Nasreen Kaadan

Bio: Nasreen Kaadan is an academic researcher from Liverpool Hospital. The author has contributed to research in topics: eHealth & Patient-reported outcome. The author has an hindex of 6, co-authored 10 publications receiving 108 citations. Previous affiliations of Nasreen Kaadan include University of New South Wales.

Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care): Multicenter Pragmatic Nonrandomized Trial

Abstract: Background: Despite the acceptability and efficacy of e–patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems, implementation in routine clinical care remains challenging. Objective: This pragmatic trial implemented the PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care) web-based system into existing clinical workflows and evaluated its effectiveness among a diverse population of patients with cancer. Methods: Adult patients with solid tumors receiving active treatment or follow-up care in four cancer centers were enrolled. The PROMPT-Care intervention supported patient management through (1) monthly off-site electronic PRO physical symptom and psychosocial well-being assessments, (2) automated electronic clinical alerts notifying the care team of unresolved clinical issues following two consecutive assessments, and (3) tailored online patient self-management resources. Propensity score matching was used to match controls with intervention patients in a 4:1 ratio for patient age, sex, and treatment status. The primary outcome was a reduction in emergency department presentations. Secondary outcomes were time spent on chemotherapy and the number of allied health service referrals. Results: From April 2016 to October 2018, 328 patients from four public hospitals received the intervention. Matched controls (n=1312) comprised the general population of patients with cancer, seen at the participating hospitals during the study period. Emergency department visits were significantly reduced by 33% (P=.02) among patients receiving the intervention compared with patients in the matched controls. No significant associations were found in allied health referrals or time to end of chemotherapy. At baseline, the most common patient reported outcomes (above-threshold) were fatigue (39%), tiredness (38.4%), worry (32.9%), general wellbeing (32.9%), and sleep (24.1%), aligning with the most frequently accessed self-management domain pages of physical well-being (36%) and emotional well-being (23%). The majority of clinical feedback reports were reviewed by nursing staff (729/893, 82%), largely in response to the automated clinical alerts (n=877). Conclusions: Algorithm-supported web-based systems utilizing patient reported outcomes in clinical practice reduced emergency department presentations among a diverse population of patients with cancer. This study also highlighted the importance of (1) automated triggers for reviewing above-threshold results in patient reports, rather than passive manual review of patient records; (2) the instrumental role nurses play in managing alerts; and (3) providing patients with resources to support guided self-management, where appropriate. Together, these factors will inform the integration of web-based PRO systems into future models of routine cancer care. Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12616000615482; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=370633

Impact of a real-time peer review audit on patient management in a radiation oncology department.

Abstract: In September 2006, the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) endorsed the modified Peer Review Audit Tool (PRAT). We aimed to assess the feasibility of using this tool in a busy radiation oncology department using an electronic medical record (EMR) system, identify areas of compliance and assess the impact of the audit process on patient management. Fortnightly random clinical audit was undertaken by using the revised RANZCR PRAT in the departments of radiation oncology at Liverpool and Macarthur Cancer Therapy Centres (LCTC and MCTC). Following audit of the EMR, treatment plans were audited by peer review. Data were collected prospectively from June 2007 to June 2008. Audits were carried out on 208 patients. Behaviour criteria were well documented in the EMR, but scanning of histology and medical imaging reports did not occur in up to a third of cases. With electronic prescriptions, treatment prescription errors were rare. In total, 8 (3.8%) out of 208 patients had a change to management recommended. Variability in interpretation of PRAT 'protocol/study' criteria was identified. We found that real-time audit is feasible and effective in detecting both issues with documentation in the EMR, and a small number of patients in whom a change to management is recommended. Recommendations have been made in order to continue to improve the audit process including documentation of any changes recommended and whether the recommended change occurred.

Lower trial participation by culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) cancer patients is largely due to language barriers.

Abstract: Aim Clinical trials play a critical role in advancing cancer care, but international research shows that few cancer patients, particularly culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) patients, participate in trials. This limits generalizability of trial results and increases health disparities. This study aimed to establish rates and correlates of trial participation among CALD patients in South Western Sydney Local Health District (SWSLHD), a highly culturally diverse area. Methods Data from all cancer patients diagnosed and/or treated in SWSLHD from January 2006 to July 2016 were analyzed retrospectively. The primary outcome was trial enrolment among patients born in non-English speaking countries (CALD) versus English speaking countries (non-CALD). Multivariable logistic regression evaluated CALD status as a predictor of trial participation. Moderators of trial participation by the different CALD groups, namely those whose preferred language was English (CALD-PLE) or was not English (CALD-PLNE), were examined by testing interactions between CALD status and other demographic and clinical variables. Results A total of 19 453 patients were analyzed (54.9% non-CALD, 16.5% CALD-PLE, 18.5% CALD-PLNE). Overall, 7.4% of patients were enrolled in a trial. Trial participation was significantly lower in CALD patients than non-CALD patients (5.7% vs 8.4%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69–0.91; P = 0.001). CALD-PLNE patients were less likely to participate in trials than non-CALD (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.36–0.56; P < 0.0001) and CALD-PLE patients (OR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.67–0.41; P < 0.0001). Conclusions Limited English proficiency seems particularly unfavorable to trial participation. Development and evaluation of strategies to overcome language barriers (e.g. simplified and translated multimedia participant information materials) is needed.

