Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Appl Clin Inform 2021; 12(05): 979-983
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736464
Case Report

Implementing an Application Programming Interface for PROMIS Measures at Three Medical Centers

Michael Bass
1   Department of Medical Social Science, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
,
Christian Oncken
2   Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St Louis, Missouri, United States
,
Allison W. McIntyre
3   Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States
,
Chris Dasilva
3   Department of Orthopaedics and Rehabilitation, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, New York, United States
,
Joshua Spuhl
4   Enterprise Data Warehouse, University of Utah Health System, Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
,
Nan E. Rothrock
1   Department of Medical Social Science, Northwestern University, Chicago, Illinois, United States
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background There is an increasing body of literature advocating for the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical care. Unfortunately, there are many barriers to integrating PRO measures, particularly computer adaptive tests (CATs), within electronic health records (EHRs), thereby limiting access to advances in PRO measures in clinical care settings.

Objective To address this obstacle, we created and evaluated a software integration of an Application Programming Interface (API) service for administering and scoring Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures with the EHR system.

Methods We created a RESTful API and evaluated the technical feasibility and impact on clinical workflow at three academic medical centers.

Results Collaborative teams (i.e., clinical, information technology [IT] and administrative staff) performed these integration efforts addressing issues such as software integration as well as impact on clinical workflow. All centers considered their implementation successful based on the high rate of completed PROMIS assessments (between January 2016 and January 2021) and minimal workflow disruptions.

Conclusion These case studies demonstrate not only the feasibility but also the pathway for the integration of PROMIS CATs into the EHR and routine clinical care. All sites utilized diverse teams with support and commitment from institutional leadership, initial implementation in a single clinic, a process for monitoring and optimization, and use of custom software to minimize staff burden and error.

Keywords

electronic health records - implementation - computer adaptive algorithm - patient-reported outcomes - PROMIS

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This work was conducted as part of routine clinical care at all sites; therefore informed consent was not required.




Publication History

Received: 06 May 2021

Accepted: 01 September 2021

Article published online:
20 October 2021

© 2021. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Rüdigerstraße 14, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

 

  • References

  • 1 Wu AW, Cagney KA, St John PD. Health status assessment. Completing the clinical database. J Gen Intern Med 1997; 12 (04) 254-255
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes—harnessing patients' voices to improve clinical care. N Engl J Med 2017; 376 (02) 105-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Rotenstein LS, Agarwal A, O'Neil K. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome surveys as part of routine care: lessons from an academic radiation oncology department. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2017; 24 (05) 964-968
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Wagner LI, Schink J, Bass M. et al. Bringing PROMIS to practice: brief and precise symptom screening in ambulatory cancer care. Cancer 2015; 121 (06) 927-934
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Trotti A, Colevas AD, Setser A, Basch E. Patient-reported outcomes and the evolution of adverse event reporting in oncology. J Clin Oncol 2007; 25 (32) 5121-5127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhang R, Burgess ER, Reddy MC. et al. Provider perspectives on the integration of patient-reported outcomes in an electronic health record. JAMIA Open 2019; 2 (01) 73-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rudin RS, Fanta CH, Qureshi N. et al. A clinically integrated mHealth App and practice model for collecting patient-reported outcomes between visits for asthma patients: implementation and feasibility. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (05) 783-793
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Cella D, Riley W, Stone A. et al; PROMIS Cooperative Group. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005-2008. J Clin Epidemiol 2010; 63 (11) 1179-1194
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Revicki DA, Cella DF. Health status assessment for the twenty-first century: item response theory, item banking and computer adaptive testing. Qual Life Res 1997; 6 (06) 595-600
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Rogers J, Spina N, Neese A, Hess R, Brodke D, Lex A. Composer-visual cohort analysis of patient outcomes. Appl Clin Inform 2019; 10 (02) 278-285
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Grossman LV, Feiner SK, Mitchell EG, Masterson Creber RM. Leveraging patient-reported outcomes using data visualization. Appl Clin Inform 2018; 9 (03) 565-575
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Espadas J, Concha D, Molina A. Application Development over Software-as-a-Service Platforms. Paper presented at: 2008 The Third International Conference on Software Engineering Advances; 26–31 Oct. 2008. 2008
    Google Scholar
  • 13 Pautasso C, Zimmermann O, Leymann F. Restful web services vs. “big”' web services: making the right architectural decision. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on World Wide Web. 2008 . Beijing, China
    Google Scholar
  • 14 Assessment Center API [computer program]. Chicago, IL2012
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Bass M. BYOD: One Instrument Developer's Technical Solution. 2016. Philadelphia, PA: eCOA Forum;
    Google Scholar
  • 16 Bass M. Assessment Center API: A Software Component Model for the Integration of Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) into Clinical Care. Paper presented at: AMIA 2016 Annual Symposium. 2016 . Chicago, IL
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Harris PA, Taylor R, Thielke R, Payne J, Gonzalez N, Conde JG. Research electronic data capture (REDCap)—a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support. J Biomed Inform 2009; 42 (02) 377-381
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 HL7.org. FHIR Overview. FHIR Release 4 website. Accessed July 1, 2021 at: https://www.hl7.org/fhir/overview.html
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Rutherford C, Campbell R, Tinsley M. et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures into clinical practice across NSW: mixed methods evaluation of the first year. Appl Res Qual Life 2021; 16 (03) 1265-1284
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Sisodia RC, Dankers C, Orav J. et al. Factors associated with increased collection of patient-reported outcomes within a large health care system. JAMA Netw Open 2020; 3 (04) e202764-e202764
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Sandhu S, King Z, Wong M. et al. Implementation of electronic patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer care at an academic center: identifying opportunities and challenges. JCO Oncol Pract 2020; 16 (11) e1255-e1263
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Nelson TA, Anderson B, Bian J. et al. Planning for patient-reported outcome implementation: development of decision tools and practical experience across four clinics. J Clin Transl Sci 2020; 4 (06) 498-507
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar