A cluster randomized controlled trial for the Evaluation of routinely Measured PATient reported outcomes in HemodialYsis care (EMPATHY): a study protocol

Jeffrey A Johnson, Fatima Al Sayah, Robert Buzinski, Bonnie Corradetti, Sara N Davison, Meghan J Elliott, Scott Klarenbach, Braden Manns, Kara Schick-Makaroff, Hilary Short, Chandra Thomas, Michael Walsh, Jeffrey A Johnson, Fatima Al Sayah, Robert Buzinski, Bonnie Corradetti, Sara N Davison, Meghan J Elliott, Scott Klarenbach, Braden Manns, Kara Schick-Makaroff, Hilary Short, Chandra Thomas, Michael Walsh

Abstract

Background: Kidney failure requiring dialysis is associated with poor health outcomes and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture symptom burden, level of functioning and other outcomes from a patient perspective, and can support clinicians to monitor disease progression, address symptoms, and facilitate patient-centered care. While evidence suggests the use of PROMs in clinical practice can lead to improved patient experience in some settings, the impact on patients' health outcomes and experiences is not fully understood, and their cost-effectiveness in clinical settings is unknown. This study aims to fill these gaps by evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of routinely measuring PROMs on patient-reported experience, clinical outcomes, HRQL, and healthcare utilization.

Methods: The EMPATHY trial is a pragmatic multi-centre cluster randomized controlled trial that will implement and evaluate the use of disease-specific and generic PROMs in three kidney care programs in Canada. In-centre hemodialysis units will be randomized into four groups, whereby patients: 1) complete a disease-specific PROM; 2) complete a generic PROM; 3) complete both types of PROMs; 4) receive usual care and do not complete any PROMs. While clinical care pathways are available to all hemodialysis units in the study, for the three active intervention groups, the results of the PROMs will be linked to treatment aids for clinicians and patients. The primary outcome of this study is patient-provider communication, assessed by the Communication Assessment Tool (CAT). Secondary outcomes include patient management and symptoms, use of healthcare services, and the costs of implementing this intervention will also be estimated. The present protocol fulfilled the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Intervention Trials (SPIRIT) checklist.

Discussion: While using PROMs in clinical practice is supported by theory and rationale, and may engage patients and enhance their role in decisions regarding their care and outcomes, the best approach of their use is still uncertain. It is important to rigorously evaluate such interventions and investments to ensure they provide value for patients and health systems.

Trial registration: Protocol version (1.0) and trial registration data are available on www.clinicaltrials.gov , identifier: NCT03535922 , registered May 24, 2018.

Keywords: Controlled trial; Hemodialysis; Kidney failure; Patient-reported outcome measures; Quality improvement; Symptom burden.

Conflict of interest statement

Fatima Al Sayah and Jeffrey Johnson are members of the EuroQol Group. J Johnson is a member of the Board of Directors for the EuroQol Research Foundation. Braden Manns is co-Principal Investigator of the Can-SOLVE CKD Network. All authors have no other conflicts of interest to declare.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Schematic of overall design for the EMPATHY Study. *Outcome measures survey includes: Communication Assessment Tool (CAT), Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care 11-items questionnaire (PACIC-11), Patient Health Questionnaire 2-item (PHQ-2), General Anxiety Disorder 2-items questionnaire (GAD-2), Edmonton Symptom Assessment System – revised: Renal (ESAS-r: Renal) or Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale – Renal (IPOS-Renal), and/or EQ-5D-5L
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Sample EQ-5D-5 L PROMs Report Card
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Nurse Workflow of EMPATHY Intervention

References

    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Organ replacement in Canada: CORR annual statistics, 2019. 2019 June 1, 2020]; Available from: .
    1. Murtagh FE, Addington-Hall J, Higginson IJ. The prevalence of symptoms in end-stage renal disease: a systematic review. Adv Chronic Kidney Dis. 2007;14(1):82–99.
    1. Jablonski A. The multidimensional characteristics of symptoms reported by patients on hemodialysis. Nephrol Nurs J. 2007;34(1):29–37.
    1. Abdel-Kader K, et al. Individual quality of life in chronic kidney disease: influence of age and dialysis modality. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2009;4(4):711–718.
    1. Lowney AC, et al. Understanding what influences the health-related quality of life of hemodialysis patients: a collaborative study in England and Ireland. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2015;50(6):778–785.
    1. Manns B, et al. Setting research priorities for patients on or nearing dialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2014;9(10):1813–1821.
    1. Weisbord SD, et al. Renal provider recognition of symptoms in patients on maintenance hemodialysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007;2(5):960–967.
    1. Moskovitch JT, Mount PF, Davies MRP. Changes in Symptom Burden in Dialysis Patients Assessed Using a Symptom-Reporting Questionnaire in Clinic. J Palliat Care. 2019:825859719827315.
    1. Velikova G, 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(4):714–724.
    1. Hilarius DL, et al. Use of health-related quality-of-life assessments in daily clinical oncology nursing practice: a community hospital-based intervention study. Cancer. 2008;113(3):628–637.
    1. Dy SM, et al. Tell us™: a web-based tool for improving communication among patients, families, and providers in hospice and palliative care through systematic data specification, collection, and use. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2011;42(4):526–534.
    1. Food and Drug Administration. Patient-reported outcomes measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims, R.N. 74, Editor. 2009.
    1. Devlin NJ, Appleby J. Getting the most out of PROMs: putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. London: The King’s Fund and The Office of Health Economics; 2010.
    1. Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346:f167.
    1. APERSU. Alberta PROMs and EQ-5D Research and Support Unit (APERSU). 2015 30, 2016]; Available from: .
    1. Canadian Institute for Health Information. Patient Reported Outcome Measures. 2015 30, 2016]; Available from: .
    1. Greenhalgh J. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: what are they, do they work, and why? Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):115–123.
    1. Detmar SB, et al. Health-related quality-of-life assessments and patient-physician communication: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(23):3027–3034.
    1. Berry DL, et al. Enhancing patient-provider communication with the electronic self-report assessment for cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29(8):1029–1035.
    1. Berry DL, et al. Electronic self-report assessment for cancer and self-care support: results of a multicenter randomized trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(3):199–205.
    1. Berry DL, et al. Exposure to a patient-centered, web-based intervention for managing cancer symptom and quality of life issues: impact on symptom distress. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6):e136.
    1. Rosenbloom SK, et al. Assessment is not enough: a randomized controlled trial of the effects of HRQL assessment on quality of life and satisfaction in oncology clinical practice. Psychooncology. 2007;16(12):1069–1079.
    1. Velikova G, et al. Patients report improvements in continuity of care when quality of life assessments are used routinely in oncology practice: secondary outcomes of a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer. 2010;46(13):2381–2388.
    1. Almario CV, et al. Impact of National Institutes of Health gastrointestinal PROMIS measures in clinical practice: results of a multicenter controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(11):1546–1556.
    1. de Wit M, et al. Monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescents with type 1 diabetes improve psychosocial well-being: a randomized controlled trial. Diabetes Care. 2008;31(8):1521–1526.
    1. de Wit M, et al. Follow-up results on monitoring and discussing health-related quality of life in adolescent diabetes care: benefits do not sustain in routine practice. Pediatr Diabetes. 2010;11(3):175–181.
    1. Boyce MB, Browne JP. Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review. Qual Life Res. 2013;22(9):2265–2278.
    1. Chen J, Ou L, Hollis SJ. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:211.
    1. Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12(5):559–568.
    1. King S, et al. The use and impact of quality of life assessment tools in clinical care settings for cancer patients, with a particular emphasis on brain cancer: insights from a systematic review and stakeholder consultations. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(9):2245–2256.
    1. Valderas JM, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(2):179–193.
    1. Gilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon TA. Routinely administered questionnaires for depression and anxiety: systematic review. Bmj. 2001;322(7283):406–409.
    1. Gilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon T. Routine administration of health related quality of life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome--a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2002;32(8):1345–1356.