Assessing guideline adherence and patient outcomes in cervical cancer.

Abstract: AIM To investigate adherence to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in cervical cancer and the correlation with clinical outcomes. METHODS A retrospective analysis was conducted using patient information from a population-based cancer registry (2005-2011, n = 208). Compliance to 10 widely accepted CPGs was assessed. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess sociodemographic factors associated with CPG adherence. Multivariate Cox regression was performed to assess the relationship between CPG adherence and 5-year survival. RESULTS Adherence to individual CPGs ranged from 47% to 100%. Compliance to all applicable CPGs was seen in 54% (n = 72) of patients, 62% of stage I and II patients and 22% of stage III and IV patients. Poorest adherence was seen with those with locally advanced disease receiving chemoradiotherapy. Patients who lived within 5 km of the treatment facility were more likely to be compliant. No difference was found for either age, country of birth or socioeconomic status group. Five-year survival was greater for stage I and II patients who received guideline adherent care (93.7% vs 69.7%, P = 0.002), and they had a significant lower risk of death on multivariate analysis (HR = 0.22, P = 0.015). There was no significant difference for those with stage III or IV disease. CONCLUSIONS In this study, CPG adherence is variable between treatment modalities and only half complied to all applicable CPGs. There was better adherence in those with early-stage disease and this was associated with improved patient outcomes. CPG adherence may be a useful surrogate for quality of care.

Development and feasibility testing of PROMPT-Care, an eHealth system for collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures for personalized treatment and care: a study protocol

Abstract: Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures have been used widely to screen for depression, anxiety, and symptoms in cancer patients. Computer-based applications that collect patients’ responses and transfer them to the treating health professional in real time have the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes. Objective: This study will test the feasibility and acceptability of a newly developed eHealth system which facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. Methods: The eHealth system is being developed in consultation with 3 overarching content-specific expert advisory groups convened for this project: the clinical advisory group, technical advisory group, and evaluation advisory group. The following work has already been completed during this phase of the study: the Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) eHealth system was developed, patient-reported outcomes were selected (distress, symptoms, unmet needs), algorithms to inform intervention thresholds for clinical and self-management were determined, clinician PRO feedback summary and longitudinal reports were designed, and patient self-management resources were collated. PROsaiq, a custom information technology system, will transfer PRO data in real time into the hospital-based oncology information system to support clinical decision making. The PROMPT-Care system feasibility and acceptability will be assessed through patients completing PROMPT-Care assessments, participating in face-to-face cognitive interviews, and completing evaluation surveys and telephone interviews and oncology staff participating in telephone interviews. Results: Over the course of 3 months, the system will be pilot-tested with up to 50 patients receiving treatment or follow-up care and 6 oncology staff at 2 hospitals in New South Wales, Australia. Data will be collected to determine the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, extent of missing data from participants’ assessments, acceptability of the eHealth system and usefulness of the self-management resources (via patient evaluation surveys and interviews), and acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting (via oncology staff interviews) at the completion of the pilot phase. Conclusions: This research investigates implementation of evidence into real world clinical practice through development of an efficient and user-friendly eHealth system. This study of feasibility and acceptability of the newly developed eHealth system will inform the next stage of larger scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. ClinicalTrial: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299i5(4):e227]

Enhancing the role of case-oriented peer review to improve quality and safety in radiation oncology: Executive summary.

Abstract: This report is part of a series of white papers commissioned for the American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Board of Directors as part of ASTRO's Target Safely Campaign, focusing on the role of peer review as an important component of a broad safety/quality assurance (QA) program. Peer review is one of the most effective means for assuring the quality of qualitative, and potentially controversial, patient-specific decisions in radiation oncology. This report summarizes many of the areas throughout radiation therapy that may benefit from the application of peer review. Each radiation oncology facility should evaluate the issues raised and develop improved ways to apply the concept of peer review to its individual process and workflow. This might consist of a daily multidisciplinary (eg, physicians, dosimetrists, physicists, therapists) meeting to review patients being considered for, or undergoing planning for, radiation therapy (eg, intention to treat and target delineation), as well as meetings to review patients already under treatment (eg, adequacy of image guidance). This report is intended to clarify and broaden the understanding of radiation oncology professionals regarding the meaning, roles, benefits, and targets for peer review as a routine quality assurance tool. It is hoped that this work will be a catalyst for further investigation, development, and study of the efficacy of peer review techniques and how these efforts can help improve the safety and quality of our treatments.

