A Mixed-Method Case Study to Evaluate Adoption of Clinical Decision Support for Cancer Symptom Management

Abstract

Background

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) can improve care for people with cancer, but effectiveness hinges on well-supported integration in clinical settings.

Objectives

We evaluated clinician use of specific clinical decision support (CDS) tools in the electronic health record (EHR) designed to facilitate timely, clinically appropriate responses to ePROM scores for six symptoms commonly experienced by cancer patients.

Methods

The parent pragmatic trial, which took place at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota, United States) and its affiliated community health care system between March 2019 and January 2023, evaluated the population-level effectiveness and implementation of an ePROM surveillance and EHR-facilitated collaborative care symptom management intervention. The present evaluation used a case study approach with four data sources: (1) clinician interactions with CDS tools abstracted from the EHR; (2) clinician notes identified with an institution-specific textual search tool; (3) qualitative interviews and group discussions with care teams; and (4) administrative records reviewed to identify training and outreach to care teams.

Results

EHR metrics showed very low adoption of CDS tools including alerts and symptom-specific order sets, despite educational outreach and information technology support provided to clinical care teams. Qualitative findings revealed that CDS use was not easy to integrate into busy clinical workflows and highlighted clinician perceptions that the collaborative care intervention provided additional patient support that reduced clinicians' need to utilize CDS tools. They also highlight the importance of contextual factors, including institutional priorities and EHR changes.

Conclusion

This pragmatic clinical trial case study found limited adoption of EHR CDS tools that had been developed to increase clinicians' awareness of and responses to ePROM data. Findings suggest the need to align clinician and organizational implementation strategies, simplify CDS tools to fit practice expectations, and identify and address contextual factors that could undercut strategies like education and peer support. This may be especially important for teams who aim to iteratively evaluate and refine CDS and implementation strategies for multicomponent interventions or introduce new strategies that are responsive to barriers while maintaining scalability.

Keywords

electronic health records - implementation science - cancer - patient-reported outcome measures - clinical decision support systems

Protection of Human and Animal Subjects

This study was approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB number: 18-007779).

