Display options
Cite
Santana MJ, Feeny D, Weinkauf J, et al. The use of patient-reported outcomes becomes standard practice in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2010;1:93-105doi: 10.2147/PROM.S11943.
Santana, M. J., Feeny, D., Weinkauf, J., Nador, R., Kapasi, A., Jackson, K., Schafenacker, M., Zuk, D., & Lien, D. (2010). The use of patient-reported outcomes becomes standard practice in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients. Patient related outcome measures, 193-105. https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S11943
Santana, Maria J, et al. "The use of patient-reported outcomes becomes standard practice in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients." Patient related outcome measures vol. 1 (2010): 93-105. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S11943
Santana MJ, Feeny D, Weinkauf J, Nador R, Kapasi A, Jackson K, Schafenacker M, Zuk D, Lien D. The use of patient-reported outcomes becomes standard practice in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients. Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2010 Jul;1:93-105. doi: 10.2147/PROM.S11943. Epub 2010 Sep 03. PMID: 22915956; PMCID: PMC3417902.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Patient Relat Outcome Meas. 2010 Jul;1:93-105. doi: 10.2147/PROM.S11943. Epub 2010 Sep 03.

The use of patient-reported outcomes becomes standard practice in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients.

Patient related outcome measures

Maria J Santana, David Feeny, Justin Weinkauf, Roland Nador, Ali Kapasi, Kathleen Jackson, Marianne Schafenacker, Dalyce Zuk, Dale Lien

Affiliations

  1. Lung Transplant Program, University of Alberta Hospital, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada;

PMID: 22915956 PMCID: PMC3417902 DOI: 10.2147/PROM.S11943

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the use of patient-reported outcome (PROs) measures in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients. We assessed whether the addition of PROs in routine clinical care affected the duration of the consultation and patient's and clinician's views.

METHOD: Consecutive lung-heart transplant patients visiting the outpatient clinic, University of Alberta Hospital, completed the Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire (CRQ) and the Health Utilities Index (HUI) on touchscreen computers. Information on the patient's responses was made available to the members of the transplant team prior to the encounter with the patient. The duration of clinical encounters was noted. At the end of every visit, clinicians completed a questionnaire on the usefulness of having PRO information available. After 6 months patients completed a survey of their experiences.

RESULTS: The final patient sample consisted of 172 patients with a mean (SD) age of 52 (13.3) years old; 47% were female; 68% were organ recipients and 32% candidates. The transplant team, comprising four pulmunologists, two nurses, and one pharmacist had an average of 9 years of practical experience in pulmunology. The mean duration of patient-clinician encounters in minutes was 15.15 (4.52). Ninety-eight percent of patients indicated that they would be happy to complete the CRQ and HUI at every clinic visit. Ninety-one percent of the assessments completed by clinicians showed complete satisfaction with the use of PROs in routine practice. Further, the clinicians developed guidelines for the use of PRO information in clinical practice.

CONCLUSIONS: The incorporation of PRO measures in the routine clinical care of lung-heart transplant patients resulted in a reduction of the duration of patient-clinician encounters. The experience was well accepted by patients and clinicians. We conclude that the routine use of PROs in lung-heart transplant patients has become standard practice.

Keywords: Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire; Health Utilities Index; lung transplant; patient-reported outcome measures; routine clinical care

References

  1. Qual Life Res. 2010 Apr;19(3):371-9 - PubMed
  2. Qual Life Res. 2005 Sep;14(7):1743-53 - PubMed
  3. Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):125-36 - PubMed
  4. Med Care. 1992 May;30(5 Suppl):MS42-9 - PubMed
  5. Med Care. 2000 Feb;38(2):175-86 - PubMed
  6. Ann Med. 2001 Jul;33(5):344-9 - PubMed
  7. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S254-68 - PubMed
  8. Soc Sci Med. 2004 Feb;58(4):799-809 - PubMed
  9. Patient. 2009 Sep 1;2(3):159-67 - PubMed
  10. Med Care. 2002 Feb;40(2):113-28 - PubMed
  11. Chest. 2003 Oct;124(4):1421-9 - PubMed
  12. Med Care. 1996 Jul;34(7):702-22 - PubMed
  13. Med J Aust. 2008 Jul 21;189(2):93-4 - PubMed
  14. Qual Life Res. 2009 Sep;18(7):793-800 - PubMed
  15. JAMA. 2002 Dec 18;288(23):3027-34 - PubMed
  16. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2006 Jan;45(1):66-71 - PubMed
  17. Psychooncology. 2000 May-Jun;9(3):203-13 - PubMed
  18. Control Clin Trials. 1989 Dec;10(4):407-15 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Oncol. 2004 Feb 15;22(4):714-24 - PubMed
  20. Qual Life Res. 2008 Mar;17(2):195-205 - PubMed
  21. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2004 Aug;4(4):403-11 - PubMed
  22. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2004 Sep 17;31(5):E84-9 - PubMed
  23. Cancer. 2008 Aug 1;113(3):628-37 - PubMed
  24. Qual Life Res. 2008 Dec;17(10):1297-302 - PubMed
  25. Fam Community Health. 2001 Oct;24(3):48-62 - PubMed
  26. Qual Life Res. 1992 Apr;1(2):99-106 - PubMed
  27. Psychooncology. 2007 Dec;16(12):1069-79 - PubMed
  28. Thorax. 1987 Oct;42(10):773-8 - PubMed
  29. Diabetes Care. 2008 Aug;31(8):1521-6 - PubMed
  30. Qual Life Res. 2009 Feb;18(1):99-107 - PubMed

Publication Types