Nurses’ experiences of using an interactive tailored patient assessment tool one year past implementation

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2013.10.010Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Choice can improve patient-centered communication and care.

  • Organizational support needed for competency training, and dedicated time.

  • ITPAs can challenge professional nursing roles and assumptions.

  • Confidence in communication and the perceived benefits determines use of Choice.

Abstract

Background

Despite evidence of benefits, integration of patient-centered communication in clinical practice is challenging. Interactive tailored patient assessment (ITPA) tools can contribute to a more patient-centered care approach. However, little research has examined the impact of such tools on nursing care once they have been implemented.

Objective

To explore nurses’ experiences of the benefits of and barriers to using an ITPA called Choice, in cancer care one year after its implementation.

Methods

This investigation is a part of a larger study examining the use of Choice in cancer care. Four focus group interviews were conducted with 20 nurses experienced in using the Choice application. The data were analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

Results

Three themes and nine sub-themes emerged: (1) “Choice as facilitator for shared understanding and engagement in patients’ own care,” with three sub-themes: preparing both patient and nurse for communication, shared engagement in care planning, and giving the patients a voice; (2) “enhancing the patients’ strengths,” with two sub-themes: releasing patient's internal strengths and confirming “normalcy” for the patient; and (3) “new challenges for the nurse,” with four sub-themes: organizational challenges, interactions with technology, a need for training in communication skills, and new ethical challenges.

Conclusions

Findings suggest that, from nurses’ perspectives, integration of ITPAs such as Choice in clinical practice offers many benefits that can contribute to patient-centered care. However, to reap these benefits, use of such tools must receive equal priority as other routines, and require sufficient time, space and competence. Choice also challenged nurses’ professional roles and created dilemmas such as nurses’ ambivalence regarding patients’ levels of disclosure of sensitive issues and the nurses’ ability to respond to them. Although patient-centered care is advocated as model for good clinical practice, this is not always internalized. Tools such as Choice may help to make such a shift happen.

Introduction

Patients with cancer often experience multiple symptoms, problems and concerns during their treatment and rehabilitation [1], [2]. To effectively help patients manage their illness, clinicians need to understand how patients experience their disease and symptoms, as well as any problems, concerns, and care preferences they may have. The Quality Chasm report from the Institute of Medicine defined patient-centered care as care that is “respectful of and responsive to individual patients’ preferences, needs and values, and ensuring that patient values guide all clinical decisions” [3] (p6). Patient-centered care improves disease outcomes and quality of life [4]. Patient-centered communication is a critical element of patient-centered care [4], [5], [6], and essential for knowing the person behind the patient, in order to reach a shared understanding of the patients’ problems, preferences and needs [6], [7]. Through patient-centered communication the patient is activated and the foundation is laid for a partnership that includes sharing of information, shared deliberation, and shared decision making [6].

Despite evidence of the benefits of patient-centered care and communication [4], [8], [9], there are significant challenges to integrating patient-centered communication in clinical practice [5], [6]. Although care providers may endorse the notion of patient-centered care as a way to engage the patient as an active partner in his/her care and treatment, care is still often based on routines and offers few opportunities to establish meaningful patient–provider relationships [5], [6]. Frequently, clinicians also have incomplete understandings of patients’ needs, and thus are unable to provide the information and care that patients find useful [5]. Patients, on the other hand, may have poor knowledge about their disease and its symptoms, or be unable to articulate their beliefs, values, information needs and preferences. Investments in infrastructure and information technology are described as important to foster an environment that enables patient-centered care [4].

Choice is an interactive tailored patient assessment and communication (ITPA) tool for cancer patients designed to overcome these pitfalls. Its purpose is twofold: (a) to help patients report their experienced symptoms, problems, and priorities for care and (b) to support clinicians in providing individually tailored symptom management support [10]. The content of the Choice intervention is based on a thorough review of the literature on symptoms, problems and symptom management in patients with cancer, on oncology expert focus groups and on interviews with patients [10].

