Clinical oncology (Royal College of Radiologists (Great Britain)) · 2024
Patient Engagement in the Implementation of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Tools: The Experience of Two Early-Adopter Institutions in the Pan-Canadian Radiotherapy Patient-Reported Outcome Initiative.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Caissie A, Lane J, Barber B, Chisholm S, Kildea J
Аннотация
AIMS: To share the patient and community engagement experience of two Canadian early adopter sites that implemented electronic patient-reported outcomes collection in radiotherapy practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the first institution, the McGill University Health Centre, a socio-technical stakeholder co-design approach was used to develop a patient portal application (Opal) with built-in ePRO collection capability. Patient and family members were engaged through patient co-leadership, focus groups, semi-structured interviews, a persistent feedback form in the resultant application, and user satisfaction surveys. In the second institution, the Nova Scotia Health (NSH) centres of Dalhousie University's Department of Radiation Oncology, an industry-provided patient engagement tool was deployed. Patient and community engagement in the deployment effort was purposive to promote digital inclusion and diverse representation. Engagement was operationalized via a community feedback session and involvement of patient representatives in oversight committees.
RESULTS: The McGill experience highlighted 3 particular points of concern for patients when collecting ePROs: (1) Data flow should be two-way such that patients have access to their data from the hospital (lab results, clinical notes) as well as providing their data to the hospital (ePROs); (2) If ePROs are collected, they should be used actively by clinicians or the incentive for patients to continue reporting will be diminished; (3) The inherent rigour of electronic data collection may risk frustrating patients due to the inability to skip questions or spoil responses. The Dalhousie/NSH experience demonstrated the value and importance of including a diverse set of community representatives in building an ePRO program so that it can proactively account for real-world complexities and the challenge of simultaneously addressing the needs of diverse communities.
CONCLUSION: Two early-adopter Canadian cancer care programs reported on their experience and lessons learned with patient and community engagement in the rollout of their ePRO collection initiatives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: In the first institution, the McGill University Health Centre, a socio-technical stakeholder co-design approach was used to develop a patient portal application (Opal) with built-in ePRO collection capability. Patient and family members were engaged through patient co-leadership, focus groups, semi-structured interviews, a persistent feedback form in the resultant application, and user satisfaction surveys. In the second institution, the Nova Scotia Health (NSH) centres of Dalhousie University's Department of Radiation Oncology, an industry-provided patient engagement tool was deployed. Patient and community engagement in the deployment effort was purposive to promote digital inclusion and diverse representation. Engagement was operationalized via a community feedback session and involvement of patient representatives in oversight committees.
RESULTS: The McGill experience highlighted 3 particular points of concern for patients when collecting ePROs: (1) Data flow should be two-way such that patients have access to their data from the hospital (lab results, clinical notes) as well as providing their data to the hospital (ePROs); (2) If ePROs are collected, they should be used actively by clinicians or the incentive for patients to continue reporting will be diminished; (3) The inherent rigour of electronic data collection may risk frustrating patients due to the inability to skip questions or spoil responses. The Dalhousie/NSH experience demonstrated the value and importance of including a diverse set of community representatives in building an ePRO program so that it can proactively account for real-world complexities and the challenge of simultaneously addressing the needs of diverse communities.
CONCLUSION: Two early-adopter Canadian cancer care programs reported on their experience and lessons learned with patient and community engagement in the rollout of their ePRO collection initiatives.