Enhancing Patient-Provider Communication With the Electronic Self-Report Assessment for Cancer: A Randomized Trial

No abstract

Please cite this article in press as: E. Børøsund, et al., Nurses' experiences of using an interactive tailored patient assessment tool one year past implementation, Int. J. No. of Pages 12 i n t e r n a t i o n a l j o u r n a l o f m e d i c a l i n f o r m a t i c s x x x ( 2 0 1 3 ) xxx-xxx j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . i j m i j o u r n a l . c o m Nurses' experiences of using an interactive tailored patient assessment tool one year past implementation Objective: To explore nurses' experiences of the benefits of and barriers to using an ITPA called Choice, in cancer care one year after its implementation. ARTICLE IN PRESSMethods: This investigation is a part of a larger study examining the use of Choice in cancer care. Four focus group interviews were conducted with 20 nurses experienced in using the Choice application. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.Results: Three themes and nine sub-themes emerged: (1) "Choice as facilitator for shared understanding and engagement in patients' own care," with three sub-themes: preparing both patient and nurse for communication, shared engagement in care planning, and giving the patients a voice; (2) "enhancing the patients' strengths," with two sub-themes: releasing patient's internal strengths and confirming "normalcy" for the patient; and (3) "new challenges for the nurse," with four sub-themes: organizational challenges, interactions with technology, a need for training in communication skills, and new ethical challenges. Conclusions: Findings suggest that, from nurses' perspectives, integration of ITPAs suchas Choice in clinical practice offers many benefits that can contribute to patient-centered care. However, to reap these benefits, use of such tools must receive equal priority as other routines, and require sufficient time, space and competence. Choice also challenged nurses' professional roles and created dilemmas such as nurses' ambivalence regarding patients' levels of disclosure of sensitive issues and the nurses' ability to respond to

BackgroundThe feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.ObjectivesTo (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.DesignTwo separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.InterventionsAggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.Main outcome measuresAggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.Data sourcesSearches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.Review methodsRealist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.ResultsProviders were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.Strengths and limitationsThere was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.ConclusionsPROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.Future workFuture research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.