Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep 1;24(5):964-968.
doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocx009.

Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department

Lisa S Rotenstein  1   2 , Ankit Agarwal  3 , Kelly O'Neil  2 , Andrea Kelly  2 , Maureen Keaty  2 , Colleen Whitehouse  2 , Barbara Kalinowski  2 , Peter F Orio 3rd  1   2 , Neil Wagle  1   4 , Neil E Martin  1   2
Affiliations

Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department

Lisa S Rotenstein et al. J Am Med Inform Assoc. .

Abstract

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are reports of health conditions that come directly from patients. Use of PROs has been associated with improved patient outcomes, enhanced quality of life, and reduced end-of-life spending. Yet there are still outstanding questions regarding the process of implementing PRO collection in routine practice. In this article, we describe the experience of selecting and implementing PROs in a multisite, multidisease academic medical center-based radiation oncology practice and demonstrate that such large-scale rollout is feasible. We establish that PROs can be implemented with minimal to no workflow delays, are generally seen as valuable by clinicians, and can enhance patient-doctor communication. We additionally detail the challenges involved in selecting clinically relevant PRO questionnaires and the centrality of physician buy-in, easy data access, and clear workflows to successful implementation.

Keywords: digital tools; electronic health records; patient engagement; patient outcome assessment.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Sample questionnaire screen in Tonic.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Sample panels from physician report, as seen in the Epic electronic medical record.
Figure 3.
Figure 3.
Results from provider survey regarding PRO perception and use. (A) Comparison of PRO use and perception metrics, spring 2015 vs spring 2016. (B) Reported technical barriers to PRO use.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Basch E, Jia X, Heller G et al. . Adverse symptom event reporting by patients vs clinicians: relationships with clinical outcomes. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;10123:1624–32. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG et al. . Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33:1–10. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;269:1846–58. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Luckett T, Butow PN, King MT. Improving patient outcomes through the routine use of patient‐reported data in cancer clinics: future directions. Psycho‐Oncology. 2009;1811:1129–38. - PubMed
    1. Chapman E, Whale J, Landy A, Hughes D, Saunders M. Clinical evaluation of the Mood and Symptom Questionnaire (MSQ) in a day therapy unit in a palliative support centre in the United Kingdom. Palliat Support Care. 2008;61:51–59. - PubMed