+1 Recommend
0 collections
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Opportunities and challenges to advance the use of electronic patient-reported outcomes in clinical care: a report from AMIA workshop proceedings


      Read this article at

          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.


          Despite the demonstrated value of patient-centered care, health systems have been slow to integrate the patient’s voice into care delivery through patient-reported outcomes (PROs) with electronic tools. This is due in part to the complex interplay of technology, workflow, and human factors that shape the success of electronic PROs (ePROs) use. The 2018 American Medical Informatics Association Annual Symposium served as the setting for a half-day interactive workshop with diverse stakeholders to discuss proposed best practices for the planning, design, deployment, and evaluation of ePROs. We provide this collective commentary that synthesizes participant feedback regarding critical challenges that prohibit the scale and spread of ePROs across healthcare delivery systems, including governance and leadership, workflow and human factors, informatics, and data science. In order to realize the promise of ePROs at scale, adaptable approaches are critical to balance the needs of individual users with health systems at large.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 11

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Patient-Reported Outcomes - Harnessing Patients' Voices to Improve Clinical Care.

           Ethan Basch (2017)
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The DIAMOND initiative: implementing collaborative care for depression in 75 primary care clinics

            Background The many randomized trials of the collaborative care model for improving depression in primary care have not described the implementation and maintenance of this model. This paper reports how and the degree to which collaborative care process changes were implemented and maintained for the 75 primary care clinics participating in the DIAMOND Initiative (Depression Improvement Across Minnesota–Offering a New Direction). Methods Each clinic was trained to implement seven components of the model and participated in ongoing evaluation and facilitation activities. For this study, assessment of clinical process implementation was accomplished via completion of surveys by the physician leader and clinic manager of each clinic site at three points in time. The physician leader of each clinic completed a survey measure of the presence of various practice systems prior to and one and two years after implementation. Clinic managers also completed a survey of organizational readiness and the strategies used for implementation. Results Survey response rates were 96% to 100%. The systems survey confirmed a very high degree of implementation (with large variation) of DIAMOND depression practice systems (mean of 24.4 ± 14.6%) present at baseline, 57.0 ± 21.0% at one year (P = <0.0001), and 55.9 ± 21.3% at two years. There was a similarly large increase (and variation) in the use of various quality improvement strategies for depression (mean of 29.6 ± 28.1% at baseline, 75.1 ± 22.3% at one year (P = <0.0001), and 74.6 ± 23.0% at two years. Conclusions This study demonstrates that under the right circumstances, primary care clinics that are prepared to implement evidence-based care can do so if financial barriers are reduced, effective training and facilitation are provided, and the new design introduces the specific mental models, new care processes, and workers and expertise that are needed. Implementation was associated with a marked increase in the number of improvement strategies used, but actual care and outcomes data are needed to associate these changes with patient outcomes and patient-reported care.
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Provider perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record

              Abstract Objective Integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into electronic health records (EHRs) can improve patient-provider communication and delivery of care. However, new system implementation in health-care institutions is often accompanied by a change in clinical workflow and organizational culture. This study examines how well an EHR-integrated PRO system fits clinical workflows and individual needs of different provider groups within 2 clinics. Materials and Methods Northwestern Medicine developed and implemented an EHR-integrated PRO system within the orthopedics and oncology departments. We conducted interviews with 11 providers who had interacted with the system. Through thematic analysis, we synthesized themes regarding provider perspectives on clinical workflow, individual needs, and system features. Results Our findings show that EHR-integrated PROs facilitate targeted conversation with patients and automated triage for psychosocial care. However, physicians, psychosocial providers, and medical assistants faced different challenges in their use of the PRO system. Barriers mainly stemmed from a lack of actionable data, workflow disruption, technical issues, and a lack of incentives. Discussion This study sheds light on the ecosystem around EHR-integrated PRO systems (such as user needs and organizational factors). We present recommendations to address challenges facing PRO implementation, such as optimizing data collection and auto-referral processes, improving data visualizations, designing effective educational materials, and prioritizing the primary user group. Conclusion PRO integration into routine care can be beneficial but also require effective technology design and workflow configuration to reach full potential use. This study provides insights into how patient-generated health data can be better integrated into clinical practice and care delivery processes.

                Author and article information

                JAMIA Open
                JAMIA Open
                JAMIA Open
                Oxford University Press
                December 2019
                20 August 2019
                20 August 2019
                : 2
                : 4
                : 407-410
                [1 ] Department of Surgery, Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                [2 ] Department of Information Systems & Business Analytics, College of Business, Florida International University , Miami, Florida, USA
                [3 ] Department of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                [4 ] Department of Medicine; Department of Pediatrics, University of North Carolina School of Medicine , Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
                [5 ] Department of Health Services, University of Washington , Seattle, Washington, USA
                Author notes
                Corresponding Author: Elizabeth Austin, MPH, Surgical Outcomes Research Center, University of Washington, 1107 NE 45th Street, Suite 502, Box 354808, Seattle, WA 98105, USA; austie@ 123456uw.edu
                © The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com

                Page count
                Pages: 4
                Funded by: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality 10.13039/100000133
                Award ID: R01HS023785
                Award ID: T32HS013853


                Comment on this article