Poster Presentation 2025 Joint Meeting of the COSA ASM and IPOS Congress

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice: Oncology health professionals’ insights (126596)

Chindhu Shunmuga Sundaram 1 , Haryana Dhillon 1 , Nicholas Wilcken 2 , Sandra Turner 3 , Melanie Rabbets 2 , Rosemary Habib 2 , Verity Ahern 3 , Puma Sundaresan 3
  1. Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Psycho-Oncology Co-operative Research Group, The University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  2. Department of Medical Oncology, Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Western Sydney Local Health District, Westmead, NSW, Australia
  3. Radiation Oncology Network, Western Sydney Local Health District, Sydney, NSW, Australia

Background:
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are useful to capture patients’ perspectives on their physical, psychological and social well-being, enhancing communication between patients and their health care providers and improving clinical decision-making in cancer care. However, integrating them into routine cancer care remains challenging. This qualitative study aimed to explore barriers, facilitators, and clinician perspectives on PROM implementation across tumour streams within Western Sydney Local Health District’s (WSLHD) Cancer Services.

Methods:
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with health professionals involved in cancer care at WSLHD (Westmead and Blacktown Hospitals) and across multiple disciplines (medical, nursing, allied health). Eligible participants, those expressing interest when invited via email, were interviewed inline via Microsoft Teams. We aimed to complete 25–30 interviews or continue until thematic saturation was reached. Interviews explored participants’ experiences with PROMs use, perceived barriers and facilitators to implementation, and training needs. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analysed using thematic analysis.

Results:
Ten interviews have been completed (Nine females; average years in practice = 10 years), data collection is ongoing. Barriers to PROMs implementation were grouped into: (i) system and workflow barriers (time constraints, space, poor medical record integration); (ii) PROM-related barriers (lengthy and complex tools, limited translations, literacy and usability challenges); and (iii) staff and organisational barriers (workload, absence of PROMs champions, unclear roles). Key facilitators included: (i) system and infrastructure facilitators (electronic PROMs, multilingual options, electronic medical record integration); (ii) organisational and team support (multidisciplinary agreement, administrative support); and (iii) patient-centred facilitators (identifying hidden concerns and guiding referrals). Participants recommended practical, face-to-face training with role-plays and iPad demonstrations, targeting medical, nursing and allied health staff.

 

Conclusions:
Findings highlight multifaceted factors influencing overall PROMs implementation in clinical practice. Addressing training needs, workflow integration and infrastructure gaps may support effective implementation and uptake.