Oral Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2021

Implementing Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in a multidisciplinary cancer survivorship clinical setting (#128)

Sim Yee (Cindy) Tan 1 2 3 , Jane Turner 1 , Kim Kerin-Ayres 1 4 , Sue Butler 1 5 , Cole Deguchi 1 4 , Sonia Khatri 1 4 , Ilona Cunningham 1 6 , Carolyn Wildbore 1 4 , Ashanya Malalasekera 1 , Janette Vardy 1 3
  1. Concord Cancer Centre , Concord Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia
  2. Nutrition and Dietetics Department, Concord Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia
  3. Sydney Medical School, University of Sydney, Concord, NSW, Australia
  4. Nursing Services, Concord Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia
  5. Psychology Department, Concord Hospital, Concord, NSW , Australia
  6. Haematology Department, Concord Hospital, Concord , NSW, Australia

Background:

Sydney Cancer Survivorship Clinic (SCSC) aims to help survivors recover from their cancer and treatment, and to manage lasting effects (1).  Clinicians use the Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) as an integral part of their consultation.  Here we report patient completion rate of PROMs for the clinic as a surrogate of patient acceptability.

Method:

Pre-COVID, SCSC attendees were mailed paper PROMs and asked to bring completed forms to clinic.  PROMs assess: symptoms, quality of life (QOL), distress, exercise levels, food intake, and self-rated performance status.  Since March 2020, clinic consults were mostly conducted via telehealth, and paper PROMs were transitioned to electronic version (ePROMs) in September 2020.  Descriptive statistics were used to report proportions of completed PROMs in these two periods.

Results:

Between 2013 to 2019, 656 new survivors attended SCSC with 622 consenting to data being included in the analysis.  Demographics: 69% (n=428) female; main tumour types: breast cancer 42%, colorectal 31%, haematological 17%, and other 10%. The highest completion rate was for food questionnaire (92%); 91% for distress thermometer, symptom, and exercise-related PROMS; 85% for QOL, 77% for self-rated performance status and the lowest for the 3-day food diary (55.5%).   Between September 2020 to February 2021, 166 patients attended SCSC clinics; 132 (79.5%) ePROMs were emailed out and completion rate was 79%.

Conclusion:

Comprehensive PROMS can be incorporated into clinical practice with excellent adherence, despite some language difficulties.  Data provided in PROMS enabled clinicians to tailor their consults and provide an individualised care plan. PROMs that take longer to complete are more likely to have missing data but may still provide important information for clinicians. ePROMs are feasible and practical. Educating attendees’ regarding the importance and relevance of the PROMS likely helps adherence; while streamlined administrative processes helps reduce avoidable missing data.  

  1. Vardy JL, Tan C, Turner JD, Dhillon H. Health status and needs of cancer survivors attending the Sydney Survivorship Centre clinics and programmes: a protocol for longitudinal evaluation of the centre's services. BMJ open. 2017;7(5):e014803