Session Item

Up to 50% of radiation courses are with palliative intent. Despite preventive measures, treatment-related symptoms or cancer-related complaints may occur or remain after treatment. Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (ePROMs) could be used to monitor patients after their treatment and to assure adequate supportive care. Despite the growing interest in ePROMs, their implementation and adoption in routine clinical practice (RCP) has been challenging and there is little insight in the experiences and perspectives of health care providers (HCP) on ePROMs in palliative radiotherapy (PRT). The aim of this study was to explore the opinions of HCP active in radiation oncology in Belgium to identify potential unknown barriers and facilitators for ePROMs in the setting of PRT.

An anonymous online survey was conducted with radiation oncologists (ROs), nurses, radiotherapists, clinical support managers and quality managers working in Belgium. Participants were recruited through their respective professional organizations. No specific ex- or inclusion criteria were applied.

We received 128 survey responses, the majority being from ROs (36%) and nurses (33%). Twenty six percent of respondents had personal experience with ePROMs in clinical PRT. Despite limited use, ePROMs were seen as a valuable tool for follow-up after PRT by the respondents, both for patients (82%) and HCP (78%) For patients, ePROMs were considered as beneficial for their health and symptom knowledge, symptom self-management and active participation in care. For HCP, ePROMs could help focus on relevant symptoms, detect these in an early stage and improve their management. Additionally, ePROMs were thought to improve communication, continuity of care and multidisciplinary care. Most respondents (75%) were willing to implement and use ePROMs routinely, despite the fact that they were associated with a presumed increase in workload both during implementation and clinical use,. Assigning the responsibility for ePROM implementation to a specific, dedicated person, such as a nurse specialist, would increase ePROM success. Feasibility of ePROMs for palliative patients, due to age of poor performance status, was a larger concern than the possible addition to workload. Again, a nurse specialist to guide, follow and support patients during ePROM use was thought to increase implementation and use.

Despite limited use in RCP, HCP active in radiotherapy are generally willing to implement and use ePROMs, as their benefits are well known. Assigning ePROM introduction and follow-up as well as patient guidance and support to a dedicated person, such as a nurse specialist, was thought to promote implementation and improve use in RCP. In spite of the limited sample , we feel that our study adds valuable insight on ePROMs in this particular patient population.