A review of interventions to reduce inter-observer variability in volume delineation in radiation oncology

Abstract: Introduction Inter-observer variability (IOV) in target volume and organ-at-risk (OAR) delineation is a source of potential error in radiation therapy treatment The aims of this study were to identify interventions shown to reduce IOV in volume delineation Methods Medline and Pubmed databases were queried for relevant articles using various keywords to identify articles which evaluated IOV in target or OAR delineation for multiple (>2) observers The search was limited to English language articles and to those published from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2014 Reference lists of identified articles were scrutinised to identify relevant studies Studies were included if they reported IOV in contouring before and after an intervention including the use of additional or alternative imaging Results Fifty-six studies were identified These were grouped into evaluation of guidelines (n = 9), teaching (n = 9), provision of an autocontour (n = 7) and the impact of imaging (n = 31) on IOV Guidelines significantly reduced IOV in 7/9 studies Teaching interventions reduced IOV in 8/9 studies, statistically significant in 4 The provision of an autocontour improved consistency of contouring in 6/7 studies, statistically significant in 5 The effect of additional imaging on IOV was variable Pre-operative CT was useful in reducing IOV in contouring breast and liver cancers, PET scans in lung cancer, rectal cancer and lymphoma and MRI scans in OARs in head and neck cancers Conclusion Inter-observer variability in volume delineation can be reduced with the use of guidelines, provision of autocontours and teaching The use of multimodality imaging is useful in certain tumour sites

eHealth System for Collecting and Utilizing Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care (PROMPT-Care) Among Cancer Patients: Mixed Methods Approach to Evaluate Feasibility and Acceptability

Abstract: Background: Despite accumulating evidence indicating that collecting patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and transferring results to the treating health professional in real time has the potential to improve patient well-being and cancer outcomes, this practice is not widespread. Objective: The aim of this study was to test the feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care (Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Personalized Treatment and Care), a newly developed electronic health (eHealth) system that facilitates PRO data capture from cancer patients, data linkage and retrieval to support clinical decisions and patient self-management, and data retrieval to support ongoing evaluation and innovative research. Methods: We developed an eHealth system in consultation with content-specific expert advisory groups and tested it with patients receiving treatment or follow-up care in two hospitals in New South Wales, Australia, over a 3-month period. Participants were recruited in clinic and completed self-report Web-based assessments either just before their upcoming clinical consultation or every 4 weeks if in follow-up care. A mixed methods approach was used to evaluate feasibility and acceptability of PROMPT-Care; data collected throughout the study informed the accuracy and completeness of data transfer procedures, and extent of missing data was determined from participants’ assessments. Patients participated in cognitive interviews while completing their first assessment and completed evaluation surveys and interviews at study-end to assess system acceptability and usefulness of patient self-management resources, and oncology staff were interviewed at study-end to determine the acceptability and perceived usefulness of real-time PRO reporting. Results: A total of 42 patients consented to the study; 7 patients were withdrawn before starting the intervention primarily because of changes in eligibility. Overall, 35 patients (13 on treatment and 22 in follow-up) completed 67 assessments during the study period. Mean completeness of patient-reported data was 93%, with 100% accuracy of data transfer. Ten patients completed cognitive interviews, 28 completed evaluation surveys, and 14 completed evaluation interviews at study-end. PROMPT-Care patient acceptability was high—100% (28/28) reported the time to complete the Web-based assessments (average 15 min) as about right, most willing to answer more questions (79%, 22/28 yes), 96% (27/28) found the Web-based assessment easier or same as completing a paper copy, and they valued the self-management resources . Oncology staff (n=5) also reported high acceptability and potential feasibility of the system. Conclusions: Patients and oncology staff found the PROMPT-Care system to be highly acceptable, and the results suggest that it would be feasible to implement it into an oncology setting. Suggested modifications to the patient assessment survey, clinician access to the reports, and system requirements will be made as part of the next stage of large-scale testing and future implementation of the system as part of routine care. Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN1261500135294; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=369299i19(10):e330]

Does Peer Review of Radiation Plans Affect Clinical Care? A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Abstract: Purpose Peer review is a recommended component of quality assurance in radiation oncology; however, it is resource-intensive and its effect on patient care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the published data to assess the reported clinical impact of peer review on radiation treatment plans. Methods and Materials A systematic review of published English studies was performed in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines using the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and abstracts published from major radiation oncology scientific meeting proceedings. For inclusion, the studies were required to report the effect of peer review on ≥1 element of treatment planning (eg, target volume or organ-at-risk delineation, dose prescription or dosimetry). Results The initial search strategy identified 882 potentially eligible studies, with 11 meeting the inclusion criteria for full-text review and final analysis. Across a total of 11,491 patient cases, peer review programs led to modifications in a weighted mean of 10.8% of radiation treatment plans. Five studies differentiated between major and minor changes and reported weighted mean rates of change of 1.8% and 7.3%, respectively. The most common changes were related to target volume delineation (45.2% of changed plans), dose prescription or written directives (24.4%), and non-target volume delineation or normal tissue sparing (7.5%). Conclusions Our findings suggest that peer review leads to changes in clinical care in approximately 1 of every 9 cases overall. This is similar to the reported rates of change in peer review studies from other oncology-related specialties, such as radiology and pathology.