Rapid Fire Best of the Best Poster Oral Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2020

‘Real-time’ collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in outpatient oncology: barriers, enablers, and impact on consultation length. (#280)

Olivia Cook 1 , Alastair Kwok 2 , Kate Webber 2 3 , Michelle White 3 , Eva Segelov 2 3
  1. Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  2. School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia
  3. Department of Oncology, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) have been shown to improve clinical outcomes when incorporated into oncology care. The routine collection and use of PROMs and PREMs is widely endorsed, yet remains relatively un-tested in Australian settings.

Aims: 1. To identify the barriers and enablers perceived by cancer clinicians to the ‘real-time’ collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in outpatient clinics, and; 2. To test the impact of ‘real-time’ PROMs and PREMs on clinic consultation length.

Methods: A focus-group interview was conducted with clinicians from a large Victorian cancer service prior to the commencement of a pilot trial of the ‘real-time’ collection and use of PROMs and PREMs in an outpatient oncology clinic. An inductive qualitative content analysis of the transcribed data was conducted. Consultation length was measured for one month pre-intervention and for the first month of the intervention. Mann Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests were performed to compare consultation duration pre- and post-intervention, and among participants and non-participants.

Results: Clinicians (n=14) perceived tool design, language, digital literacy, and patients feeling unwell, as barriers to patient participation. Barriers to clinician engagement included anticipated increases to consultation length and workload, and lack of skills or resources to address the issues raised. There was no significant difference in overall median consultation length between pre-intervention (n=83) and intervention groups (n=99), p=0.09, nor between participating, non-participating and pre-intervention groups, p=0.14. Median length for review consultations was three minutes and twenty seconds longer for the intervention period than the pre-intervention period, p=0.02*.

Conclusions: Identifying the perceptions of key stakeholders allowed their concerns to be addressed prior to study commencement. Overall, the introduction of PROMs and PREMs did not increase median consultation length. Other aspects of acceptability and feasibility will be explored in the evaluation of the trial.