The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews

Women's experiences with using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in routine perinatal care in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into the experiences of women with completing and discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM), and tailoring their care based on their outcomes.

DESIGN

A mixed-methods prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Seven obstetric care networks in the Netherlands that implemented a set of patient-centred outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), published by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement.

PARTICIPANTS

All women, receiving the PROM and PREM questionnaires as part of their routine perinatal care, received an invitation for a survey (n=460) and an interview (n=16). The results of the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; thematic inductive content analysis was applied on the data from open text answers and the interviews.

RESULTS

More than half of the survey participants (n=255) felt the need to discuss the outcomes of PROM and PREM with their care professionals. The time spent on completing questionnaires and the comprehensiveness of the questions was scored 'good' by most of the survey participants. From the interviews, four main themes were identified: content of the PROM and PREM questionnaires, application of these outcomes in perinatal care, discussing PREM and data capture tool. Important facilitators included awareness of health status, receiving personalised care based on their outcomes and the relevance of discussing PREM 6 months post partum. Barriers were found in insufficient information about the goal of PROM and PREM for individual care, technical problems in data capture tools and discrepancy between the questionnaire topics and the care pathway.

CONCLUSIONS

This study showed that women found the PCB set an acceptable and useful instrument for symptom detection and personalised care up until 6 months post partum. This patient evaluation of the PCB set has several implications for practice regarding the questionnaire content, role of care professionals and congruity with care pathways.

PROMs and PREMs in routine perinatal care: mixed methods evaluation of their implementation into integrated obstetric care networks

BACKGROUND

In the transition towards value-based healthcare, patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) are recommended by international collaborations and government programs to guide clinical practice and quality improvement. For many conditions, using PROM/PREM over the complete continuum of care requires implementation across care organizations and disciplines. Along PROM/PREM implementation in obstetric care networks (OCN), we aimed to evaluate implementation outcomes and the processes influencing these outcomes in the complex context of care networks across the continuum of perinatal care.

METHODS

Three OCN in the Netherlands implemented PROM/PREM in routine practice, using an internationally developed outcomes set with care professionals and patient advocates. Their aim was to use PROM/PREM results individually to guide patient-specific care decisions and at group-level to improve quality of care. The implementation process was designed following the principles of action research: iteratively planning implementation, action, data generation and reflection to refine subsequent actions, involving both researchers and care professionals. During the one-year implementation period in each OCN, implementation outcomes and processes were evaluated in this mixed-methods study. Data generation (including observation, surveys and focus groups) and analysis were guided by two theoretical implementation frameworks: the Normalization Process Theory and Proctor's taxonomy for implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings were supplemented with survey data to solidify findings in a broader group of care professionals.

RESULTS

Care professionals in OCN found the use of PROM/PREM acceptable and appropriate, recognized their benefits and felt facilitated in their patient-centered goals and vision. However, feasibility for daily practice was low, mainly due to IT issues and time constraints. Hence PROM/PREM implementation did not sustain, but strategies for future PROM/PREM implementation were formulated in all OCN. Processes contributing positively to implementation outcomes were internalization (understand the value) and initiation (driven by key-participants), whereas challenges in relational integration (maintain confidence) and reconfiguration (refine activities) affected implementation negatively.

CONCLUSION

Although implementation did not sustain, network-broad PROM/PREM use in clinic and quality improvement matched professionals' motivation. This study provides recommendations to implement PROM/PREM meaningfully in practice in ways that support professionals in their drive towards patient-centered care. In order for PROM/PREM to fulfill their potential for value-based healthcare, our work highlights the need for sustainable IT infrastructures, as well as an iterative approach to refine their complex implementation into local contexts.

Factors affecting implementation of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a pediatric health system

BACKGROUND

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in pediatric clinical practice can enhance clinical care and bring children and families' perspectives into evaluations of healthcare services. Implementing these measures is complex and requires a thorough assessment of the context of implementation The purpose of this study is to describe the barriers and facilitators to PROMs and PREMs implementation and to recommend strategies for implementing these measures in a pediatric health system.

