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

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.

Supportive and palliative radiation oncology service: impact of a dedicated service on palliative cancer care.

PURPOSE: The American Society of Clinical Oncology has recommended tailoring palliative cancer care (PCC) to the distinct and complex needs of advanced cancer patients. The Supportive and Palliative Radiation Oncology (SPRO) service was initiated July 2011 to provide dedicated palliative radiation oncology (RO) care to cancer patients. We used care providers' ratings to assess SPRO's impact on the quality of PCC and compared perceptions of PCC delivery among physicians practicing with and without a dedicated palliative RO service. METHODS AND MATERIALS: An online survey was sent to 117 RO care providers working at 4 Boston-area academic centers. Physicians and nurses at the SPRO-affiliated center rated the impact of the SPRO service on 8 PCC quality measures (7-point scale, "very unfavorably" to "very favorably"). Physicians at all sites rated their department's performance on 10 measures of PCC (7-point scale, "very poorly" to "very well"). RESULTS: Among 102 RO care providers who responded (response rate, 89% for physicians; 83% for nurses), large majorities believed that SPRO improved the following PCC quality measures: overall quality of care (physician/nurse, 98%/92%); communication with patients and families (95%/96%); staff experience (93%/84%); time spent on technical aspects of PCC (eg, reviewing imaging) (88%/56%); appropriateness of treatment recommendations (85%/84%); appropriateness of dose/fractionation (78%/60%); and patient follow-up (64%/68%). Compared with physicians practicing in departments without a dedicated palliative RO service, physicians at the SPRO-affiliated department rated the overall quality of their department's PCC more highly (P = .02). CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians indicated that SPRO improved the quality of PCC. Physicians practicing within this dedicated service rated their department's overall PCC quality higher than physicians practicing at academic centers without a dedicated service. These findings point to dedicated palliative RO services as a promising means of improving PCC quality.