Colby J. Hyland

Background: Breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) is a potentially debilitating outcome following breast cancer treatment. Much attention has been given to preventive and curative strategies for BCRL. Patients with inflammatory breast cancer (IBC) are at particularly increased risk, with approximately half of patients with IBC developing BCRL. We present preliminary outcome data for inflammatory breast cancer patients who undergo a multipronged preventative strategy with immediate lymphatic reconstruction at the time of axillary lymph node dissection, compressive arm sleeve wearing, and occupational therapy. We also present a literature review on IBC and BCRL. Methods: A retrospective review of patients with IBC undergoing immediate lymphatic reconstruction with lymphovenous bypass at the time of axillary lymph node dissection was performed. All patients were referred to occupational therapy for establishment of care and arm sleeve fitting and had at least 12 months of follow-up. The primary outcome of interest was the development of lymphedema. Additionally, a narrative review of the literature was performed. All English language studies pertaining to BCRL in patients with IBC were considered. Results: Eighteen patients with IBC underwent immediate lymphatic reconstruction with lymphovenous bypass between April 2022 and September 2023 by three reconstructive microsurgeons. Average follow-up time was 24.4 months (range 12.5–33.9 months). All patients underwent successful lymphovenous bypass of at least 1 channel. Of the 18 patients, 3 (16.6%) developed symptoms of lymphedema, such as heaviness of the posterior arm (2/3, 67%) or edema of the forearm (1/3, 33%). No patients developed >10% change in extremity volume. Conclusions: BCRL is a debilitating and common outcome following breast surgery in patients with IBC. Immediate reconstruction with lymphovenous bypass coupled with occupational therapy and compression sleeve management may reduce the risk for BCRL in this population.

Purpose Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders. Methods We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Results According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success. Conclusion Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.

Delivering high-quality surgical care requires knowing how best to define and measure quality in surgery. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) enable surgeons, health care systems, and payers to understand meaningful health outcomes from the patient's perspective and can be measured using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). As a result, there is much interest in using PROMs in routine surgical care, to guide quality improvement and to inform reimbursement pay structures. This chapter defines PROs and PROMs, differentiates PROMs from other quality measures such as patient-reported experience measures, describes PROMs in the context of routine clinical care, and provides an overview of interpreting PROM data. This chapter also describes how PROMs may be applied to quality improvement and value-based reimbursement in surgery.

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used increasingly in routine clinical care and inform policies, reimbursements, and quality improvement. Less is known regarding PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations. Objective: This review aims to identify studies of PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations, elucidate representation of clinical specialties, assess implementation outcomes, and synthesize patient needs, concerns, and preferences. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and PsycINFO were searched September 2021 for studies aiming to study PRO implementation in diverse and underrepresented patient populations within the United States. Studies were screened and data extracted by three independent reviewers. Implementation outcomes were assessed according to Proctor et al. taxonomy. A descriptive analysis of data was conducted. Results: The search yielded 8,687 records, and 28 studies met inclusion criteria. The majority were observational cohort studies (n = 21, 75%) and conducted in primary care (n = 10, 36%). Most studies included majority female (n = 19, 68%) and non-White populations (n = 15, 54%), while fewer reported socioeconomic (n = 11, 39%) or insurance status (n = 9, 32.1%). Most studies assessed implementation outcomes of feasibility (n = 27, 96%) and acceptability (n = 19, 68%); costs (n = 3, 11%), penetration (n = 1, 4%), and sustainability (n = 1, 4%) were infrequently assessed. Conclusion: PRO implementation in routine clinical care for diverse and underrepresented patient populations is generally feasible and acceptable. Research is lacking in key clinical specialties. Further work is needed to understand how health disparities drive PRO implementation outcomes.