Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology

User menu

  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
American Society of Nephrology
  • Other
    • ASN Publications
    • JASN
    • Kidney360
    • Kidney News Online
    • American Society of Nephrology
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Advertisement
American Society of Nephrology

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Published Ahead of Print
    • Current Issue
    • Podcasts
    • Subject Collections
    • Archives
    • Kidney Week Abstracts
    • Saved Searches
  • Authors
    • Submit a Manuscript
    • Author Resources
  • Trainees
    • Peer Review Program
    • Prize Competition
  • About CJASN
    • About CJASN
    • Editorial Team
    • CJASN Impact
    • CJASN Recognitions
  • More
    • Alerts
    • Advertising
    • Feedback
    • Reprint Information
    • Subscriptions
  • ASN Kidney News
  • Visit ASN on Facebook
  • Follow CJASN on Twitter
  • CJASN RSS
  • Community Forum
Editorials
You have accessRestricted Access

A Step in the Right Direction

The Promise of PROMs in Routine Hemodialysis Care

Jane Ogden Schell and Dale Ellen Lupu
CJASN September 2020, 15 (9) 1228-1230; DOI: https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.12350720
Jane Ogden Schell
1Section of Palliative Care and Medical Ethics, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
2Renal-Electrolyte Division, University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Dale Ellen Lupu
3Center for Aging, Health and Humanities, School of Nursing, George Washington University, Washington, DC
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Dale Ellen Lupu
  • Article
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF
Loading
  • patient-reported outcomes
  • symptom management
  • hemodialysis
  • patient-centered care

A good physician treats the disease, the great physician treats the patient who has the disease. —Sir William Osler

Patients with kidney failure experience a high symptom burden that negatively affects their quality of life and experience. Despite the contribution of symptoms to poor outcomes, symptoms remain under-recognized and undertreated. One strategy to address this problem is systematic solicitation of patient reports of their symptoms (1). We were, therefore, excited to read in CJASN the results of an implementation study by Evans et al. (2) of systematic deployment of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) to improve symptom assessment and management. Their findings reinforce the feasibility of using PROMs in clinical practice, while providing important lessons to guide future work to realize their potential.

PROMs are standardized, validated questionnaires completed by patients to measure their perception of their functional well-being and health status (3). PROMs provide two benefits. First, many symptoms are not easily detected via biomedical laboratory data. Patient report of the presence and severity is the best way to determine a symptom’s effect on the patient’s experience. Second, the best PROMs enhance provider and patient communication, fostering a patient-centered approach.

Evans et al. (2) implemented the “Your Symptoms Matter” project in eight hemodialysis centers in Ontario, Canada, using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System Revised: Renal (ESAS-r:Renal) administered to patients every 4–6 weeks. The project was evaluated using patient and provider surveys prior to and after implementation, along with semistructured interviews midimplementation with nine patients or caregivers and 48 providers and staff. A chart audit of at least 20 charts per symptom per site was completed 12 months after implementation. The authors conclude that implementation of ESAS-r:Renal PROM is feasible yet had little impact on symptom management, patient-provider communication, or interdisciplinary communication.

We view the study of Evans et al. (2) as an important step in the right direction toward usefully deploying patient-centered interventions. The Ontario teams successfully created a process for regularly collecting PROM data and feeding the results into clinical care. Using the National Health Service Sustainability Model to guide implementation, the authors enlisted organizational and individual clinic buy-in, created a workflow for distributing and collecting surveys, and developed educational resources to ensure providers had tools to manage symptoms identified. This careful planning led to near-100% survey completion by eligible patients, bringing to light many symptoms not previously focused on by patients or providers. Chart audits showed that documentation was more likely the higher the severity rating of the symptom. Patients reported more valuable conversations about severe symptoms, and providers said the information helped them prioritize which symptoms to address with patients. However, the reported changes mostly affected symptom assessment, rather than symptom management.

The study of Evans et al. (2) joins many other PROMs studies that have affected care processes but failed to demonstrate an effect on care outcomes (4). Should we now conclude that it is time to drop the PROM tool from the tool kit for improving patient quality of life? Or should we double down on further work to learn how to use this tool effectively?

We favor renewed focus on the latter. Identifying a distressing symptom is the first step in initiating a chain of steps with the ultimate goal of improving patients’ health-related quality of life. As shown in Figure 1, there are several intervening steps between a patient’s report of a symptom and the distal outcome of improved quality of life. Many frameworks for implementing PROMs have focused on the development and implementation of the measures themselves, which we label step 0 or precursors (3,5,6). This critical precursor step also includes laying the groundwork for change through actions such as recruiting a champion, getting leadership buy-in, and adapting to local conditions (7,8), all of which Evans et al. (2) seem to have done well.

