Patient-Reported Morbidity Instruments: A Systematic Review

Objectives: Although comorbidities play an essential role in risk adjustment and outcomes measurement, there is little consensus regarding the best source of this data. The aim of this study was to identify general patient-reported morbidity instruments and their measurement properties. Methods: A systematic review was conducted using multiple electronic databases (Embase, Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science) from inception to March 2018. Articles focusing primarily on the development or subsequent validation of a patient-reported morbidity instrument were included. After including relevant articles, the measurement properties of each morbidity instrument were extracted by 2 investigators for narrative synthesis. Results: A total of 1005 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. The most widely assessed instruments were the Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index (n = 7), the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire (n = 3), and the Disease Burden Morbidity Assessment (n = 3). The most commonly included conditions were diabetes, hypertension, and myocardial infarction. Studies demonstrated substantial variability in item-level reliability versus the gold standard medical record review (κ range 0.66-0.86), meaning that the accuracy of the self-reported comorbidity data is dependent on the selected morbidity. Conclusions: The Self-Reported Charlson Comorbidity Index and the Self-Administered Comorbidity Questionnaire were the most frequently cited instruments. Significant variability was observed in reliability per comorbid condition of patient-reported morbidity questionnaires. Further research is needed to determine whether patient-reported morbidity data should be used to bolster medical records data or serve as a stand-alone entity when risk adjusting observational outcomes data

Predictive Ability of C-Reactive Protein in Detecting Short-Term Complications After Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a potentially curative treatment for peritoneal carcinomatosis. Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the predictive value of postoperative inflammatory biomarkers in assessing complications after CRS and HIPEC. Methods: A prospective database of 181 patients, who underwent CRS-HIPEC between March 2014 through April 2018 in the Erasmus MC, was retrospectively analyzed. Postoperative complications were defined according to the serious adverse event (SAE) grading system. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) and white blood cell (WBC) count were compared between patients with SAE grade < 3 and SAE grade ≥ 3. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) was calculated for CRP and WBC against SAE ≥ 3 and various intra-abdominal complications. Results: SAE ≥ 3 postoperative complications occurred in 50 patients. From the second until the fifth postoperative day (POD), CRP levels were significantly higher (p = 0.023, p < 0.001, p = 0.002, and p = 0.002, respectively) in these patients. CRP concentrations above 166 mg/L on POD3 (AUC 0.75) and 116 mg/L on POD4 (AUC 0.70) were associated with the highest risk of an SAE ≥ 3. Postoperative WBC levels were not significantly different between patients with SAE < 3 and SAE ≥ 3 complications. Conclusion: Data from our hospital suggest that CRP levels that continue to rise after POD2 or that are ≥ 166 mg/L at POD3 or ≥ 116 mg/L at POD4, indicate a considerable risk for developing high-grade SAEs. The cut-off values we found can potentially be used as a threshold for additional diagnostic interventions, after they have been validated in external data

Value-based healthcare in ischemic stroke care: Case-mix adjustment models for clinical and patient-reported outcomes

Background: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have been proposed for benchmarking health care quality across hospitals, which requires extensive case-mix adjustment. The current study's aim was to develop and compare case-mix models for mortality, a functional outcome, and a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) in ischemic stroke care. Methods: Data from ischemic stroke patients, admitted to four stroke centers in the Netherlands between 2014 and 2016 with available outcome information (N = 1022), was analyzed. Case-mix adjustment models were developed for mortality, modified Rankin Scale (mRS) scores and EQ-5D index scores with respectively binary logistic, proportional odds and linear regression models with stepwise backward selection. Predictive ability of these models was determined with R-squared (R2) and area-under-The-receiver-operating-characteristic-curve (AUC) statistics. Results: Age, NIHSS score on admission, and heart failure were the only common predictors across all three case-mix adjustment models. Specific predictors for the EQ-5D index score were sex (β = 0.041), socio-economic status (β =-0.019) and nationality (β =-0.074). R2-values for the regression models for mortality (5 predictors), mRS score (9 predictors) and EQ-5D utility score (12 predictors), were respectively R2 = 0.44, R2 = 0.42 and R2 = 0.37. Conclusions: The set of case-mix adjustment variables for the EQ-5D at three months differed considerably from the set for clinical outcomes in stroke care. The case-mix adjustment variables that were specific to this PROM were sex, socio-economic status and nationality. These variables should be considered in future attempts to risk-Adjust for PROMs during benchmarking of hospitals

Facilitators and barriers for implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical care: An academic center's initial experience

Objectives The aim of this study was to explore the perspectives of healthcare providers and researchers in a large academic hospital on facilitators and barriers for implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical care. Methods A customized web-based questionnaire was developed and disseminated to healthcare providers and researchers across multiple medical departments involved in a value-based health care initiative in the hospital. Questionnaire statements were rated using a 5-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”. In addition, 8 open-ended questions were included allowing respondents to mention additional facilitators and barriers for implementing PROMs. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the results. Results In total, 61 participants from both surgical and non-surgical departments completed the survey. Most respondents (51%) were medical specialists and the median employment duration was 14 years. Frequently reported facilitators were the presence of a PROM coordinator in the (outpatient) clinic (85%), the integration of PROMs in the electronic health record (81%), and the intrinsic motivation of members involved in the implementation (N=9 open responses). Commonly reported barriers were language barriers (76%), IT issues (N=17 open responses), and time constraints (N=14 open responses). Conclusions For the successful implementation of PROMs in clinical practice, it is imperative that healthcare organizations consider supporting motivated healthcare professionals, involving PROMs coordinators, and investing in an adequate IT infrastructure, and removal of language barriers

BREAST-Q Breast-Conserving Therapy Module: Normative Data from a Dutch Sample of 9059 Women

BACKGROUND: BREAST-Q, a patient-reported outcome measure for cosmetic and reconstructive breast surgery, is widely used in both clinical research and practice. The aim of this study was to acquire normative data of BREAST-Q's Breast-Conserving Therapy Module from a Dutch population sample and to compare it with existing normative BREAST-Q values. METHODS: Flyers with QR codes, WhatsApp, and one academic center's Facebook and LinkedIn platforms were used to direct participants to self-complete an online version of four domains of the preoperative BREAST-Q Breast-Conserving Therapy Module. BREAST-Q domain scores were log transformed to normalize the distribution. Univariable regression analyses were used to assess (nonlinear) associations between age and BREAST-Q domain scores. RESULTS: Overall, 9059 questionnaire responses were analyzed. Median (±SD) BREAST-Q domain scores were 64.0 ± 18.0 (satisfaction with breasts), 69.0 ± 21.0 (psychosocial well-being), 92.0 ± 20 (physical well-being), and 59.0 ± 15.0 (sexual well-being). Age as a linear term was associated with log-transformed satisfaction with breasts, psychosocial well-being, and physical well-being; sexual well-being was a quadratic function of age. Previous breast surgery unrelated to breast cancer was a significant predictor for higher log-transformed satisfaction with breasts (β = 0.04, p < 0.001) and higher sexual well-being score (β = -0.05, p < 0.001). Compared with previously published normative data, small differences were found in mean BREAST-Q domain scores (mean differences ranging between 2.45 and 6.24). CONCLUSIONS: Normative Dutch BREAST-Q scores follow similar patterns across domains in comparison with previously published normative data. Normative Dutch BREAST-Q data enable future comparisons in breast-related satisfaction and quality of life issues of Dutch patients with breast cancer compared with their age-matched peers

Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Breast Cancer Care: A Systematic Review

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly being used to improve care delivery and are becoming part of routine clinical practice. Objective: This systematic review aims to give an overview of PROM administration methods and their facilitators and barriers in breast cancer clinical practice. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted in Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, and Web of Science for potentially relevant articles from study inception to November 2017. Reference lists of screened reviews were also checked. After inclusion of relevant articles, data were extracted and appraised by 2 investigators. Results: A total of 2311 articles were screened, of which 34 eligible articles were ultimately included. Method and frequency of PROM collection varied between studies. The majority of studies described a promising effect of PROM collection on patients (adherence, symptom distress, quality of life, acceptability, and satisfaction), providers (willingness to comply, clinical decision making, symptom management), and care process or system outcomes (referrals, patient-provider communication, hospital visits). A limited number of facilitators and barriers were identified, primarily of a technical and behavioral nature. Conclusion: Although interpreting the impact of PROM collection in breast cancer care is challenging owing to considerations of synergistic (multicomponent) interventions and generalizability issues, this review found that systematic PROM collection has a promising impact on patients, providers, and care processes/ systems. Further standardization and reporting on method and frequency of PROM collection might help increase the effectiveness of PROM interventions and is warranted to enhance their overall impact