Kara Schick-Makaroff, Scott Klarenbach, Jae-Yung Kwon, S Robin Cohen, Joanna Czupryn, Loretta Lee, Robert Pauly, Jennifer M MacRae, Bruce Forde, Richard Sawatzky
{"title":"临床肾脏实践中的电子患者报告结果(ePRO肾脏):临床医生教育支持的过程评估。","authors":"Kara Schick-Makaroff, Scott Klarenbach, Jae-Yung Kwon, S Robin Cohen, Joanna Czupryn, Loretta Lee, Robert Pauly, Jennifer M MacRae, Bruce Forde, Richard Sawatzky","doi":"10.1177/20406223231173624","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>NCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.</p>","PeriodicalId":22960,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease","volume":"14 ","pages":"20406223231173624"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10272664/pdf/","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical kidney practice (ePRO Kidney): a process evaluation of educational support for clinicians.\",\"authors\":\"Kara Schick-Makaroff, Scott Klarenbach, Jae-Yung Kwon, S Robin Cohen, Joanna Czupryn, Loretta Lee, Robert Pauly, Jennifer M MacRae, Bruce Forde, Richard Sawatzky\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/20406223231173624\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.</p><p><strong>Objectives: </strong>We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.</p><p><strong>Registration: </strong>NCT03149328. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03149328.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":22960,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease\",\"volume\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"20406223231173624\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10272664/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/20406223231173624\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/20406223231173624","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical kidney practice (ePRO Kidney): a process evaluation of educational support for clinicians.
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly mandated in kidney care to incorporate patients' perspectives.
Objectives: We assessed whether educational support for clinicians using electronic (e)PROs could enhance person-centered care.
Design: A process evaluation, using a mixed methods longitudinal comparative concurrent design was undertaken of educational support to clinicians on routine use of ePROs. In two urban home dialysis clinics in Alberta, Canada, patients completed ePROs. At the implementation site, clinicians were provided with ePROs and clinician-oriented education via voluntary workshops. At the non-implementation site, neither were provided. Person-centered care was measured using the Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care-20 (PACIC-20).
Methods: Longitudinal structural equation models (SEMs) compared change in overall PACIC scores. The interpretive description approach, using thematic analysis of qualitative data, further evaluated processes of implementation.
Results: Data were collected from questionnaires completed by 543 patients, 4 workshops, 15 focus groups, and 37 interviews. There was no overall difference in person-centered care throughout the study, including after delivery of workshops. The longitudinal SEMs revealed substantial individual-level variability in overall PACIC trajectories. However, there was no improvement at the implementation site and no difference between the sites during both the pre- and post-workshop periods. Similar results were obtained for each PACIC domain. Qualitative analysis provided insights into why there was no substantial difference between sites: (1) clinicians wanted to see kidney symptoms, not quality of life, (2) workshops were tailored to clinicians' educational needs, not patients' needs, and (3) variable use of ePRO data by clinicians.
Conclusion: Training clinicians on use of ePROs is complex and likely only part of what is required to enhance person-centered care.
期刊介绍：
Therapeutic Advances in Chronic Disease publishes the highest quality peer-reviewed research, reviews and scholarly comment in the drug treatment of all chronic diseases. The journal has a strong clinical and pharmacological focus and is aimed at clinicians and researchers involved in the medical treatment of chronic disease, providing a forum in print and online for publishing the highest quality articles in this area.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