Figure 1.
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
  • Download powerpoint
Figure 1.

Model for implementation steps linking patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to clinical outcomes. This model has been adapted from classic structure-process-outcome models to show the process of symptom assessment as an initial step because this was the starting point for the project by Evans et al. (2).

The findings of Evans et al. (2) point in the direction of subsequent steps in the implementation chain needing further attention. For instance, they found that providers felt less confident to manage symptoms after the intervention despite the creation of education and training sessions. This suggests the need to bolster clinician capacity to evaluate and execute a symptom management plan (step 3). One respondent noted the frustrating long wait for an appointment after referral, suggesting the need to improve infrastructure and resources to ensure treatments are consistently delivered (step 4). Making such improvements is best done through an iterative process that feeds evaluation results back into revisions to the implementation plan. Future efforts to implement PROMs should test interventions aimed at these next steps along the implementation chain.

One missed opportunity in the study of Evans et al. (2) was getting feedback from patients who did not complete any or few questionnaires. Of the eight patients selected by staff to participate in interviews, all had completed numerous ESAS-r:Renal surveys (range, 5–8). This group of willing completers may have a very different view from those who completed none or just one. The viewpoint of these skeptics or nonparticipating patients would have enriched the findings.

Another significant issue is how to best involve patients in the evaluation and management plan. Individualized PROMs allow patients to explicitly prioritize what symptoms are addressed with the provider. These tools have a higher chance of identifying clinically relevant symptoms that will meaningfully affect the patient experience (9). An ongoing study is evaluating the use of a technology-assisted intervention in which patients can individualize treatment of symptoms using a stepped collaborative care that includes pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy options (10).

Finally, we urgently need a better arsenal of proven treatments for common symptoms in kidney disease. Recognizing the gap between symptom burden and effective treatments, the Kidney Health Initiative has created work groups for insomnia, muscle cramps, and fatigue—common symptoms prioritized by patients with kidney disease (1). As future research provides better pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic strategies, we will be better positioned to demonstrate effectiveness in patient care through a model of implementation with steps that link PROMs to patient-centered outcomes. When symptom management is prioritized and incentivized on par with other biomedical metrics like dialysis adequacy, we will be closer to achieving Osler’s vision of care for the whole person.

Disclosures

D.E. Lupu reports salary support via charitable contributions to George Washington University for work as senior advisor with the Coalition for Supportive Care of Kidney Patients. J.O. Schell reports receiving grants from Palliative Care Research Cooperative and royalty from UpToDate, outside the submitted work.

Funding

None.

Acknowledgments

The content of this article reflects the personal experience and views of the author and should not be considered medical advice or recommendations. The content does not reflect the views or opinions of the American Society of Nephrology (ASN) or CJASN. Responsibility for the information and views expressed herein lies entirely with the author(s).

Footnotes

  • Published online ahead of print. Publication date available at www.cjasn.org.

  • See related article, “Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Patients in Routine Clinical Care: Perspectives of Patients and Providers on ESAS-r:Renal,” on pages 1299–1309.

