Engaging patients and clinicians in online reporting of adverse effects during chemotherapy for cancer. The eRAPID system (Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice)

Introduction: During cancer treatment the timely detection and management of adverse events (AE) is essential for patient safety and maintaining quality of life. eRAPID was devised to support oncology practice, by allowing patients to self-report symptoms online at home during and beyond cancer treatment. Fundamentally the eRAPID intervention delivers immediate severity-tailored feedback directly to patients to guide self-management strategies or hospital contact. Patient data are available in electronic health records (EHR) for hospital staff to access and review as part of clinical assessments. Methods for interpreting and addressing PRO scores: The eRAPID intervention has 5 main interconnecting components (clinical integration into standard care pathways, patient symptom reports, self-management advice, information technology and staff/patient training). Following guidance for the development of complex interventions and using a mixed methods approach, eRAPID was created through a number of stages and tested in a series of usability settings before undergoing systematic evaluation in an ongoing randomised controlled trial. These developmental stages are described here with a focus on how decisions were made to enhance patient and professional engagement with symptom reports and encourage interpretation and clinical utilisation of the data. Discussion: Clinically embedded PRO interventions involve a number of elements and stakeholders with different requirements. Following extensive developmental work eRAPID was pragmatically designed to fit into current oncology practices for reviewing and managing chemotherapy-related toxicities

Online tool for monitoring adverse events in patients with cancer during treatment (eRAPID): field testing in a clinical setting

Objectives: Electronic patient self-Reporting of Adverse-events: Patient Information and aDvice (eRAPID) is an online system developed to support patient care during cancer treatment by improving the detection and management of treatment-related symptoms. Patients can complete symptom reports from home and receive severity-based self-management advice, including notifications to contact the hospital for severe symptoms. Patient data are available in electronic records for staff to review. Prior to the commencement of a randomised controlled trial (RCT), field testing of the intervention was undertaken to troubleshoot practical issues with intervention integration in clinical practice. Design: Observational clinical field testing. Setting: Medical oncology breast service in a UK cancer centre. Participants: 12 patients receiving chemotherapy for early breast cancer and 10 health professionals (oncologists and specialist nurses). Intervention: Patients were asked to use the eRAPID intervention and complete weekly online symptom reports during four cycles of chemotherapy. Clinical staff were invited to access and use patient data in clinical assessments. Analysis: Descriptive data on the frequency of online symptom report completion and severe symptom notifications were collated. Verbal and written feedback was collected from patients and staff and semistructured interviews were conducted to explore patient experiences. Interviews were transcribed and analysed thematically. Results: The testing ran from January 2014 to March 2014. Feedback from patients and staff was largely positive. Patients described eRAPID as ‘reassuring’ and ‘comforting’ and valued the tailored management advice. Several changes were made to refine eRAPID. In particular, improvement of the clinical notification, patient reminder systems and changes to patient and staff training. Conclusions: The field testing generated valuable results used to guide refinement of eRAPID prior to formal intervention evaluation. Feedback indicated that eRAPID has the potential to improve patients’ self-efficacy, knowledge and confidence with managing symptoms during treatment. A large-scale RCT is underway with data collection due to finish in October 2018

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

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

Patients' confidence in treatment decisions for early stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC).

BACKGROUND: In early-stage Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) patients, little is known about how to measure patient participation in Shared-Decision Making (SDM). We examined the psychometric properties and clinical acceptability of the Decision Self-Efficacy scale (DSE) in a cohort of patients undergoing to Stereotactic Ablative Radiotherapy (SABR) or Video-assisted Thoracoscopic Surgery (VATS) to capture patient involvement in treatment decisions. METHODS: In the context of a prospective longitudinal study (Life after Lung Cancer-LiLAC) involving 244 patients with early-stage NSCLC, 158 (64.7%) patients completed the DSE either on paper or electronically online prior to treatment with SABR or VATS pulmonary resection. DSE psychometric properties were examined using: principal components analysis of item properties and internal structure, and internal construct validity; we also performed a sensitivity analysis according to Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG PS), gender, age and treatment received (VATS or SABR) difference. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis using polychoric correlations substantiated that the 11 item DSE is one scale accounting for 81% of the variance. We calculated a value of 0.96 for Cronbach's alpha for the total DSE score. DSE scores did not differ by gender (p = 0.37), between the two treatment groups (p = 0.09) and between younger and older patients (p = 0.4). However, patients with an ECOG PS > 1 have a DSE mean of 73.8 (SD 26) compared to patients with a PS 0-1 who have a DSE mean of 85.8 (SD 20.3 p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: Findings provide preliminary evidence for the reliability and validity of the DSE questionnaire in this population. However, future studies are warranted to identify the most appropriate SDM tool for clinical practice in the lung cancer treatment field