Using Choice, patients report their symptoms and health problems along physical, functional, and psychosocial dimensions, note down their degree of distress or affliction, and prioritize their need for care for their symptoms. The assessment is individually tailored to each patient based on his/her initial response. It allows patients to branch into those aspects that are personally relevant while skipping those that are not. For example, patients first select from problem categories those that apply to them, and this opens up a subset of more specific symptom descriptions in lay terms from which patients again select those that apply. They then rate degree of distress of their selected symptoms on a scale of 0–4 (not troublesome to extremely troublesome) and prioritize needs for support to manage their symptoms on a scale of 0–10 (receiving support not important to extremely important). When the patient has finished, the system immediately creates an assessment summary that displays patients’ selected symptoms and distress, in rank-order of prioritized need for care (Fig. 1, summary), thereby directing the clinician's attention to the problems that matter most to each patient. The summary is transferred to the hospital's electronic system, from which it can be accessed. The patient receives a copy. Because patients can complete the assessment on their own at their own pace prior to being seen by a clinician, the assessment itself does not take up clinician time. Results can be used to assist care providers to better tailor symptom management and care individually to each patient and to support person-centered communication. Development of the Choice application for cancer patients [11], [12], and a demonstration of its validity and reliability are presented in detail elsewhere [13].

The Choice ITPA has been shown in clinical trials to significantly decrease cancer patients’ symptom distress over the course of their illness, reduce patients’ needs for care, increase disclosure of patients’ cues and concerns in communication with clinicians, and increase the number of symptoms and quality of life issues addressed in patient consultations [10], [14], [15], [16]. The system received high ratings on usefulness by patients, nurses and physicians in a survey after the trial period [17]. Patients who had used Choice reported increased self-awareness and knowledge about the illness, improved communication and information sharing with health care providers and increased sense of coherence and control [18].

The clinicians at the hospital units who participated in the randomized controlled trial that demonstrated positive effects of Choice in terms of reduced symptom distress and need for care [10] decided to use the application as part of routine practice. However, to be successful, interventions found to be effective in clinical trials must also be possible to implement and maintain in routine care. Putting new computerized tools to use in clinical practice is described as challenging [19], [20], [21], [22]. For example, a study done at a palliative unit where an electronic assessment tool was being implemented reported perceived difficulties related to establishing new routines, increased workload, technology issues, increased burden for patients, and ethical issues due to concerns about whether or not the system would actually benefit the patients [21]. Functional and technological issues, the users’ desire for more in-depth information, user privacy concerns, and limited patient use are other challenges noted when implementing new systems in clinical practice [23]. However, while a number of studies have addressed aspects of system implementation, less research has examined the challenges that may emerge over time or the impact of new interventions after they have been implemented [24].

After the Choice ITPA was implemented into regular practice, the main clinical users were nurses. Therefore, the current study explores nurses’ experiences of benefits of and barriers to maintaining use of Choice in cancer care one year after its implementation.

The introduction of a system such as Choice in cancer care can be viewed as implementing a new innovation into existing routines. According to Roger's theory of diffusion of innovations [25], users’ willingness to implement an innovation depend on five attributes of the innovation: (1) relative advantage, the degree to which the innovation is perceived as being better than what it supersedes, (2) compatibility with existing values, experiences and needs, (3) complexity, (4) ability to be tested, and (5) visibility of results. The findings in this study will be discussed in light of these attributes.

Section snippets

Methods

This study is a part of a larger study, in which the Choice ITPA was tested among cancer patients in three inpatient and two outpatient wards in 2003–2006 [10].

Findings

Main findings in this study indicate that the use of the Choice ITPA, as experienced by nurses, can be categorized into three themes; (1) Choice as facilitator for shared understanding and engagement in patients’ own care, (2) enhancement of the patients’ personal strengths; and (3) new challenges for the nurse.

Discussion

The use of Choice was experienced by nurses as both a facilitator for mutual engagement in communication and as an initiator of new challenges. On the one hand, Choice gave the patient a voice, enhanced the patient's strengths and prepared both nurses and the patient for communication and promoted an engagement in shared care planning. On the other hand, Choice posed organizational, technical, ethical and communicational challenges (Table 2). These findings are consistent with four of Rogers’

Authors’ contributions

EB: Design and conduction of the study. Transcribing, coding, analysis and interpretation of data. Drafting the article, and revising it for important intellectual content. CR: PI of the study. Design and conduction of the study. Analysis and interpretation of data. Contribution to manuscript for important intellectual content. SM. Design of the study. Contribution to the manuscript for important intellectual content. ME. Design and conduction of the study. Coding, analysis and interpretation

Competing interest

This work was supported in part by the South-East Regional Health Authority of Norway, grant number: 2009051 and Oslo University Hospital, Norway. Findings, opinions, conclusions and recommendations expressed in this paper are the authors’.