  • Copyright © 2020 by the American Society of Nephrology

References

  1. ↵
    1. Flythe JE,
    2. Hilliard T,
    3. Lumby E,
    4. Castillo G,
    5. Orazi J,
    6. Abdel-Rahman EM,
    7. Pai AB,
    8. Rivara MB,
    9. St Peter WL,
    10. Weisbord SD,
    11. Wilkie CM,
    12. Mehrotra R; Kidney Health Initiative Prioritizing Symptoms of ESRD Patients for Developing Therapeutic Interventions Stakeholder Meeting Participants
    : Fostering innovation in symptom management among hemodialysis patients: Paths forward for insomnia, muscle cramps, and fatigue. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 14: 150–160, 2019 pmid:30397026
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  2. ↵
    1. Evans JM,
    2. Glazer A,
    3. Lum R,
    4. Heale E,
    5. MacKinnon M,
    6. Blake PG,
    7. Walsh M
    : Implementing a patient-reported outcome measure for hemodialysis patients in routine clinical care: Perspectives of patients and providers on ESAS-r:Renal. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 15: 1299–1309, 2020
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. Porter I,
    2. Gonçalves-Bradley D,
    3. Ricci-Cabello I,
    4. Gibbons C,
    5. Gangannagaripalli J,
    6. Fitzpatrick R,
    7. Black N,
    8. Greenhalgh J,
    9. Valderas JM
    : Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: Evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Eff Res 5: 507–519, 2016 pmid:27427277
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  4. ↵
    1. Valderas JM,
    2. Kotzeva A,
    3. Espallargues M,
    4. Guyatt G,
    5. Ferrans CE,
    6. Halyard MY,
    7. Revicki DA,
    8. Symonds T,
    9. Parada A,
    10. Alonso J
    : The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: A systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res 17: 179–193, 2008 pmid:18175207
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. van der Wees PJ,
    2. Verkerk EW,
    3. Verbiest MEA,
    4. Zuidgeest M,
    5. Bakker C,
    6. Braspenning J,
    7. de Boer D,
    8. Terwee CB,
    9. Vajda I,
    10. Beurskens A,
    11. van Dulmen SA
    : Development of a framework with tools to support the selection and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient Rep Outcomes 3: 75, 2019 pmid:31889232
    OpenUrlPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Calvert M,
    2. Kyte D,
    3. Price G,
    4. Valderas JM,
    5. Hjollund NH
    : Maximising the impact of patient reported outcome assessment for patients and society. BMJ 364: k5267, 2019
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Harvey G,
    2. Kitson A
    : PARIHS revisited: From heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice. Implement Sci 11: 33, 2016 pmid:27013464
    OpenUrlPubMed
  8. ↵
    1. Foster A,
    2. Croot L,
    3. Brazier J,
    4. Harris J,
    5. O’Cathain A
    : The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: A systematic review of reviews. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2: 46, 2018 pmid:30363333
    OpenUrlPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Finkelstein FO,
    2. Finkelstein SH
    : Time to rethink our approach to patient-reported outcome measures for ESRD. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 12: 1885–1888, 2017 pmid:28847907
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. ↵
    1. Roumelioti M-E,
    2. Steel JL,
    3. Yabes J,
    4. Vowles KE,
    5. Vodovotz Y,
    6. Beach S,
    7. Rollman B,
    8. Weisbord SD,
    9. Unruh ML,
    10. Jhamb M
    : Rationale and design of technology assisted stepped collaborative care intervention to improve patient-centered outcomes in hemodialysis patients (TĀCcare trial). Contemp Clin Trials 73: 81–91, 2018 pmid:30208343
    OpenUrlPubMed
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology: 15 (9)
Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Vol. 15, Issue 9
September 07, 2020
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • About the Cover
  • Index by author
View Selected Citations (0)
Print
Download PDF
Sign up for Alerts
Email Article
Thank you for your help in sharing the high-quality science in CJASN.
Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A Step in the Right Direction
(Your Name) has sent you a message from American Society of Nephrology
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the American Society of Nephrology web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
A Step in the Right Direction
Jane Ogden Schell, Dale Ellen Lupu
CJASN Sep 2020, 15 (9) 1228-1230; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.12350720

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Request Permissions
Share
A Step in the Right Direction
Jane Ogden Schell, Dale Ellen Lupu
CJASN Sep 2020, 15 (9) 1228-1230; DOI: 10.2215/CJN.12350720
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Disclosures
    • Funding
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data Supps
  • Info & Metrics
  • View PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • APOL1 Kidney Risk Variants and Acute Kidney Injury in Those with COVID-19
  • Telehealth and Kidney Disease Care
  • Time to Abandon Kidney Biopsy to Diagnose Membranous Nephropathy?
Show more Editorials

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

Similar Articles

Related Articles

  • Implementing a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Hemodialysis Patients in Routine Clinical Care
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Keywords

  • patient-reported outcomes
  • symptom management
  • hemodialysis
  • patient-centered care

Articles

  • Current Issue
  • Early Access
  • Subject Collections
  • Article Archive
  • ASN Meeting Abstracts

Information for Authors

  • Submit a Manuscript
  • Trainee of the Year
  • Author Resources
  • ASN Journal Policies
  • Reuse/Reprint Policy

About

  • CJASN
  • ASN
  • ASN Journals
  • ASN Kidney News

Journal Information

  • About CJASN
  • CJASN Email Alerts
  • CJASN Key Impact Information
  • CJASN Podcasts
  • CJASN RSS Feeds
  • Editorial Board

More Information

  • Advertise
  • ASN Podcasts
  • ASN Publications
  • Become an ASN Member
  • Feedback
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Password/Email Address Changes
  • Subscribe to ASN Journals

© 2022 American Society of Nephrology

Print ISSN - 1555-9041 Online ISSN - 1555-905X

Powered by HighWire