Is a patient-reported outcome intervention (IPOS) feasible and acceptable for identifying and managing symptoms in patients with chronic heart failure?
A palliative-specific PROM-based intervention (IPOS) is feasible and acceptable for patients with chronic heart failure in nurse-led clinics.
Patients with chronic heart failure (CHF) have symptoms and concerns which are inadequately addressed. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can potentially improve the identification and management of advanced symptoms and palliative concerns. However, these have not been used in CHF. OBJECTIVES: To examine the feasibility and acceptability of using a PROM-the Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale (IPOS)-together with heart failure nurse education and training to improve the identification and management of symptoms and concerns among patients with CHF. METHODS: A parallel, mixed methods design with an embedded qualitative component was used to examine the feasibility of recruitment, retention, intervention adherence/compliance and follow-up assessment completion (symptom burden, quality of life, psychological well-being). Patient and nurse qualitative semistructured interviews explored intervention and study design feasibility and its acceptability. RESULTS: Conversion to consent was 46.9% (372 screened, 81 approached, 38 recruited). 66% of patient participants completed the IPOS; 6% of IPOS questionnaire items were missing (non-response). Over two-thirds (65.6%) of these missing items related to three patients. No item was consistently missing; appetite was the most frequent missing item (1.4%). 92% of participants who completed the IPOS completed all follow-up assessments (1-2 days, 1-2 weeks and 4-6 weeks post-IPOS completion) with no missing data. The a priori feasibility objectives were met. Patients and nurses reported the intervention and study design feasible and acceptable. CONCLUSIONS: A palliative-specific PROM-based intervention is feasible and acceptable to both patients with CHF and nurses in nurse-led disease management clinics for the purposes of both clinical care and research.
Kane et al. (Fri,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: