Top

Gepubliceerd in:

16-08-2022

Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2023

Abstract

Purpose

Longitudinal, routine utilization of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care has been challenging. The purpose of this study is to describe a quality improvement initiative to improve patient engagement with the BREAST-Q, a gold-standard PROM for breast reconstruction.

Methods

In 2011, we implemented the BREAST-Q as part of routine care. In 2018, we began a quality improvement initiative to increase BREAST-Q patient participation. The BREAST-Q was administered at every clinic visit via an institutional patient portal or an in-clinic tablet; digital dashboard technologies were used to improve workflow integration, real-time accountability, and immediate data availability at clinic visits. High clinical staff engagement was encouraged by assigning “BREAST-Q Champions.” BREAST-Q completion data and patient characteristics were examined to understand non-response to the assessment.

Results

Following quality improvement, the average annual BREAST-Q completion rate increased from 42.8% in 2011–2017 to 87.6% in 2019, the last full year of our study period. High completion rates were maintained January–July 2020; however, a significantly larger proportion of BREAST-Qs were completed at home in 2020 versus the same period in 2019 (49.7 vs. 38.8%, p < 0.001), potentially due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Compared with non-responders, responders were younger (49.7 vs. 52.2 years, p < 0.001), more likely to be white (76.9 vs. 73.6%, p < 0.001), and had private insurance (79.4 vs. 69.8%, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Our quality improvement initiative successfully increased routine completion of the BREAST-Q. Similar implementation techniques may prove beneficial at other institutions interested in incorporating PROMs into routine care.

vorige artikel PROMIS global health: potential utility as a screener to trigger construct-specific patient-reported outcome measures in clinical care

volgende artikel Stages of lipoedema: experiences of physical and mental health and health care

van Egdom, L. S. E., Oemrawsingh, A., Verweij, L. M., et al. (2019). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical breast cancer care: a systematic review. Value Health., 22(10), 1197–1226. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2019.04.1927CrossRef

Basch, E., Barbera, L., Kerrigan, C. L., & Velikova, G. (2018). Implementation of patient-reported outcomes in routine medical care. American Society of Clinical Oncology Educational Book, 38, 122–134. https://doi.org/10.1200/EDBK_200383CrossRef

Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Kris, M. G., et al. (2016). Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 34(6), 557–565. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0830CrossRef

Basch, E., Deal, A. M., Dueck, A. C., et al. (2017). Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA, 318(2), 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.7156CrossRef

Sandhu, S., King, Z., Wong, M., et al. (2020). Implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care at an academic center: identifying opportunities and challenges. JCO Oncol Pract., 16(11), e1255–e1263. https://doi.org/10.1200/OP.20.00357CrossRef

Pusic, A. L., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., Klok, J. A., Cordeiro, P. G., & Cano, S. J. (2009). Development of a new patient-reported outcome measure for breast surgery: The BREAST-Q. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 124(2), 345–353. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181aee807CrossRef

Cano, S. J., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., Cordeiro, P. G., & Pusic, A. L. (2012). The BREAST-Q: Further validation in independent clinical samples. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 129(2), 293–302. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e31823aec6bCrossRef

Fuzesi, S., Cano, S. J., Klassen, A. F., Atisha, D., & Pusic, A. L. (2017). Validation of the electronic version of the BREAST-Q in the Army of Women study. Breast, 33, 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.breast.2017.02.015CrossRef

Cano, S. J., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A. M., & Pusic, A. L. (2013). A closer look at the BREAST-Q((c)). Clinics in Plastic Surgery, 40(2), 287–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cps.2012.12.002CrossRef

10.

Cano, S. J., Klassen, A. F., Scott, A., Alderman, A., & Pusic, A. L. (2014). Interpreting clinical differences in BREAST-Q scores: Minimal important difference. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 134(1), 173e–175e. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000000267CrossRef

11.

Peled, A. W., Amara, D., Piper, M. L., Klassen, A. F., Tsangaris, E., & Pusic, A. L. (2019). Development and validation of a nipple-specific scale for the BREAST-Q to assess patient-reported outcomes following nipple-sparing mastectomy. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, 143(4), 1010–1017. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0000000000005426CrossRef

12.

Nelson, J. A., Allen, R. J., Jr., Polanco, T., et al. (2019). Long-term patient-reported outcomes following postmastectomy breast reconstruction: An 8-year examination of 3268 patients. Annals of Surgery, 270(3), 473–483. https://doi.org/10.1097/sla.0000000000003467CrossRef

13.

Santosa, K. B., Qi, J., Kim, H. M., Hamill, J. B., Wilkins, E. G., & Pusic, A. L. (2018). Long-term patient-reported outcomes in postmastectomy breast reconstruction. JAMA Surgery, 153(10), 891–899. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamasurg.2018.1677CrossRef

14.

Ong, W. L., Schouwenburg, M. G., van Bommel, A. C. M., et al. (2017). A standard set of value-based patient-centered outcomes for breast cancer: The international consortium for health outcomes measurement (ICHOM) initiative. JAMA Oncology, 3(5), 677–685. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.4851CrossRef

15.

U. S. Food & Drug Administration. Medical Device Development Tools (MDDT). Internet. Updated 10/20/2020. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/science-and-research-medical-devices/medical-device-development-tools-mddt

16.

U.S. Food & Drug Administration. MDDT Summary of Evidence and Basis of Qualification Decision for BREAST-Q Reconstruction Module. Retrieved October 30, 2020, from https://www.fda.gov/media/141349/download

17.

Santana, M. J., Haverman, L., Absolom, K., et al. (2015). Training clinicians in how to use patient-reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice. Quality of Life Research, 24(7), 1707–1718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-014-0903-5CrossRef

18.

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 of Life Research, 21(8), 1305–1314. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-0054-xCrossRef

19.

Wohlfahrt, P., Zickmund, S. L., Slager, S., et al. (2020). Provider perspectives on the feasibility and utility of routine patient-reported outcomes assessment in heart failure: A qualitative analysis. Journal of the American Heart Association., 9(2), e013047. https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.119.013047CrossRef

20.

Lavallee, D. C., Chenok, K. E., Love, R. M., et al. (2016). Incorporating patient-reported outcomes into health care to engage patients and enhance care. Health Affairs (Millwood)., 35(4), 575–582. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2015.1362CrossRef

21.

Cohen, W. A., Mundy, L. R., Ballard, T. N., et al. (2016). The BREAST-Q in surgical research: A review of the literature 2009–2015. Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive & Aesthetic Surgery, 69(2), 149–162. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjps.2015.11.013CrossRef

22.

Liu, L. Q., Branford, O. A., & Mehigan, S. (2018). BREAST-Q measurement of the patient perspective in oncoplastic breast surgery: A systematic review. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery. Global Open, 6(8), e1904. https://doi.org/10.1097/gox.0000000000001904CrossRef

23.

Agochukwu-Nwubah, N., Boustany, A., Wetzel, M., Maus, J., & Rinker, B. (2019). Anatomic implants in breast reconstruction: a comparison of outcomes and aesthetic results compared to smooth round silicone implants. Aesthetic Surgery Journal, 39(8), NP322–NP330. https://doi.org/10.1093/asj/sjz074CrossRef

24.

Makhni, E. C., Higgins, J. D., Hamamoto, J. T., Cole, B. J., Romeo, A. A., & Verma, N. N. (2017). Patient compliance with electronic patient reported outcomes following shoulder arthroscopy. Arthroscopy, 33(11), 1940–1946. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.arthro.2017.06.016CrossRef

25.

Rolfson, O., Salomonsson, R., Dahlberg, L. E., & Garellick, G. (2011). Internet-based follow-up questionnaire for measuring patient-reported outcome after total hip replacement surgery-reliability and response rate. Value Health, 14(2), 316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2010.08.004CrossRef

26.

Pronk, Y., Pilot, P., Brinkman, J. M., van Heerwaarden, R. J., & van der Weegen, W. (2019). Response rate and costs for automated patient-reported outcomes collection alone compared to combined automated and manual collection. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 3(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0121-6CrossRef

27.

Wang, K., Eftang, C. N., Jakobsen, R. B., & Årøen, A. (2020). Review of response rates over time in registry-based studies using patient-reported outcome measures. BMJ Open., 10(8), e030808. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030808CrossRef

28.

Batalden, P. B., & Davidoff, F. (2007). What is “quality improvement” and how can it transform healthcare? Quality & Safety in Health Care, 16(1), 2–3. https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.2006.022046CrossRef

29.