Summary points

What is already known about the topic?

  • The implementation of patient-centered care applications in clinical practice is challenging despite evidence of the benefits.

  • Interactive Tailored Patient Assessment (ITPA) tools can contribute to a more

References (54)

  • E.M. Lavoie Smith et al.

    Assessing cancer survivors’ needs using web-based technology: a pilot study

    Comput. Inform. Nurs.

    (2012)
  • K.D. Stein et al.

    Physical and psychological long-term and late effects of cancer

    Cancer

    (2008)
  • Institute of Medicine, Crossing the quality chasm, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.,...
  • R.M. Epstein et al.

    Why the nation needs a policy push on patient-centered health care

    Health Aff

    (2010)
  • I. Ekman et al.

    Person-centered care—ready for prime time

    Eur. J Cardiovasc. Nurs.

    (2011)
  • R.M. Epstein, R.L. Street, Patient-centered communication in cancer care: promoting healing and reducing suffering...
  • K.D. Bertakis et al.

    Patient-centered care is associated with decreased health care utilization

    J. Am. Board Fam. Med.

    (2011)
  • C.M. Ruland et al.

    Effects of a computer-supported interactive tailored patient assessment tool on patient care, symptom distress, and patients’ need for symptom management support: a randomized clinical trial

    J. Am. Med Inform. Assoc.

    (2010)
  • C.M. Ruland

    Handheld technology to improve patient care: evaluating a support system for preference-based care planning at the bedside

    J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc.

    (2002)
  • C.M. Ruland et al.

    Reliability and validity issues related to interactive tailored patient assessments: a case study

    J. Med. Internet Res.

    (2007)
  • L. Heyn et al.

    Effects of an interactive tailored patient assessment on patient-clinician communication in cancer care

    Psychooncology

    (2013)
  • L. Heyn et al.

    Talking about feelings and worries in cancer consultations: the effects of an interactive tailored symptom assessment on source, explicitness, and timing of emotional cues and concerns

    Cancer Nurs.

    (2013)
  • C.M. Ruland

    Clinicians’ perceived usefulness of a support system for patient-centered cancer care

    Stud. Health Technol. Inform.

    (2006)
  • H. Sandbæk

    Kreftpasienters erfaring med å bruke et dataverktøy som støtte i kommunikasjon med helsepersonell, samt muligheter og utfordringer for sykepleier [master dissertation]

    (2009)
  • K.L. Courtney et al.

    Information technology from novice to expert: implementation implications

    J. Nurs. Manag.

    (2008)
  • B. Andre et al.

    Experiences with the implementation of computerized tools in health care units: a review article

    Int. J. Human-Computer Interact.

    (2008)
  • B. Andre et al.

    Implementation of computerized technology in a palliative care unit

    Palliat. Support. Care

    (2009)
  • Cited by (20)

    • Interdisciplinary collaboration between nursing and engineering in health care: A scoping review

      2021, International Journal of Nursing Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      Specifically, Street et al. (1998) reported a synergistic collaboration between an interdisciplinary team of breast-care nurses and computer engineers in developing an interactive multimedia information program to promote information transfer between patients and nurses. Another study revealed how the integration of interactive patient assessment tools in clinical practice contributed to nurse-patient communication from the nurses' experience (Børøsund et al., 2014). Recently, Thoma-Lürken et al. (2018) developed a decision support application to facilitate communication between nurses and people with dementia.

    • Use of a symptom diary during chemotherapy: A mixed-methods evaluation of the patient perspective

      2017, European Journal of Oncology Nursing
      Citation Excerpt :

      Interestingly, paper and pencil methods are advantageous, because they take significantly shorter time to complete (Ring et al., 2008). While web-based and mobile symptom-report applications offer the advantage of alerting clinicians about patients’ symptoms between clinic visits (Kearney et al., 2009; Borosund et al., 2013; Johnsen et al., 2013; Basch et al., 2016), many patients lack access to a computer or a mobile phone at home or lack the necessary skills to use them (Judson et al., 2013; Wintner et al., 2015; Wintner et al., 2016). Therefore, paper and pencil symptom-report tools remain a relevant alternative.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text