Feasibility of large-scale implementation of an electronic patient-reported outcome remote monitoring system for patients on active treatment at a community cancer center
Open accessAbstract
PURPOSE: The use of digital symptom monitoring with patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been shown to improve patient outcomes. The evidence of benefit has been largely derived from research studies. The feasibility of adopting this technology in the real-world setting is unknown. METHODS: We report on the clinical implementation of a proprietary electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO)–based digital symptom monitoring platform at the Highlands Oncology Group practice, a large community oncology practice. We present here our experience with patient enrollment, engagement, and retention; reasons for discontinued use; proportion of reports generating alerts and containing severe symptoms; and the responses to alerts including nursing telephone consultations and urgent office visits. RESULTS: Over an approximately 17-month period, 923 patients were successfully enrolled. Patients enrolled from June 20, 2020, through November 30, 2021, with follow-up through February 28, 2022. Retention rates at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months were 94%, 88%, 73%, and 67%, respectively, with greater retention at 12 months in patients age 65 years or older. Few patients discontinued use for reasons related to the platform (n = 47; 5%). Of the 25,311 ePRO reports submitted, 49% (n = 12,334) exceeded the predefined alert thresholds and 8% (n = 1,920) included severe symptoms. The nursing team responded within 24 hours by telephone to 31.2% (n = 3,910) of all reports with alerts. Of reports with severe symptoms, 72.7% (n = 1,395) received a call. Only 6.4% (n = 249) of phone calls required an office evaluation within 72 hours of the report. CONCLUSION: This single-center experience indicates that an ePRO-based digital symptom monitoring platform can be effectively implemented at a large scale with a high level of long-term patient engagement. Most reports could be effectively resolved by nurses, and physician intervention was infrequently required.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Cherny et al. and Patt et al. reported approximately 64% adherence to weekly ePRO reporting in routine oncology care in community practices in the United States, with lower engagement among elderly patients.
“However, Cherny et al. and Patt et al. have published their experiences implementing RPM in routine oncology care in community practices in the United States outside a clinical trial.20,29 In these studies, patients’ adherence to weekly ePRO reporting was approximately 64%, with lower engagement among elderly patients.”
From Implementation of a remote symptom monitoring pathway in oncology care: analysis of real-world experience across 33 cancer centres in France and Belgium (2024) · cites this paper as [20]
Cherny et al. do report implementation in a community oncology practice, but the Results (Reporting and Retention; page not provided) say 64.7% submitted at least two reports per month—not that approximately 64% adhered to weekly reporting. They also found greater 12-month retention among patients aged 65 or older (73% versus 62%), contrary to the claim of lower engagement among elderly patients. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 24 · Cited by 28
- Authors
- Cherny, N. I., Parrinello, C. M., Kwiatkowsky, L., Hunnicutt, J., Beck, T., Schaefer, E., Thurow, T., & Kolodziej, M.
- Affiliations
- Shaare Zedek Medical Center (IL)
- Pine Mountain Consulting, Redding, CT
- Canopy, New York, New York
- Highlands Oncology Group (US)
- Corresponding author
- Kolodziej, Michael
- Venue
- JCO Oncology Practice
- Published
- 2022-12
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e1918-e1926
- ISSN
- 2688-1527 (ISSN-L)
- 2688-1535
- PMC
- PMC9750604
- OpenAlex
- W4306249651
- Cited by
- 28
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4
- FWCI
- 4.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by-nc-nd
- Locations
- JCO Oncology Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Mobile Health and mHealth Applications
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Keywords
- electronic patient-reported outcomes, remote patient monitoring, cancer patients, community oncology practice, implementation feasibility, patient retention, patient engagement, alarm thresholds, telemedicine
- MeSH terms
- Patient Reported Outcome Measures, Aged, Humans, Medical Oncology, Neoplasms, Software, Telephone
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review