Taylor, M. J., McNicholas, C., Nicolay, C., Darzi, A., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2014). Systematic review of the application of the plan-do-study-act method to improve quality in healthcare. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23(4), 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2013-001862CrossRef

30.

McNicholas, C., Lennox, L., Woodcock, T., Bell, D., & Reed, J. E. (2019). Evolving quality improvement support strategies to improve plan-do-study-act cycle fidelity: A retrospective mixed-methods study. BMJ Quality and Safety, 28(5), 356–365. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2017-007605CrossRef

31.

Squitieri, L., Bozic, K. J., & Pusic, A. L. (2017). The role of patient-reported outcome measures in value-based payment reform. Value Health., 20(6), 834–836. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2017.02.003CrossRef

32.

LeBlanc, T. W., & Abernethy, A. P. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer care - hearing the patient voice at greater volume. Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology, 14(12), 763–772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.153CrossRef

33.

Basch, E., Abernethy, A. P., Mullins, C. D., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(34), 4249–4255. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2012.42.5967CrossRef

34.

Ayers, D. C. (2017). Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in total knee arthroplasty. Journal of American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons, 25(Suppl 1), S48-s50. https://doi.org/10.5435/jaaos-d-16-00631CrossRef

35.

Medbery, R. L., Fernandez, F. G., & Khullar, O. V. (2019). ERAS and patient reported outcomes in thoracic surgery: A review of current data. Journal of Thoracic Disease, 11(Suppl 7), S976-s986. https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd.2019.04.08CrossRef

36.

Rolfson, O., Kärrholm, J., Dahlberg, L. E., & Garellick, G. (2011). Patient-reported outcomes in the Swedish hip arthroplasty register: Results of a nationwide prospective observational study. Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. British Volume, 93(7), 867–875. https://doi.org/10.1302/0301-620x.93b7.25737CrossRef

37.

Rodrigue, J. R., Vishnevsky, T., Fleishman, A., et al. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes following living kidney donation: A single center experience. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 22(2–3), 160–168. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-015-9424-9CrossRef

38.

Andikyan, V., Rezk, Y., Einstein, M. H., et al. (2012). A prospective study of the feasibility and acceptability of a web-based, electronic patient-reported outcome system in assessing patient recovery after major gynecologic cancer surgery. Gynecologic Oncology, 127(2), 273–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.07.124CrossRef

39.

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 of Clinical Oncology, 31(20), 2580–2585. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2012.47.6804CrossRef

40.

Goedken, C. C., Livorsi, D. J., Sauder, M., et al. (2019). “The role as a champion is to not only monitor but to speak out and to educate”: the contradictory roles of hand hygiene champions. Implementation Science., 14(1), 110. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0943-xCrossRef

41.

Miech, E. J., Rattray, N. A., Flanagan, M. E., Damschroder, L., Schmid, A. A., & Damush, T. M. (2018). Inside help: An integrative review of champions in healthcare-related implementation. SAGE Open Medecin. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118773261CrossRef

42.

Flanagan, M. E., Plue, L., Miller, K. K., et al. (2018). A qualitative study of clinical champions in context: Clinical champions across three levels of acute care. SAGE Open Medecin, 6, 2050312118792426. https://doi.org/10.1177/2050312118792426CrossRef

43.

Bonawitz, K., Wetmore, M., Heisler, M., et al. (2020). Champions in context: which attributes matter for change efforts in healthcare? Implementation Science, 15(1), 62. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-020-01024-9CrossRef

Titel: Moving towards patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice: implementation lessons from the BREAST-Q
Publicatiedatum: 16-08-2022
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03213-z

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2023

The association between health-related quality of life, self-reported characteristics and 1- and 3-year mortality amongst cardiac patients with and without type 2 diabetes

A comprehensive qualitative framework for health-related quality of life in Duchenne muscular dystrophy

The assessment of psychometric properties for the subjective wellbeing-5 dimensions (SWB-5D) questionnaire in the general Dutch population

Sex differences in quality of life of patients following percutaneous coronary intervention in Vietnam

Associations between healthy lifestyle score and health-related quality of life among Chinese rural adults: variations in age, sex, education level, and income

The impact of stigma on engaged living and life satisfaction among people with mental illness in Hong Kong