Impact of Remote Symptom Monitoring With Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes on Hospitalization, Survival, and Cost in Community Oncology Practice: The Texas Two-Step Study.

PURPOSE: There is raising interest to implement electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) for symptom monitoring to enhance the quality of cancer care. Step 1 of the Texas Two-Step Study demonstrated successful implementation of an ePRO system in >200 sites of service of a large community oncology practice. We now report step 2 of this study which evaluates the impact of ePROs on outcomes among patients enrolled in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Oncology Care Model (OCM) program. METHODS: This observational study focused on patients with metastatic cancer enrolled in OCM at large community oncology practice located in Texas between July 2020 and December 2020. Patients who completed ≥1 survey via the ePRO tool were included in the study group and were propensity score matched with patients in a control group. Adverse events (AEs; hospitalizations, emergency department visits, deaths) and total cost of care were a priori study outcomes. Mann-Whitney U and chi-square tests compared continuous and categorical variables, respectively, with multivariable logistic regression for adjustment of covariates. RESULTS: Of 831 patients with metastatic cancer, 458 matched patients (229/group) were identified, with 52% male and a mean age of 74 years. Mean total AEs were lower in the study group compared with control (0.98 v 1.41; P = .007), with decreased hospitalizations (20% v 32.5%; P = .002), emergency visits (38.4% v 42.3%; P > .05), and deaths (11.8% v 16.6%; P > .05). Average number of hospitalizations was lower (0.28 v 0.52; P = .003) with reduced mean duration of hospitalizations (1.9 vs 3.2 d; P = .03). The total cost of care was reduced by an average of $1,146 per member per month. CONCLUSION: Symptom monitoring with ePROs improved quality and value of cancer care delivery by reducing hospitalizations, emergency visits, and deaths while lowering cost of care in a large oncology practice.

Implementation of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes for Symptom Monitoring in a Large Multisite Community Oncology Practice: Dancing the Texas Two-Step Through a Pandemic.

PURPOSE: Among patients receiving chemotherapy, symptom monitoring with electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is associated with improved clinical outcomes, satisfaction, and compliance with therapy. Standard approaches for ePRO implementation are not established, warranting evaluation in community cancer practices. We present implementation findings of ePRO symptom monitoring across a large multisite community oncology practice network. METHODS: Patients initiating a new systemic therapy at one of the 210 practice sites at Texas Oncology were invited to use the Navigating Cancer ePRO platform, with stepped-wedge implementation from July to December 2020. Participating patients received a weekly prompt by text message or e-mail to self-report common symptoms and well-being. Severe self-reported symptoms triggered a real-time notification to nursing triage to address the symptom. Enrollment and compliance were systematically tracked weekly with evaluation of barriers and facilitators to adoption and sustainability. RESULTS: Four thousand three hundred seventy-five patients planning systemic treatment were enrolled and participated. Seventy-three percent (1,841 of 2,522) of enrolled patients completed at least one ePRO assessment. Among these individuals, 64% (16,299 of 25,061) of available weekly ePRO assessments were completed. Over a 10-week period, compliance declined from 72% to 52%. Barriers currently being addressed include lack of a second reminder text or e-mail prompt, inconsistent discussion of reported ePROs by clinicians at visits, and COVID-related changes in workflow. Facilitators included ease of use and patient and staff engagement on the importance of PROs for symptom management. CONCLUSION: ePROs can be effectively implemented in community oncology practice. Utilization of ePROs is high but diminishes over time without attention to barriers. Ongoing work to address barriers and optimize compliance are underway.

The Surprise Question and Identification of Palliative Care Needs among Hospitalized Patients with Advanced Hematologic or Solid Malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about quality of life (QOL), depression, and end-of-life (EOL) outcomes among hospitalized patients with advanced cancer. OBJECTIVE: To assess whether the surprise question identifies inpatients with advanced cancer likely to have unmet palliative care needs. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study and long-term follow-up. SETTING/SUBJECTS: From 2008 to 2010, we enrolled 150 inpatients at Duke University with stage III/IV solid tumors or lymphoma/acute leukemia and whose physician would not be surprised if they died in less than one year. MEASUREMENTS: We assessed QOL (FACT-G), mood (brief CES-D), and EOL outcomes. RESULTS: Mean FACT-G score was quite low (66.9; SD 11). Forty-five patients (30%) had a brief CES-D score of ≥4 indicating a high likelihood of depression. In multivariate analyses, better QOL was associated with less depression (OR 0.91, p < 0.0001), controlling for tumor type, education, and spiritual well-being. Physicians correctly estimated death within one year in 101 (69%) cases, yet only 37 patients (25%) used hospice, and 4 (2.7%) received a palliative care consult; 89 (60.5%) had a do-not-resuscitate order, and 63 (43%) died in the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: The surprise question identifies inpatients with advanced solid or hematologic cancers having poor QOL and frequent depressive symptoms. Although physicians expected death within a year, EOL quality outcomes were poor. Hospitalized patients with advanced cancer may benefit from palliative care interventions to improve mood, QOL, and EOL care, and the surprise question is a practical method to identify those with unmet needs.