Cargando…
Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer?
BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This conte...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8111716/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33975586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6 |
_version_ | 1783690555520188416 |
---|---|
author | Breidenbach, Clara Kowalski, Christoph Wesselmann, Simone Sibert, Nora Tabea |
author_facet | Breidenbach, Clara Kowalski, Christoph Wesselmann, Simone Sibert, Nora Tabea |
author_sort | Breidenbach, Clara |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management. METHODS: The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach. RESULTS: The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points. DISCUSSION: Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8111716 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-81117162021-05-11 Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? Breidenbach, Clara Kowalski, Christoph Wesselmann, Simone Sibert, Nora Tabea BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: There has been increasing interest in integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine oncological practice. To date, however, PROs have rarely been implemented in Germany. Currently, PROs are being used as performance measures in colorectal cancer centers in Germany. This content analysis identified factors that may inhibit or facilitate the additional use of PROMs for individual patient management. METHODS: The analysis follows an exploratory approach. Out of 103 centers that participated in a multicentric PRO quality management and benchmarking program in Germany, twelve oncological health-care providers from eight certified colorectal cancer centers were interviewed using a semi-structured interview guide. The interviewees were clinicians (physicians, nurses, psycho-oncologist and physician assistant) who care for colorectal cancer patients. This analysis evaluated whether and how PROs that are primarily collected for quality management/benchmarking reasons could also be used for the management of individual patients. The data was analyzed using a content-analysis approach. RESULTS: The interviewees were not using PRO in their routine clinical work, but they recognized its added value and pointed out potential example uses. Identified inhibiting factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work were effortful access to PRO reports, lacking coordinating structures, time delays and time points of measurements as well as redundancy with other instruments. Facilitating factors for the use of PROs in clinical routine work that were identified included access via electronic patient records, implementation of coordinating structures for PRO processes in the center, clear PRO reports that are easy to interpret, and measurements at relevant time points. DISCUSSION: Clinicians had quite a positive attitude toward PROs and recognized their added value. Inhibiting and facilitating factors of an organizational and technical nature were identified. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate how PROs used for quality management purposes may also be used for the management of individual patients. Therefore, existing structures and processes in the certified colorectal cancer centers, as well as lessons learned from the literature on the implementation of PROs monitoring individual patients need to be taken into account. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6. BioMed Central 2021-05-11 /pmc/articles/PMC8111716/ /pubmed/33975586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Breidenbach, Clara Kowalski, Christoph Wesselmann, Simone Sibert, Nora Tabea Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
title | Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
title_full | Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
title_fullStr | Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
title_full_unstemmed | Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
title_short | Could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
title_sort | could existing infrastructure for using patient‐reported outcomes as quality measures also be used for individual care in patients with colorectal cancer? |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8111716/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33975586 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06457-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT breidenbachclara couldexistinginfrastructureforusingpatientreportedoutcomesasqualitymeasuresalsobeusedforindividualcareinpatientswithcolorectalcancer AT kowalskichristoph couldexistinginfrastructureforusingpatientreportedoutcomesasqualitymeasuresalsobeusedforindividualcareinpatientswithcolorectalcancer AT wesselmannsimone couldexistinginfrastructureforusingpatientreportedoutcomesasqualitymeasuresalsobeusedforindividualcareinpatientswithcolorectalcancer AT sibertnoratabea couldexistinginfrastructureforusingpatientreportedoutcomesasqualitymeasuresalsobeusedforindividualcareinpatientswithcolorectalcancer |