Patient understanding and experience of non-invasive imaging diagnostic techniques and the liver patient pathway

Andy McKay, Carlos Pantoja, Richard Hall, Sarah Matthews, Phil Spalding, Rajarshi Banerjee, Andy McKay, Carlos Pantoja, Richard Hall, Sarah Matthews, Phil Spalding, Rajarshi Banerjee

Abstract

Background: Clinical and patient-reported outcomes are positively affected when efforts to increase patient understanding of underlying diseases and foster patient participation are part of care pathways. The prevalence of liver diseases is increasing globally, and successful communication of results from liver diagnostic tests will be important for physicians to ensure patient engagement and encourage adherence to lifestyle changes and therapy. Here, we aimed to explore the impact of non-invasive liver tests on patient experience and patient comprehension of liver disease in chronic liver disease diagnostic pathways typically managed with liver biopsies.

Results: 101 participants diagnosed with a range of liver disease aetiologies (90 patients, 11 caregivers) underwent a multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) test. A subset of 33 participants was subjected to transient elastography (TE) with FibroScan® in addition to multiparametric MRI. MRI results were analysed using LiverMultiScan™. Participants received results on their liver-health status followed by a semi-structured interview to assess the scan procedure experience, comprehension of the results, and experiences of liver disease. A subset of participants (N = 5) was also engaged in the design, execution, and thematic analysis of the interview transcripts of the study. Analysis of semi-structured interviews revealed: (1) Presentation and discussion of the LiverMultiScan visual report by a physician was an effective contributor to better patient experience and increased comprehension of liver disease. (2) Patients demonstrated preference for non-invasive tests over biopsy for management of liver disease. (3) Patients reported positive experiences with the MRI test during the path for liver disease management.

Conclusions: Patients presented with visual reports of liver test results developed increased understanding of liver disease care which may have contributed to an overall more positive experience. Patients reported that clinical information obtained through non-invasive methods and transmitted through visual reports contributed to clarity, understanding and overall increased satisfaction. We conclude that a shift toward non-invasive testing and visual reporting of clinical information (e.g. picture of liver with visual scale) when possible are likely to contribute to improved physician engagement with patients and lead to better outcomes in the management of chronic liver diseases. Evidence suggests that patient experience and understanding can affect several aspects of clinical care and patient well-being. In this study, 101 patients and patient caregivers affected by liver diseases were recruited to determine how patient experiences of liver disease were affected with the introduction of non-invasive evaluation of the liver with an MRI or ultrasound-based elastography. All 101 participants received an MRI followed by a LiverMultiScan report. 33 participants received an additional FibroScan and report. Following the reports, participants were interviewed and asked to reflect on factors which affected their experience of the procedure and the understanding of their results. We focused on factors related to the layout of the standardised report and the delivery of its results. The interviews were transcribed and analysed for common themes and patterns. Patients and patient advocacy groups were involved in the design and conduct of the study, and analysis of the interview transcripts. Here, we report the perception of patients and patient caregivers on the quality of care and diagnostic experience. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier-NCT02877602.

Keywords: Liver disease; Non-invasive diagnostics; Patient experience; Patient support; Patient understanding; Qualitative research.

Conflict of interest statement

The PI (Principal Investigator) for this study, Dr. Rajarshi Banerjee, is a shareholder and CEO of Perspectum Diagnostics who have developed LiverMultiScan™. The study co-ordinator and lead investigator, Andrew McKay and co-author Carlos Pantoja work for Perspectum Diagnostics. Co-investigators and authors Richard Hall and Sarah Matthews are co-founders of the charity, Liver4Life (Registered Charity 1152618). Co-investigator and co-author Philip Spalding runs the charity Hep C Positive, which is part of Liver4Life.

© 2021. The Author(s).

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow-chart of patient care pathway on day of study
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Numerical distribution of participants and liver disease diagnoses. Cohort of 101 individuals with diagnoses including overlap syndromes—i.e. AIH/PBC overlap syndrome (Sum of all diagnoses adds to more than 101). Other conditions include liver cancers, rodular regnerative hyperplasia, alcoholic diver disease, cystic liver disease and haemochromatosis. Liver disease diagnoses were self-reported

References

    1. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation . GBD compare data visualisation [WWW Document] IHME; 2016.
    1. Pimpin L, Cortez-Pinto H, Negro F, Corbould E, Lazarus JV, Webber L, Sheron N. Burden of liver disease in Europe: epidemiology and analysis of risk factors to identify prevention policies. J Hepatol. 2018;69:718–735. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2018.05.011.
    1. Williams R, Aspinall R, Bellis M, et al. Addressing liver disease in the UK: a blueprint for attaining excellence in health care and reducing premature mortality from lifestyle issues of excess consumption of alcohol, obesity, and viral hepatitis. Lancet. 2014;384:1953–1997. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)61838-9.
    1. Yang JD, Hainaut P, Gores GJ, Amadou A, Plymoth A, Roberts LR. A global view of hepatocellular carcinoma: trends, risk, prevention and management. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2019;16:589–604. doi: 10.1038/s41575-019-0186-y.
    1. Williams R, Alessi C, Alexander G, Allison M, Aspinall R, Batterham RL, Bhala N, Day N, Dhawan A, Drummond C, Ferguson J, Foster G, Gilmore I, Goldacre R, Gordon H, Henn C, Kelly D, MacGilchrist A, McCorry R, McDougall N, Mirza Z, Moriarty K, Newsome P, Pinder R, Roberts S, Rutter H, Ryder S, Samyn M, Severi K, Sheron N, Thorburn D, Verne J, Williams J, Yeoman A. New dimensions for hospital services and early detection of disease: a review from the Lancet Commission into liver disease in the UK. Lancet. 2021 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)32396-5.
    1. Neuberger J, Patel J, Caldwell H, Davies S, Hebditch V, Hollywood C, Hubscher S, Karkhanis S, Lester W, Roslund N, West R, Wyatt JI, Heydtmann M. Guidelines on the use of liver biopsy in clinical practice from the British Society of Gastroenterology, the Royal College of Radiologists and the Royal College of Pathology. Gut. 2020;69:1382–1403. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2020-321299.
    1. Ratziu V, Charlotte F, Heurtier A, Gombert S, Giral P, Bruckert E, Grimaldi A, Capron F, Poynard T. Sampling variability of liver biopsy in nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:1898–1906. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2005.03.084.
    1. Younossi ZM, Boparai N, Gramlich T, Goldblum J, George P, Mayes J. Agreement in pathologic interpretation of liver biopsy specimens in posttransplant hepatitis C infection. Arch Pathol Lab Med. 1999;123:143–145. doi: 10.1043/0003-9985(1999)123<0143:AIPIOL>;2.
    1. Younossi ZM, Gramlich T, Liu YC, Matteoni C, Petrelli M, Goldblum J, Rybicki L, McCullough AJ. Nonalcoholic fatty liver disease: assessment of variability in pathologic interpretations. Mod Pathol Off J US Can Acad Pathol Inc. 1998;11:560–565.
    1. Patel K, Sebastiani G. Limitations of non-invasive tests for assessment of liver fibrosis. JHEP Rep Innov Hepatol. 2020;2:100067. doi: 10.1016/j.jhepr.2020.100067.
    1. Boyd A, Srivastava A, Rosenberg W, Newsome PN, Armstrong MJ. Optimising referral pathways for patients with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease in the UK. Br J Healthc Manag. 2021;27:62–70. doi: 10.12968/bjhc.2020.0164.
    1. Long MT, Gandhi S, Loomba R. Advances in non-invasive biomarkers for the diagnosis and monitoring of non-alcoholic fatty liver disease. Metabolism. 2020 doi: 10.1016/j.metabol.2020.154259.
    1. Thomaides-Brears HB, Lepe R, Banerjee R, Duncker C. Multiparametric MR mapping in clinical decision-making for diffuse liver disease. Abdom Radiol N Y. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02684-3.
    1. Talwalkar JA, Kurtz DM, Schoenleber SJ, West CP, Montori VM. Ultrasound-based transient elastography for the detection of hepatic fibrosis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2007;5:1214–1220. doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2007.07.020.
    1. Kan VY, Azalgara VM, Ford J-AE, Kwan WP, Erb SR, Yoshida EM. Patient preference and willingness to pay for transient elastography versus liver biopsy: a perspective from British Columbia. Can J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;29:72–76. doi: 10.1155/2015/169190.
    1. Knight H, Harman D, Morling JR, Aithal G, Card T, Guha IN, Bains M. Acceptability of chronic liver disease screening in a UK primary care setting: a qualitative evaluation. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e041574. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041574.
    1. Arndtz K, Shumbayawonda E, Hodson J, Eddowes PJ, Dennis A, Thomaides-Brears H, Mouchti S, Kelly MD, Banerjee R, Neubauer S, Hirschfield GM. Multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, autoimmune hepatitis, and prediction of disease activity. Hepatol Commun. 2021;12:12. doi: 10.1002/hep4.1687.
