Monitoring of Palliative Care Symptoms and Concerns in Specialized Palliative Home Care Using an Electronic Version of the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (Palli-MONITOR): protocol for a mixed-methods study

Anna Bolzani, Christina Ramsenthaler, Farina Hodiamont, Isabel Sophie Burner-Fritsch, Claudia Bausewein, Anna Bolzani, Christina Ramsenthaler, Farina Hodiamont, Isabel Sophie Burner-Fritsch, Claudia Bausewein

Abstract

Introduction: Over the last decades, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been developed to better understand the patient's perspective and enable patient-centred care. In palliative care, the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS) is recommended as a PRO tool. Its implementation in specialised palliative home care (SPHC) would benefit from an electronic version validated for the setting.Following the Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance, the study Palli-MONITOR is developing (phase 1) and testing the feasibility (phase 2) of implementing the electronic version of IPOS (eIPOS) in the SPHC setting to inform a cluster-randomised phase 3 trial.

Methods and analysis: Palli-MONITOR is a multicentre, sequential mixed-methods, two-phase development and feasibility study. The study consists of four substudies. In phase 1 (MRC development phase), qualitative patient interviews and focus groups with SPHC professionals are used to identify barriers and facilitators of eIPOS (substudy I). Substudy II tests the equivalence of eIPOS and IPOS in a crossover randomised controlled trial. Phase 2 (MRC feasibility/piloting phase) includes a quasi-experimental study with two control groups (substudy III), and qualitative interviews as well as focus groups to explore the feasibility and acceptability of the developed intervention (substudy IV).Qualitative data will be analysed with thematic analysis following the framework approach. Quantitative analysis uses a two-way intraclass correlation coefficients model for the equivalence testing. Quantitative analysis of the quasi-experimental study will focus on the primary outcomes, recruitment rates and completeness of eIPOS. Secondary outcomes will include intraindividual change in palliative symptoms and concerns, quality of life and symptom burden.

Ethics and dissemination: Approval of the ethics committee of the Ludwig Maximilian University Munich was received for all study parts. Results and experiences will be presented at congresses and in written form. Additionally, participating SPHC teams will receive summarised results.

Trial registration number: NCT03879668.

Keywords: palliative care; qualitative research; telemedicine.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Study design of the project Palli-MONITOR. eIPOS, electronic IPOS; IPOS, Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Substudy III—data collection and inclusion criteria of the quasi-experimental study. *Assessed by the clinical team. eIPOS, electronic Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale; ESAS, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale; QoL, Quality of Life; SPHC, specialised palliative home care.

References

    1. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (G-BA) . Richtlinie des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses Zur Verordnung von spezialisierter ambulanter Palliativversorgung (spezialisierte ambulante Palliativversorgungs-Richtlinie/SAPV-RL), 2007.
    1. Alt-Epping B, Nauck F. Spezialisierte Ambulante Palliativversorgung (SAPV). Bundesgesundheitsblatt - Gesundheitsforschung - Gesundheitsschutz 2015;58:430–5.
    1. Groh G, Vyhnalek B, Feddersen B, et al. . Effectiveness of a specialized outpatient palliative care service as experienced by patients and caregivers. J Palliat Med 2013;16:848–56. 10.1089/jpm.2012.0491
    1. Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung . Spezialisierte Ambulante Palliativversorgung, 2017. Available:
    1. Schneider W, Eschenbruch N, Thoms U, et al. . Wirksamkeit und Qualitätssicherung in Der SAPV-Praxis—Eine explorative Begleitstudie. Ergebnisbericht, 2011.
    1. Currow DC, Allingham S, Yates P, et al. . Improving national hospice/palliative care service symptom outcomes systematically through point-of-care data collection, structured feedback and benchmarking. Support Care Cancer 2015;23:307–15. 10.1007/s00520-014-2351-8
    1. Dunckley M, Aspinal F, Addington-Hall JM, et al. . A research study to identify facilitators and barriers to outcome measure implementation. Int J Palliat Nurs 2005;11:218–25. 10.12968/ijpn.2005.11.5.218
    1. Noonan VK, Lyddiatt A, Ware P, et al. . Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - paper 3: patient-reported outcomes can facilitate shared decision-making and guide self-management. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;89:125–35. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.017
    1. Radionova N, Becker G, Mayer-Steinacker R, et al. . The views of physicians and nurses on the potentials of an electronic assessment system for recognizing the needs of patients in palliative care. BMC Palliat Care 2020;19:1–9. 10.1186/s12904-020-00554-9
    1. Basch E, Iasonos A, Barz A, et al. . Long-term toxicity monitoring via electronic patient-reported outcomes in patients receiving chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5374–80. 10.1200/JCO.2007.11.2243
    1. Bennett AV, Jensen RE, Basch E. Electronic patient-reported outcome systems in oncology clinical practice. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:337–47. 10.3322/caac.21150
    1. Kotronoulas G, Kearney N, Maguire R, et al. . What is the value of the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures toward improvement of patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes in cancer care? A systematic review of controlled trials. J Clin Oncol 2014;32:1480–501. 10.1200/JCO.2013.53.5948
    1. Velikova G, Booth L, Smith AB, et al. . Measuring quality of life in routine oncology practice improves communication and patient well-being: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2004;22:714–24. 10.1200/JCO.2004.06.078
    1. Bausewein C, Daveson BA, Currow DC, et al. . EAPC White Paper on outcome measurement in palliative care: Improving practice, attaining outcomes and delivering quality services–Recommendations from the European Association for Palliative Care (EAPC) Task Force on Outcome Measurement. Palliat Med 2016;30:6–22. 10.1177/0269216315589898
    1. Murtagh FE, Ramsenthaler C, Firth A, et al. . A brief, patient- and proxy-reported outcome measure in advanced illness: validity, reliability and responsiveness of the integrated palliative care outcome scale (IPOS). Palliat Med 2019;33:1045–57. 10.1177/0269216319854264
    1. Onkologie Leitlinienprogramm . Palliativmedizin für Patienten MIT einer nicht heilbaren Krebserkrankung, Langversion 1.1, 2015.
    1. Schildmann EK, Groeneveld EI, Denzel J, et al. . Discovering the hidden benefits of cognitive interviewing in two languages: the first phase of a validation study of the integrated palliative care outcome scale. Palliat Med 2016;30:599–610. 10.1177/0269216315608348
    1. Marcano Belisario JS, Jamsek J, Huckvale K, et al. . Comparison of self-administered survey questionnaire responses collected using mobile apps versus other methods. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:Mr000042. 10.1002/14651858.MR000042.pub2
    1. Muehlhausen W, Doll H, Quadri N, et al. . Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2015;13:167. 10.1186/s12955-015-0362-x
    1. MySupport . MySupport: Implementierung und evaluation einer routinemäßigen Erfassung von patient-centered outcome measures (PCOM) in onkologischen und palliativen Versorgungskontexten, 2019. Available:
    1. Castelnuovo G, Mauri G, Simpson S, et al. . New technologies for the management and rehabilitation of chronic diseases and conditions. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:180436. 10.1155/2015/180436
    1. et alCraig P, Dieppe P, MacIntyre S. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: new guidance 2019. Available: [Accessed 14 Apr 2020].
    1. Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ, et al. . Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med 2014;28:158–75. 10.1177/0269216313491619
    1. Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res 2009;18:115–23. 10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6
    1. Greenhalgh T, Abimbola S. The NASSS framework - a synthesis of multiple theories of technology implementation. Stud Health Technol Inform 2019;263:193–204. 10.3233/SHTI190123
    1. Przyborski A, Wohlrab-Sahr M. Qualitative Sozialforschung. ein Arbeitsbuch: Oldenburg Wissenschaftsverlag, 2014.
    1. Morse JM. Sampling in grounded theory. The SAGE handbook of grounded theory, 2010: 229–44.
    1. Ritchie J, Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. analyzing qualitative data. Routledge, 2002: 173–94.
    1. Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Sage publications, 2012.
    1. Rädiker S, Kuckartz U. Analyse qualitativer Daten MIT MAXQDA, 2019.
    1. Hopf C. Schriften zu Methodologie und Methoden qualitativer Sozialforschung: Herausgegeben von Wulf Hopf und Udo Kuckartz. Springer-Verlag, 2016.
    1. Kuckartz U, Rädiker S. Datenaufbereitung und Datenbereinigung in Der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Handbuch Methoden Der empirischen Sozialforschung. Springer, 2019: 441–56.
    1. Coons SJ, Gwaltney CJ, Hays RD, et al. . Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO good research practices task force report. Value Health 2009;12:419–29. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00470.x
    1. Gwaltney CJ, Shields AL, Shiffman S. Equivalence of electronic and paper-and-pencil administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a meta-analytic review. Value Health 2008;11:322–33. 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2007.00231.x
    1. Groenvold M, Petersen MA, Aaronson NK, et al. . The development of the EORTC QLQ-C15-PAL: a shortened questionnaire for cancer patients in palliative care. Eur J Cancer 2006;42:55–64. 10.1016/j.ejca.2005.06.022
    1. Bruera E, Kuehn N, Miller MJ, et al. . The Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAs): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care 1991;7:6–9. 10.1177/082585979100700202
    1. Avery KNL, Williamson PR, Gamble C, et al. . Informing efficient randomised controlled trials: exploration of challenges in developing progression criteria for internal pilot studies. BMJ Open 2017;7:e013537. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013537
    1. Daveson BA, de Wolf-Linder S, Witt J, et al. . Results of a transparent expert consultation on patient and public involvement in palliative care research. Palliat Med 2015;29:939–49. 10.1177/0269216315584875
    1. Wright M, Kilian H, Block M, et al. . Partizipative Qualitätsentwicklung: Zielgruppen in alle Phasen Der Projektgestaltung einbeziehen. Das Gesundheitswesen 2015;77:S141–2.
    1. Dockweiler C. Akzeptanz Der Telemedizin. eHealth in Deutschland. Springer, 2016: 257–71.
    1. Lang C, Scheibe M, Voigt K, et al. . Motive für die Nichtakzeptanz und Nichtnutzung einer Telemonitoring-Anwendung Im häuslichen Umfeld durch multimorbide Patienten über 65 Jahre. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen 2019;141:76–88.
    1. Gorst SL, Armitage CJ, Brownsell S, et al. . Home telehealth uptake and continued use among heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease patients: a systematic review. Ann Behav Med 2014;48:323–36. 10.1007/s12160-014-9607-x

Source: PubMed

Sponsor e collaboratori

Condizioni mediche

Interventi farmacologici

3
Sottoscrivi