Webinar Q&A  Session

Q1: Did patients find using two apps difficult?

Most of the patients had a positive experience and were satisfied with their interaction with the tools. They understood the value of the project and were willing to participate.

However, there were some patients who found using two apps to be challenging. They may have perceived it as too much to handle and, as a result, chose not to participate in the project.

This led to the creation of scripting to better explain why using both apps separately were necessary to achieve the project’s goals.

Q2: How many patients did you have on this project?

We had eleven patients, across two sites.

Q3: Are you planning to share more details about the project?

A case study related to the project was presented at AONN (Academy of Oncology Nurse & Patient Navigators) last year.

We are considering various avenues to disseminate our findings and insights, perhaps a publication or an abstract.

The desire to share more details is motivated by the positive outcomes and value signals received from the project, along with the questions we received. The aim is to make these details available to others who may be interested in similar projects.

Q4: What was the average length of monitoring for each patient?

The average length of monitoring for each patient in the project was approximately 17 days. During this period, patients wore a patch for 17 days and had about 16 days of ePRO (Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome) data collected. This provided a substantial amount of data review and analysis.

Q5: Are there other wearable devices that you considered or perhaps considering  for future studies?

TempTraq is the main product of Blue Spark Technologies, and it was used for this project because of our familiarity with it. However, we are open to exploring the possibility of incorporating other wearables or collecting additional vital signs in future studies. The decision is not yet finalized, but there is recognition of the potential value in expanding the scope of monitoring to gain a more comprehensive understanding of a patient’s condition.

The emphasis is on obtaining a well-rounded picture of the patient, which can aid in triaging and workflow management. It’s acknowledged that innovations like ePROs and temperature monitoring, while valuable, are not the complete picture of a patient’s experience and care. Therefore, exploring other measurement options and conducting more projects in the field of oncology care is a priority.

We are open to collaborating and receiving input from others who may have ideas or suggestions for advancing oncology care, to consider new approaches and technologies.

Q6: Were patients provided electronic education based on fever, or did they receive a
phone call from a  provider for guidance?

Patients had access to education through the ePRO platform. When patients reported symptoms such as fever or chills, the system would provide them with educational materials on their phone or computer. This education was aimed at helping patients with self-care at home and identifying concerning situations.

The education provided through the ePRO system was evidence-based and sourced from reputable guidelines such as NCCN (National Comprehensive Cancer Network) symptom guidelines or other appropriate sources. This ensured that the information given to patients was accurate and reliable.

The TempTraq monitoring system used, provided temperature alerts. If a patient’s temperature rose above a specific threshold, they would receive an alert indicating that they had a fever. While the electronic symptom education was provided, the specifics of the conversations between healthcare providers and patients in the clinic were reviewed or scripted as part of this project.

Q7: What decisions were made about integration of data?

The decision regarding the integration of data for the project was based on several considerations including keeping the project simple and cost-effective.

Integrating data from different sources can be a time-consuming and complex process, often requiring significant resources and investment.

Our approach allowed for the collection of data from multiple sources without the need for extensive integration efforts.