Micro-Meso-Macro Practice Tensions in Using Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Hospital Palliative Care.

This article applies a micro-meso-macro analytical framework to understand clinicians' experiences and perspectives of using patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) in routine hospital-based palliative care. We structure our discussion through qualitative analysis of a design and implementation project for using an electronic tablet-based tool among hospital-based palliative clinicians to assess patients' and their family caregivers' quality of life concerns and experiences of care. Our analysis identified three categories of practice tensions shaping clinicians' use of PROMs and PREMs in routine care: tensions surrounding implementation, tensions in standardization and quantification, and tensions that arose from scope of practice concerns. Our findings highlight that clinicians necessarily work within the confluence of multiple system priorities, that navigating these priorities can result in irreducible practice tensions, and that awareness of these tensions is a critical consideration when integrating PROMs and PREMs into routine practice.

Comparison of Questionnaire and Performance-Based Physical Frailty Scales to Predict Survival and Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Heart Failure.

Background Frailty is prevalent in older adults with heart failure and is associated with poor outcomes; however, there remains uncertainty on how to measure frailty in clinical practice. Methods and Results A multicentric prospective cohort study was assembled at 4 heart failure clinics to compare the prognostic value of 3 physical frailty scales in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Outcomes were all-cause death or hospitalization and health-related quality of life using the 36-Item Short Form survey questionnaire (SF-36) at 3 months. Multivariable regression was adjusted for age, sex, Meta-Analysis Global Group in Chronic Heart Failure score, and baseline SF-36 score. The cohort included 215 patients (mean age 77.6 years). All 3 frailty scales were independently associated with death or hospitalization at 3 months; the adjusted odds ratios standardized per 1 SD worsening of the Short Physical Performance Battery; Fried, and strength, assistance with walking, rising from a chair, climbing stairs, and falls scales were 1.67 (95% CI, 1.09-2.55), 1.60 (95% CI, 1.04-2.46), and 1.55 (95% CI, 1.03-2.35), respectively, with C statistics of 0.77 to 0.78. All 3 frailty scales were independently associated with worsening SF-36 scores, especially the Short Physical Performance Battery, for which 1 SD worsening of frailty translated to a decrement of -5.86 (-8.55 to -3.17) and -5.51 (-7.82 to -3.21) points in the Physical Component Score and Mental Component Score. Conclusions All 3 physical frailty scales were associated with death, hospitalization, and reduced health-related quality of life in ambulatory patients with heart failure. Questionnaire or performance-based physical frailty scales can be used to offer prognostic value and a therapeutic target in this vulnerable population. Registration URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT03887351.

Design and introduction of a quality of life assessment and practice support system: perspectives from palliative care settings.

BACKGROUND: Quality of life (QOL) assessment instruments, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs), are increasingly promoted as a means of enabling clinicians to enhance person-centered care. However, integration of these instruments into palliative care clinical practice has been inconsistent. This study focused on the design of an electronic Quality of Life and Practice Support System (QPSS) prototype and its initial use in palliative inpatient and home care settings. Our objectives were to ascertain desired features of a QPSS prototype and the experiences of clinicians, patients, and family caregivers in regard to the initial introduction of a QPSS in palliative care, interpreting them in context. METHODS: We applied an integrated knowledge translation approach in two stages by engaging a total of 71 clinicians, 18 patients, and 17 family caregivers in palliative inpatient and home care settings. Data for Stage I were collected via 12 focus groups with clinicians to ascertain desirable features of a QPSS. Stage II involved 5 focus groups and 24 interviews with clinicians and 35 interviews with patients or family caregivers during initial implementation of a QPSS. The focus groups and interviews were recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using the qualitative methodology of interpretive description. RESULTS: Desirable features focused on hardware (lightweight, durable, and easy to disinfect), software (simple, user-friendly interface, multi-linguistic, integration with e-health systems), and choice of assessment instruments that would facilitate a holistic assessment. Although patient and family caregiver participants were predominantly enthusiastic, clinicians expressed a mixture of enthusiasm, receptivity, and concern regarding the use of a QPSS. The analyses revealed important contextual considerations, including: (a) logistical, technical, and aesthetic considerations regarding the QPSS as a technology, (b) diversity in knowledge, skills, and attitudes of clinicians, patients, and family caregivers regarding the integration of electronic QOL assessments in care, and (c) the need to understand organizational context and priorities in using QOL assessment data. CONCLUSION: The process of designing and integrating a QPSS in palliative care for patients with life-limiting conditions and their family caregivers is complex and requires extensive consultation with clinicians, administrators, patients, and family caregivers to inform successful implementation.