Electronic Patient Reported Outcome Measures after palliative radiotherapy: evaluation of implementation.

BACKGROUND

Radiotherapy is a frequently utilized palliative treatment for cancer patients. Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) offer a method for patients to communicate their symptoms and concerns to healthcare providers (HCPs) remotely. While ePROMs have demonstrated significant benefits for oncology patient care, their integration into routine clinical practice of palliative radiotherapy (PRT) poses challenges. The current study aimed to evaluate the implementation of an ePROM-intervention after PRT.

METHODS

We conducted a two-phase study to evaluate the implementation of a self-developed ePROM intervention, known as the ePRomT diary, for symptom monitoring post-PRT. This diary offered automated self-management advice for mild symptoms and also guided patients to contact an HCP for severe symptoms. We assessed various implementation aspects using the RE-AIM framework and collected data through surveys, interviews, electronic health records, and field notes. Quantitative data analysis employed descriptive statistics, while qualitative data underwent thematic analysis using NVivo. Recruitment periods for both phases spanned 10 weeks.

RESULTS

In Phase I, 37 out of 87 eligible patients (43%) participated, a number that rose to 40 out of 49 eligible patients (82%) in Phase II. Among participating patients, 93% in Phase I and 98% in Phase II reported the ePRomT diary as a valuable addition to their care. Additionally, 75% and 84% expressed willingness to reuse it, while 70% and 80% would recommend it to others in Phases I and II, respectively. In Phase I, 17 out of 39 patients (44%) completed at least one ePROM assessment, increasing to 26 out of 40 patients (65%) in Phase II. While patients found the self-management advice generally correct and relevant, they noted its somewhat generic nature. Moreover, while the advice to contact an HCP was deemed appropriate, adherence to it varied. HCPs expressed satisfaction with the intervention, deeming it valuable in patient care, and believed that integrating it into routine clinical practice would enhance patient acceptability with minimal workflow disruptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite certain limitations, including participant bias, our study offers valuable insights into the implementation and potential implications of an ePROM intervention for symptom follow-up post-PRT, framed within the RE-AIM framework. ePROM interventions like the ePRomT diary show promise and are well-received by both patients and HCPs. However, optimizing such interventions to better align with patient needs and seamlessly integrating them into clinical workflows within the context of PRT warrants further investigation.