Implementation of ePROs in the care of long-term cancer survivors.

Abstract

334 Background: Standard methods for implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs) in the routine care of cancer survivors remain unclear. To address this gap, we assessed the technical and operational feasibility of implementing ePROs into the clinical workflow of four survivorship clinics, Genitourinary (GU), Head & Neck (HN), Thyroid (THY), and Stem Cell Transplant (SCT). Methods: This quality improvement study was conducted from 9/1/2019 to 4/30/2021. Benchmarks of ≥ 50% were established for two outcomes including: (1) Delivery Rate - percentage of patients who received the ePRO prior to their clinic visit and (2) Adherence Rate - percentage of patients who completed one ePRO. Data were collected at T0 (Baseline) (09/01/2019 to 12/31/2020) and T1 (1/1/2021 to 4/30/2021). Patients completed the survey 3-7 days prior to a clinic visit. The timing to capture ePROs’ data was tailored to the specific cancer site. Operational steps were: 1) questionnaire was ordered for scheduled survivorship appointment; 2) electronic medical record system (EMRS) pushed the questionnaire to the patient portal app with a message asking the patient to complete and submit the ePROs survey, 3) data was pushed back to the provider by the EMRS; and 4) results stored in the medical record were accessed by the provider prior to or on the day of the patient’s visit. Data were collected and stored using the EPIC Data Universes and reported through Microsoft Power BI. This institutional Quality Improvement Assessment Board approved this study. Results: The Table shows the improvement in the benchmark for sent and adherence rates between T0 and T1. A few clinics showed room for improvement. Patient engagement facilitators included being scheduled for a virtual visit and having staff sent prompts prior to visits. Challenges were: (1) variation in the time ePROs were available in the medical records, 2) inconsistent linking of scheduled visits and prompt to send the survey, and 3) patients’ not opening, completing, or submitting the survey even when prompted to do so. Opportunities included (1) developing a patient education flyer describing ePROs’ role in patient care, (2) providing instruction on the completion and completion of how to complete the ePRO, and (3) conducting staff education sessions on how to link scheduled visits with ePROs’ patient prompts. Conclusions: Our preliminary results indicate that integration ePROs can be considered an acceptable approach to improve follow-up care of cancer survivors but with room for improvement in some clinics. Future evaluation will further explore patients’ ePROs’ impact on clinical outcomes and patient engagement.[Table: see text]