Abstract
PURPOSE Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess how patients feel and function have potential for evaluating quality of care. Stakeholder recommendations for PRO-based performance measures (PMs) were elicited, and feasibility testing was conducted at six cancer centers. METHODS Interviews were conducted with 124 stakeholders to determine priority symptoms and risk adjustment variables for PRO-PMs and perceived acceptability. Stakeholders included patients and advocates, caregivers, clinicians, administrators, and thought leaders. Feasibility testing was conducted in six cancer centers. Patients completed PROMs at home 5-15 days into a chemotherapy cycle. Feasibility was operationalized as ≥ 75% completed PROMs and ≥ 75% patient acceptability. RESULTS Stakeholder priority PRO-PMs for systemic therapy were GI symptoms (diarrhea, constipation, nausea, vomiting), depression/anxiety, pain, insomnia, fatigue, dyspnea, physical function, and neuropathy. Recommended risk adjusters included demographics, insurance type, cancer type, comorbidities, emetic risk, and difficulty paying bills. In feasibility testing, 653 patients enrolled (approximately 110 per site), and 607 (93%) completed PROMs, which indicated high feasibility for home collection. The majority of patients (470 of 607; 77%) completed PROMs without a reminder call, and 137 (23%) of 607 completed them after a reminder call. Most patients (72%) completed PROMs through web, 17% paper, or 2% interactive voice response (automated call that verbally asked patient questions). For acceptability,>95% of patients found PROM items to be easy to understand and complete. CONCLUSION Clinicians, patients, and other stakeholders agree that PMs that are based on how patients feel and function would be an important addition to quality measurement. This study also shows that PRO-PMs can be feasibly captured at home during systemic therapy and are acceptable to patients. PRO-PMs may add value to the portfolio of PMs as oncology transitions from fee-for-service payment models to performance-based care that emphasizes outcome measures.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | E234-E250 |
Journal | Journal of oncology practice |
Volume | 16 |
Issue number | 3 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Mar 1 2020 |
Funding
of Governors, or its Methodology Committee. This study made use of resources funded through the Gillings School of Global Public Health, Nutrition Obesity Research Center (National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases grant P30-DK56350), and the Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center (National Cancer Institute grant P30-CA16086): the Communication for Health Applications and Interventions Core. Supported by Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) award ME-1507-32079 and 1UL1TR00111, KL2TR001109, DK056350, P30-DK56350, P30-CA16086, and P30-CA008748. Research reported in this article was partially funded through PCORI award ME-1507-32079. This work is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the views of PCORI, its Board
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Oncology
- Oncology(nursing)
- Health Policy