E041 Feasibility and acceptability of electronic patient reported outcome measures in the routine care of people with inflammatory arthritis: Haywood Arthritis Portal study
Authors: Cox Natasha , Kettle Chelsea , Wang Haboo , Dutta Shouma , Packham Jon , Galloway James , Hill Jonathan , Muller Sara , Hider Samantha , Paskins Zoe , Bullock Laurna , Scott Ian C 
Published: April 2024

Background/Aims

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) assessing disease activity, function, pain, and quality of life can facilitate innovative inflammatory arthritis (IA) care, such as automating patient-initiated follow-up. This mixed-methods study evaluated whether their use is feasible and acceptable in routine care of people with inflammatory arthritis in an NHS setting.

Methods

The Haywood Arthritis Portal (HAP) is an NHS co-designed online patient platform, enabling people with IA under the Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust (MPFT) to enter ePROMs using any internet-enabled device. People with IA attending recruiting clinics from January-October 2023 received text message/letter invitations to complete HAP pre-appointment. Non-completers could complete HAP on tablets at the clinic. Consenters also completed a survey assessing ePROMs acceptability and HAP usability. Responses were summarised as proportions, stratified by age, gender, IA type, and home/clinic-completion status. Purposively sampled survey-completers participated in semi-structured interviews, providing deeper understanding of ePROMs/HAP feasibility/acceptability. This abstract presents data from an interim analysis of consenting patients with available survey and case report form data.

Results

Survey Population: 210 patients were included: 107 (51%) home-completers; 98 (47%) clinic-completers; 5 (2%) HAP non-completers; 70% female; mean age 60 years. Most had RA (70%), followed by Axial SpA (15%), undifferentiated IA (8%), and PsA/other SpA (7%). ePROMs Acceptability: 86% rated ePROMs acceptable/completely acceptable; 82% felt their completion required little/no effort; 87% agreed/strongly agreed their answers were likely to help their care. Fewer people aged &gt;70 years rated ePROMs acceptable/completely acceptable (70%) compared with younger age groups (ranging 82%-100%); the same was the case for clinic-completers (79%) vs. home-completers (93%). Perceived ePROMs Use by Clinicians: 58% agreed/strongly agreed their healthcare professional had looked at their ePROMs. This was proportionally more in people aged 18-40 (79%) than older age groups (ranging 48%-58%), in axial SpA (70%) than other IA types (ranging 50%-54%), and in males (67%) vs. females (53%). HAP Usability: 78% agreed/strongly agreed HAP was easy to use. This was higher in those aged 18-40 years (93%) than those aged &gt;70 years (70%), and in home-completers (89%) than clinic-completers (67%), Interviews: involved 11 participants and findings supported quantitative results, in that participants generally considered ePROMs acceptable, HAP easy to use, yet they were uncertain if their entries were used by their healthcare professional. In addition, participants were reassured that HAP was NHS-developed and secure, and expressed interest in completing ePROMs more regularly.

Conclusion

Using ePROMs in routine NHS care is acceptable to most people with IA, particularly younger people and those able to enter them on their own devices. The next step in this study is to consider healthcare professionals’ perspectives on ePROMs, including how they can be best integrated into consultations to ensure patients feel their entries are considered.

Disclosure

N. Cox: None. C. Kettle: None. H. Wang: None. S. Dutta: None. J. Packham: None. J. Galloway: None. J. Hill: None. S. Muller: None. S. Hider: None. Z. Paskins: None. L. Bullock: None. I.C. Scott: None.