GenomeDX Biosciences Inc.

Glass (PI) 06/13–08/14

Validation of a genomic signature for predicting clinical progression (CP) in prostate cancer patients after radical prostatectomy (RP) in a community-based hospital setting (Genome DX Project)

References

  1. 1.
    Schneiderhan J, Clauw D, Schwenk TL. Primary care of patients with chronic pain. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2367–2368.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Nahin RL.. Estimates of pain prevalence and severity in adults: United States, 2012. J Pain. 2015;16(8):769–780.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Murray CJL, Atkinson C, Bhalla K, et al. The state of US health, 1990-2010: burden of diseases, injuries, and risk factors. JAMA. 2013;310(6):591–608.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kroenke K, Cheville A.. Management of chronic pain in the aftermath of the opioid backlash. JAMA. 2017;317(23):2365–2366.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowell D, Haegerich TM, Chou R. CDC Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Chronic Pain—United States, 2016. MMWR Recommend Rep. 2016;65(1):1–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ballantyne JC, Sullivan MD. Intensity of chronic pain—the wrong metric? N Engl J Med. 2015;373(22):2098–2099.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG, et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2016;34(6):557–565.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dobscha SK, Morasco BJ, Kovas AE, Peters DM, Hart K, McFarland BH. Short-term variability in outpatient pain intensity scores in a national sample of older veterans with chronic pain. Pain Med. 2015;16(5):855–865.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goulet JL, Brandt C, Crystal S, et al. Agreement between electronic medical record-based and self-administered pain numeric rating scale: clinical and research implications. Med Care. 2013;51(3):245–250.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jensen RE, Snyder CF, Abernethy AP, et al. Review of electronic patient-reported outcomes systems used in cancer clinical care. J Oncol Pract. 2014;10(4):e215–222.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, et al. What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1480–1501.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Daut RL, Cleeland CS, Flanery RC. Development of the Wisconsin Brief Pain Questionnaire to assess pain in cancer and other diseases. Pain 1983;17(2):197–210.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cleeland CS, Ryan KM.. Pain assessment: global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med. 1994;23(2):129–138.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    DeBar LL, Elder C, Ritenbaugh C, et al. Acupuncture and chiropractic care for chronic pain in an integrated health plan: a mixed methods study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2011;11:118.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Penney LS, Ritenbaugh C, DeBar LL, Elder C, Deyo RA. Provider and patient perspectives on opioids and alternative treatments for managing chronic pain: a qualitative study. BMC Fam Pract. 2017;17(1):164.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Krebs EE, Lorenz KA, Bair MJ, et al. Development and initial validation of the PEG, a three-item scale assessing pain intensity and interference. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24(6):733–738.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van der Wees PJ, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MW, Ayanian JZ, Black N, Western GP, Schneider EC. Integrating the use of patient–reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q. 2014:754–775.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harle CA, Lipori G, Hurley RW. Collecting, integrating, and disseminating patient-reported outcomes for research in a learning healthcare system. EGEMS. 2016;4(1):1240.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Harle CA, Listhaus A, Covarrubias CM, et al. Overcoming barriers to implementing patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record: a case report. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):74–79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yarnall KS, Pollak KI, Ostbye T, Krause KM, Michener JL. Primary care: is there enough time for prevention? Am J Public Health. 2003;93(4):635–641.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Arnow BA, Hunkeler EM, Blasey CM, et al. Comorbid depression, chronic pain, and disability in primary care. Psychosom Med. 2006;68(2):262–268.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Lohr KN, Zebrack BJ. Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: challenges and opportunities. Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):99–107.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ashli Owen-Smith
    • 1
    • 2
  • Meghan Mayhew
    • 3
  • Michael C. Leo
    • 3
  • Alexandra Varga
    • 3
  • Lindsay Benes
    • 3
    • 4
  • Allison Bonifay
    • 3
  • Lynn DeBar
    • 5
  1. 1.Division of Health Management and Policy, School of Public HealthGeorgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Kaiser Permanente Center for Clinical and Outcomes ResearchAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Kaiser Permanente Center for Health ResearchPortlandUSA
  4. 4.University of Portland, School of NursingPortlandUSA
  5. 5.Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research InstituteSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations