The following is a summary of “Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study,” published in the March 2024 issue of Primary Care by Eton, et al.

For a study, researchers sought to develop a web-based tool that would enable patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to effectively communicate treatment burden concerns to their healthcare providers.

Patients and primary-care providers participated in focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool. The content was drawn from the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS) measure. The resulting tool, PETS-Now, was tested in a quasi-experimental pilot study. Adjustments were made to the study protocol due to limitations imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic.

About 15 patients were diagnosed with MCC, and 18 providers engaged in focus groups to review the existing PETS content. The pilot tool, PETS-Now, was structured with eight domains, each represented by a checklist of potential concerns. During the pilot study, 17 primary-care providers attended to 92 patients under standard care conditions (control), followed by 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). In the intervention group, each treatment burden domain at least once. Notably, no significant differences were observed in overall care quality between the control and intervention groups, with both groups receiving high mean care quality ratings (9.3 and 9.2 out of 10, respectively). Providers addressed patient concerns in 95% of visits in both conditions. Most patients in the intervention group (94%) reported finding PETS-Now easy to use and helpful in focusing conversations with their providers on their main concerns (98%). Additionally, the majority of providers (81%) felt they gained new insights about patients through PETS-Now.

The development of PETS-Now offered promise for efficiently screening and monitoring treatment burden in patients with MCC, potentially aiding in care planning. Patients and providers found the tool acceptable, suggesting its potential utility in clinical practice. Integration of the tool into electronic medical records should be prioritized for enhanced usability and effectiveness.

Reference: bmcprimcare.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12875-024-02316-5