    1. Price A, et al. The Arthroplasty candidacy help engine tool to select candidates for hip and knee replacement surgery: development and economic modelling. Health Technol Assess. 2019;23(32):1–216.
    1. Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(6):508–518.
    1. Antunes B, Harding R, Higginson IJ. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers. Palliat Med. 2014;28(2):158–175.
    1. Krawczyk M, et al. Micro-Meso-macro practice tensions in using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in hospital palliative care. Qual Health Res. 2019;29(4):510–521.
    1. Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care. 1989;27(3 Suppl):S217–S232.
    1. Bhattacharya S, et al. Generic and disease-specific measures of quality of life in patients with mild Alzheimer's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2010;30(4):327–333.
    1. Laupacis A, Wong C, Churchill D. The use of generic and specific quality-of-life measures in hemodialysis patients treated with erythropoietin. The Canadian Erythropoietin Study Group. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(4 Suppl):168s–179s.
    1. Arora P, et al. Prevalence estimates of chronic kidney disease in Canada: results of a nationally representative survey. Cmaj. 2013;185(9):E417–E423.
    1. Perrone RD, et al. Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of CKD-related therapies: report of a symposium sponsored by the national kidney foundation and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Am J Kidney Dis. 2013;62(6):1046–1057.
    1. Davison SN, Jhangri GS, Johnson JA. Cross-sectional validity of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system in dialysis patients: a simple assessment of symptom burden. Kidney Int. 2006;69(9):1621–1625.
    1. Davison SN, Jhangri GS, Johnson JA. Longitudinal validation of a modified Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS) in haemodialysis patients. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(11):3189–3195.
    1. Raj R, et al. Validation of the IPOS-renal symptom survey in advanced kidney disease: a cross-sectional study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2018;56(2):281–287.
    1. Herdman M, et al. Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L) Qual Life Res. 2011;20(10):1727–1736.
    1. Fayers PM. Evaluating the effectiveness of using PROs in clinical practice: a role for cluster-randomised trials. Qual Life Res. 2008;17(10):1315–1321.
    1. Sedgwick P. What is an open label trial? BMJ. 2014;348:g3434.
    1. Bruera E, et al. The Edmonton symptom assessment system (ESAS): a simple method for the assessment of palliative care patients. J Palliat Care. 1991;7(2):6–9.
    1. Hearn J, Higginson IJ. Development and validation of a core outcome measure for palliative care: the palliative care outcome scale. Palliative care Core audit project advisory group. Qual Health Care. 1999;8(4):219–227.
    1. The EuroQol Group. About EQ-5D-5L [Internet]. 2014 26, 2017]; Available from: .
    1. Devlin NJ, Krabbe PF. The development of new research methods for the valuation of EQ-5D-5L. Eur J Health Econ. 2013;14(Suppl 1):S1–S3.
    1. Dolan P. Modeling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care. 1997;35(11):1095–1108.
    1. Gibbons, E., Casañas I Comabella C, and Fitzpatrick R, A structured review of patient-reported outcome measures for patients with skin cancer, 2013. Br J Dermatol,2013 168(6): p. 1176–1186.
    1. Makoul G, Krupat E, Chang CH. Measuring patient views of physician communication skills: development and testing of the communication assessment tool. Patient Educ Couns. 2007;67(3):333–342.
    1. Skapinakis P. The 2-item generalized anxiety disorder scale had high sensitivity and specificity for detecting GAD in primary care. Evid Based Med. 2007;12(5):149.
    1. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, Williams JB. The patient health Questionnaire-2: validity of a two-item depression screener. Med Care. 2003;41(11):1284–1292.
    1. Glasgow RE, et al. Use of the patient assessment of chronic illness care (PACIC) with diabetic patients: relationship to patient characteristics, receipt of care, and self-management. Diabetes Care. 2005;28(11):2655–2661.
    1. van Breukelen GJ, Candel MJ. Calculating sample sizes for cluster randomized trials: we can keep it simple and efficient. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(11):1212–1218.
    1. Wozniak L, et al. Contextualizing the effectiveness of a collaborative care model for primary care patients with diabetes and depression (Teamcare): a qualitative assessment using RE-AIM. Can J Diabetes. 2015;39(Suppl 3):S83–S91.
    1. Johnson JA, et al. Cost-effectiveness evaluation of collaborative Care for Diabetes and Depression in primary care. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(1):e13–e20.
    1. Xie F, et al. A time trade-off-derived value set of the EQ-5D-5L for Canada. Med Care. 2016;54(1):98–105.
    1. Thorne, S., Interpretive Description: Qualitative Research for Applied Practice, ed. 2. 2016, New York: Routledge.
    1. Sandelowski M. Whatever happened to qualitative description? Res Nurs Health. 2000;23(4):334–340.
    1. Sandelowski M. What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Res Nurs Health. 2010;33(1):77–84.
    1. Damschroder LJ, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: a consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implement Sci. 2009;4(1):50.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Chapter 7: Thematic Analysis. In: Lyons AC, editor. Qualitative research in clinical and Health Psychology. UK: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015.
    1. Aiyegbusi OL, et al. Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0179733.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться