Feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint: a web system for patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice

Authors

  • Claire F. Snyder,

    Corresponding author
    1. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
    2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
    • Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Amanda L. Blackford,

    1. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Antonio C. Wolff,

    1. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Michael A. Carducci,

    1. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Joseph M. Herman,

    1. The Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • Albert W. Wu,

    1. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA
    2. Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
    Search for more papers by this author
  • the PatientViewpoint Scientific Advisory Board

    Search for more papers by this author
    • See Appendix A for members of the PatientViewpoint Scientific Advisory Board

Correspondence to: Division of General Internal Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, 624 N. Broadway, Room 657, Baltimore, Maryland 21205–1901. E-mail: csnyder@jhmi.edu, csnyder@jhsph.edu

Abstract

Background

The PatientViewpoint website collects patient-reported outcomes and links them with the electronic health record to aid patient management. This pilot test evaluated PatientViewpoint's use, usefulness, and acceptability to patients and clinicians.

Methods

This was a single-arm prospective study that enrolled breast and prostate cancer patients undergoing treatment and the clinicians who managed them. Patients completed patient-reported outcomes every 2 weeks, and clinicians could access the results for patient visits. Scores that were poor relative to norms or substantially worse than the previous assessment were highlighted. After three on-study visits, we assessed patient and clinician perspectives on PatientViewpoint using close-ended and open-ended questions.

Results

Eleven out of 12 eligible clinicians (92%) and 52/76 eligible patients (68%) enrolled. Patients completed a median of 71% of assigned questionnaires; clinicians reported using the information for 79% of patients, most commonly as a source of additional information (51%). At the median, score reports identified three potential issues, of which 1 was discussed during the visit. Patients reported the system was easy to use (92%), useful (70%), aided recall of symptoms/side effects (72%), helped them feel more in control of their care (60%), improved discussions with their provider (49%), and improved care quality (39%). Patients and clinicians desired more information on score interpretation and minor adjustments to site navigation.

Conclusions

These results support the feasibility and value of PatientViewpoint. An ongoing study is using a continuous quality improvement approach to further refine PatientViewpoint. Future studies will evaluate its impact on patient care and outcomes. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Ancillary