    1. Banerjee R, Pavlides M, Tunnicliffe EM, et al. Multiparametric magnetic resonance for the non-invasive diagnosis of liver disease. J Hepatol. 2014;60:69–77. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2013.09.002.
    1. Jayaswal ANA, Levick C, Collier J, Tunnicliffe EM, Kelly MD, Neubauer S, Barnes E, Pavlides M. Liver cT1 decreases following direct-acting antiviral therapy in patients with chronic hepatitis C virus. Abdom Radiol. 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00261-020-02860-5.
    1. Jayaswal ANA, Levick C, Selvaraj EA, Dennis A, Booth JC, Collier J, Cobbold J, Tunnicliffe EM, Kelly M, Barnes E, Neubauer S, Banerjee R, Pavlides M. Prognostic value of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging, transient elastography and blood-based fibrosis markers in patients with chronic liver disease. Liver Int Off J Int Assoc Study Liver. 2020;12:12. doi: 10.1111/liv.14625.
    1. Schaapman JJ, Tushuizen ME, Coenraad MJ, Lamb HJ. Multiparametric MRI in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2020;53:1623–1631. doi: 10.1002/jmri.27292.
    1. Blake L, Duarte RV, Cummins C. Decision analytic model of the diagnostic pathways for patients with suspected non-alcoholic fatty liver disease using non-invasive transient elastography and multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging. BMJ Open. 2016;6:e010507. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010507.
    1. Dennis A, Kelly MD, Fernandes C, Mouchti S, Fallowfield JA, Hirschfield G, Pavlides M, Harrison S, Chakravarthy MV, Banerjee R, Sanyal A. Correlations between MRI Biomarkers PDFF and cT1 with histopathological features of non-alcoholic steatohepatitis. Front Endocrinol. 2020;11:575843. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2020.575843.
    1. Patient Survey FEB 2020—British Liver Trust (2020)
    1. Cook NS, Nagar SH, Jain A, Balp M-M, Mayländer M, Weiss O, Chatterjee S. Understanding patient preferences and unmet needs in non-alcoholic steatohepatitis (NASH): insights from a qualitative online bulletin board study. Adv Ther. 2019;36:478–491. doi: 10.1007/s12325-018-0856-0.
    1. Hibbard J, Gilburt H. Supporting people to manage their health: an introduction to patient activation. The King’s Fund; 2014.
    1. Mikolasevic I, Orlic L, Franjic N, Hauser G, Stimac D, Milic S. Transient elastography (FibroScan ® ) with controlled attenuation parameter in the assessment of liver steatosis and fibrosis in patients with nonalcoholic fatty liver disease—where do we stand? World J Gastroenterol. 2016;22:7236. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v22.i32.7236.
    1. Manary MP, Boulding WB, Staelin R, Glickman SW. The patient experience and health outcomes. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:201–203. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1211775.
    1. Adams RJ. Improving health outcomes better patient understanding and education. Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2010;3:61–72. doi: 10.2147/RMHP.S7500.
    1. Kessler DP, Mylod D. Does patient satisfaction affect patient loyalty? Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2009;24:266–273. doi: 10.1108/09526861111125570.
    1. Doyle C, Lennox L, Bell D. A systematic review of evidence on the links between patient experience and clinical safety and effectiveness. BMJ Open. 2012;3:e001570. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001570.
    1. Makaryrus AN, Friedman EA. Patients’ understanding of their treatment plans and iagnosis at discharge. Mayo Clin Proc. 2005;80:991–994. doi: 10.4065/80.8.991.
    1. Cole BJ, Cotter EJ, Wang KC, Davey A. Patient understanding, expectations, outcomes, and satisfaction regarding anterior cruciate ligament injuries and surgical management. Arthroscopy. 2017;33:1092–1096. doi: 10.1016/j.arthro.2017.01.049.
    1. Maniaci MJ, Heckman MG, Dawson NL. Physician versus patient perspection of physician hospital discharge communication: a preliminary study. Open J Intern Med. 2014;4:101–107. doi: 10.4236/ojim.2014.44016.
    1. PRO Data Presentation Delphi Panel. Snyder C, Smith K, Holzner B, Rivera YM, Bantug E, Brundage M. Making a picture worth a thousand numbers: recommendations for graphically displaying patient-reported outcomes data. Qual Life Res. 2019;28:345–356. doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2020-3.
    1. Petit-Zeaman S. Patient and public involvement in research strategy 2014–2017 [WWW Document] Oxford Biomedical Research Centre; 2014.

Source: PubMed

3
Abonneren