Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
Objectives: Given its complexity, chronic noncancer pain presents an opportunity to use health information technology (IT) to improve care experiences. The objective of this study was to assess whether integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data in an electronic health record (EHR) affects provider and patient satisfaction with chronic noncancer pain care.
Study design: We conducted a pragmatic cluster randomized trial involving 4 family medicine clinics.
Methods: We enrolled primary care providers (PCPs) and their patients with chronic noncancer pain. In the first 7 months (education phase), PCPs in intervention practices received education on how to use PROs for pain care. In the second 7 months (PRO phase), patients in intervention practices reported pain-related outcomes on arrival at their visits. PROs were immediately reported to PCPs through the EHR. Control group PCPs provided usual care. We compared intervention and control practices in terms of provider and patient satisfaction with care.
Results: During the education phase, patients' mean ratings of their visits did not differ between control and intervention (9.33 vs 9.08; P = .20). During the PRO phase, patients' mean ratings did not differ between control and intervention (9.28 vs 9.01; P = .20). Similarly, there were no differences between the intervention and control groups in terms of provider satisfaction.