Publikationsverlauf

Eingereicht: 16. Dezember 2024

Angenommen: 10. April 2025

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
22. August 2025

• References

• 1 Basch E, Deal AM, Kris MG. et al. Symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes during routine cancer treatment: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol 2016; 34 (06) 557-565
• 2 Basch E, Schrag D, Henson S. et al. Effect of electronic symptom monitoring on patient-reported outcomes among patients with metastatic cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2022; 327 (24) 2413-2422
• 3 Mooney KH, Beck SL, Friedman RH, Farzanfar R, Wong B. Automated monitoring of symptoms during ambulatory chemotherapy and oncology providers' use of the information: a randomized controlled clinical trial. Support Care Cancer 2014; 22 (09) 2343-2350
• 4 Howell D, Molloy S, Wilkinson K. et al. Patient-reported outcomes in routine cancer clinical practice: a scoping review of use, impact on health outcomes, and implementation factors. Ann Oncol 2015; 26 (09) 1846-1858
• 5 Graupner C, Kimman ML, Mul S. et al. Patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators associated with the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in cancer care: a systematic review. Support Care Cancer 2021; 29 (02) 573-593
• 6 Gibbons C, Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley DC. et al. Routine provision of feedback from patient-reported outcome measurements to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2021; 10 (10) CD011589
• 7 Eng L, Chan RJ, Chan A. et al. Perceived barriers toward patient-reported outcome implementation in cancer care: an international scoping survey. JCO Oncol Pract 2024; 20 (06) 816-826
• 8 Di Maio M, Basch E, Denis F. et al; ESMO Guidelines Committee. Electronic address: [e-mail]. The role of patient-reported outcome measures in the continuum of cancer clinical care: ESMO Clinical Practice Guideline. Ann Oncol 2022; 33 (09) 878-892
• 9 Kroenke K, Theobald D, Wu J. et al. Effect of telecare management on pain and depression in patients with cancer: a randomized trial. JAMA 2010; 304 (02) 163-171
• 10 Steel JL, George CJ, Terhorst L. et al. Patient, family caregiver, and economic outcomes of an integrated screening and novel stepped collaborative care intervention in the oncology setting in the USA (CARES): a randomised, parallel, phase 3 trial. Lancet 2024; 403 (10434): 1351-1361
• 11 Cheville AL, Moynihan T, Herrin J, Loprinzi C, Kroenke K. Effect of collaborative telerehabilitation on functional impairment and pain among patients with advanced-stage cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol 2019; 5 (05) 644-652
• 12 Finney Rutten LJ, Ruddy KJ, Chlan LL. et al. Pragmatic cluster randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of enhanced EHR-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2). Trials 2020; 21 (01) 480
• 13 Herrin J, Finney Rutten LJ, Ruddy KJ, Kroenke K, Cheville AL. Pragmatic cluster randomized trial to evaluate effectiveness and implementation of EHR-facilitated collaborative symptom control in cancer (E2C2): addendum. Trials 2023; 24 (01) 21
• 14 Nguyen H, Butow P, Dhillon H, Sundaresan P. A review of the barriers to using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine cancer care. J Med Radiat Sci 2021; 68 (02) 186-195
• 15 Lopez CJ, Teggart K, Ahmed M. et al. Implementation of electronic prospective surveillance models in cancer care: a scoping review. Implement Sci 2023; 18 (01) 11
• 16 Ashcraft LE, Goodrich DE, Hero J. et al. A systematic review of experimentally tested implementation strategies across health and human service settings: evidence from 2010-2022. Implement Sci 2024; 19 (01) 43
• 17 Powell BJ, Fernandez ME, Williams NJ. et al. Enhancing the impact of implementation strategies in healthcare: a research agenda. Front Public Health 2019; 7: 3
• 18 Yin RK. Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. 6th ed.. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2018
• 19 Green J, Hanckel B, Petticrew M, Paparini S, Shaw S. Case study research and causal inference. BMC Med Res Methodol 2022; 22 (01) 307
• 20 McCleary NJ, Merle JL, Richardson JE. et al; IMPACT Consortium. Bridging clinical informatics and implementation science to improve cancer symptom management in ambulatory oncology practices: experiences from the IMPACT consortium. JAMIA Open 2024; 7 (03) ooae081
• 21 Damschroder LJ, Reardon CM, Widerquist MAO, Lowery J. The updated consolidated framework for implementation research based on user feedback. Implement Sci 2022; 17 (01) 75
• 22 Ridgeway JL, Cheville AL, Fischer KJ. et al. Tracking activities and adaptations in a multi-site stepped wedge pragmatic trial of a cancer symptom management intervention. Contemp Clin Trials Commun 2024; 38: 101269
• 23 Cheville AL, Pachman DR, Kroenke K. et al. Primary outcomes of the enhanced, EHR-facilitated cancer symptom control (E2C2) cluster-randomized, stepped wedge, pragmatic trial. J Clin Oncol 2024; 42 (17, suppl): LBA12006-LBA12006
• 24 Waltz TJ, Powell BJ, Fernández ME, Abadie B, Damschroder LJ. Choosing implementation strategies to address contextual barriers: diversity in recommendations and future directions. Implement Sci 2019; 14 (01) 42
• 25 Kim B, Cruden G, Crable EL, Quanbeck A, Mittman BS, Wagner AD. A structured approach to applying systems analysis methods for examining implementation mechanisms. Implement Sci Commun 2023; 4 (01) 127
• 26 Meza RD, Weiner BJ, Lewis CC, Pullmann MD, Klasnja P. Causal pathway diagrams: a toolkit for selecting, tailoring, and optimizing implementation strategies. 2023 . Accessed November 10, 2024 at https://impscimethods.org/toolkits/causal-pathway-diagrams-toolkit
• 27 Ford E, Edelman N, Somers L. et al. Barriers and facilitators to the adoption of electronic clinical decision support systems: a qualitative interview study with UK general practitioners. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2021; 21 (01) 193
• 28 Meunier P-Y, Raynaud C, Guimaraes E, Gueyffier F, Letrilliart L. Barriers and facilitators to the use of clinical decision support systems in primary care: a mixed-methods systematic review. Ann Fam Med 2023; 21 (01) 57-69
• 29 Shi Y, Amill-Rosario A, Rudin RS. et al. Barriers to using clinical decision support in ambulatory care: do clinics in health systems fare better?. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2021; 28 (08) 1667-1675
• 30 Arts DL, Medlock SK, van Weert HCPM, Wyatt JC, Abu-Hanna A. Acceptance and barriers pertaining to a general practice decision support system for multiple clinical conditions: a mixed methods evaluation. PLoS One 2018; 13 (04) e0193187
• 31 Minteer SA, Cheville A, Tesch N. et al. Implementing cancer symptom management interventions utilizing patient-reported outcomes: a pre-implementation evaluation of barriers and facilitators. Support Care Cancer 2023; 31 (12) 697
• 32 Austin JD, Finney Rutten LJ, Fischer K. et al. Advancing care team adoption of electronic health record systems for cancer symptom management: findings from a hybrid type II, cluster-randomized, stepped-wedge trial. JCO Oncol Pract 2025; 21 (02) 209-217
• 33 Proctor EK, Bunger AC, Lengnick-Hall R. et al. Ten years of implementation outcomes research: a scoping review. Implement Sci 2023; 18 (01) 31
• 34 Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B. et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation framework: adapting to new science and practice with a 20-Year review. Front Public Health 2019; 7: 64
• 35 Malterud K, Siersma VD, Guassora AD. Sample size in qualitative interview studies: guided by information power. Qual Health Res 2016; 26 (13) 1753-1760