METHODS

We used a qualitative descriptive approach to analyse data from interviews to understand the experiences of PROMs and PREMs users across different pediatric settings in a single Canadian healthcare system.

RESULTS

There were 23 participants representing a variety of roles within the healthcare system and pediatric populations. We found five main factors that affected implementation of PROMs and PREMs in pediatric settings: 1) Characteristics of PROMs and PREMs; 2) Individual's beliefs; 3) Administering PROMs and PREMs; 4) Designing clinical workflows; and 5) Incentives for using PROMs and PREMs. Thirteen recommendations for integrating PROMs and PREMs in pediatric health settings are provided.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementing and sustaining the use of PROMs and PREMs in pediatric health settings presents several challenges. The information presented will be useful for individuals who are planning or evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in pediatric settings.

Understanding the healthcare providers' perspective for bringing the assessment of burden of chronic conditions tool to practice: a protocol for an implementation study

INTRODUCTION

The Assessment of Burden of Chronic Conditions (ABCC) tool is developed and validated to support and facilitate a personalised approach to care for people with chronic conditions. The benefit of using the ABCC-tool greatly depends on how it is implemented. To enable a deeper understanding of when, how and by whom the ABCC-tool is used, this study protocol describes the design of an implementation study in which the context, experiences and implementation process of the ABCC-tool by primary care healthcare providers (HCPs) in the Netherlands will be investigated.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol describes an implementation study alongside an effectiveness trial, in which the ABCC-tool is evaluated in general practices. The implementation strategy of the tool in the trial confines to providing written information and an instruction video explaining the technical use of the ABCC-tool. The outcomes include a description of: (1) the barriers and facilitators of HCPs for implementation of the ABCC-tool, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) and (2) the implementation outcomes guided by the Reach-Effect-Adoption-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework Carroll's fidelity framework. All outcomes will be gathered through individual semistructured interviews throughout 12 months of use. Interviews will be audiorecorded and transcribed. Transcripts will be analysed using content analysis for identifying barriers and facilitators (based on CFIR) and thematic analyses of HCPs' experiences (based on the RE-AIM and the fidelity frameworks).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The presented study was approved by the Medical Ethics Committee of Zuyderland Hospital, Heerlen (METCZ20180131). Written informed consent is mandatory prior to participation in the study. The results from the study in this protocol will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference presentations.

Amplifying the Patient Voice: A Survey of Practitioners' Use of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Across Radiotherapy Providers in England

AIMS

The NHS England Radiotherapy Service Specification calls for routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, barriers exist at patient, healthcare professional and service levels. The aim of the present study was to determine the current use of PROMs within radiotherapy services in England. The current attitudes, barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs in radiotherapy practice were evaluated and practical recommendations to inform future implementation were developed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A mixed-methods approach was adopted to obtain quantitative and qualitative data. An online questionnaire was developed and disseminated to all radiotherapy operational delivery network managers across England. The questionnaire consisted of 12 open and closed questions relating to PROMs use, with the option to provide free-text responses. Inductive thematic analysis was conducted on free-text comments, whereas descriptive statistics were used to analyse quantitative data.

RESULTS

In total, 182 responses were received from 40 of the 50 radiotherapy providers, resulting in a response rate of 84%. The current use of PROMs was analysed, including rationale for use, tools used, format of PROMs collection and timing within the radiotherapy pathway. Most respondents indicated that PROMs were used in the context of clinical trials only. Through thematic analysis, four identical key themes were identified relating to both barriers and enablers to PROMs use; these included IT infrastructure, time, human/financial resources and training/education. A fifth theme, standardisation, was identified as a key enabler to PROMs use.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings show that outside of clinical trials, PROMs are not routinely used in radiotherapy services due to barriers identified at professional and service levels. Here we provide recommendations to mitigate the barriers identified and implement PROMs in radiotherapy, including training for healthcare professionals and standardisation of PROMs tools and storage. This study provides a key first step in driving PROMs implementation within radiotherapy services across England.

Electronic versus paper patient-reported outcome measure compliance rates: A retrospective analysis

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are key tools used to inform clinical research and patient-centered care. Application of data collected from PROMs, however, may be limited by incomplete responses, and little is known regarding the efficacy of varied PROM delivery methods. The objective of this study was to compare PROMs compliance when delivered via paper and electronic formats.

METHODS

Elective adult spinal deformity patients were screened for inclusion. Data collected included demographics, type of surgery, PROMs compliance, and discharge care. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analysis (MVA) were performed to compare pre- and postoperative compliance rates.

RESULTS

Of the 474 included patients, 177 were administered paper PROMs, while 297 were electronic. Preoperatively, 101 patients (57.1%) had any portion of their paper PROMs available; 179 (60.3%) had any of their electronic PROMs available (p = 0.492). Among all patients, 76 (42.9%) and 170 (57.2%) had all of their completed preop PROMs available (p = 0.003). Among patients with any of their preop PROMs completed, 75.2% with paper and 95.0% with electronic were completed in their entirety (p < 0.001). Similar trends were observed among postoperative PROMs. MVA demonstrated electronic delivery as the only significant correlate with pre- and post-operative PROMs compliance (p < 0.001 and p = 0.003, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were observed across modalities when considering any available PROMs, yet electronic PROM delivery was associated with higher completion of PROMs. In order to improve the quality of patient-reported data, electronic delivery with alternative methods of quality improvement may be considered to increase PROMs retention rates.

Patient-reported outcome and experience measures for quality improvement in pregnancy and childbirth care: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) can highlight issues that remain unnoticed when using standard clinical quality indicators. However, estimations of the potential power of measuring PROMs and PREMs to identify unrecognised areas suitable for quality improvement are often limited by a lack of reliable real-world data. Here, we report on how the indicator set for PROMs and PREMs that was recently developed by the International Consortium for Health Outcome Measures can change perspectives on quality assessment in women receiving care for pregnancy and childbirth.

METHODS

PROMs and PREMs were captured 6 months after childbirth via an online survey in a single academic maternity unit in the Netherlands between 2018 and 2019. Indicators of abnormality were scored using predefined cut-off values established by a national consensus group. We used regression analysis to identify associations between PROMs, PREMs and healthcare use, and further stratified data to explore the distribution of indicators among relevant patient subgroups.

RESULTS

Of 2775 questionnaires, 645 were completed and linked to medical health records. Despite only 5% of women reporting overall dissatisfaction with care, suboptimal scores were often found; in birth experience for 32% of the population, and 42% who experienced painful sexual intercourse. Subgroup analysis further revealed associations with relevant indicators of quality of care; inadequate pain relief among women with preterm birth (OR 8.8), pain with sexual intercourse among women undergoing vaginal assisted delivery (OR 2.2) and women living in a deprived area had problematic birth experiences (coefficient -3.2).

CONCLUSION

Use of PROMs and PREMs in pregnancy and childbirth care provides new insights on quality of care, resulting in potentially actionable targets for improvement not normally identified with standard clinical quality indicators. Implementation strategies and follow-up are needed to act on these findings.

The use of patient-reported outcome and experience measures for health policy purposes: A scoping review in oncology

The systematic use of patient-reported measures (PRMs) [i.e., patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs)] is advocated as an effective way to improve care practices. However, whether PRMs can lead to the performance assessment of healthcare organisations (HCOs) through valid quality indicators (QIs) for national purposes (i.e., public reporting and paying for performance) is open to debate. This study undertakes a scoping review to examine the use of PRMs as QIs for health policy purposes and to identify the challenges faced in the emblematic case of oncology. According to PRISMA guidelines, published papers, websites and reports published by national and international initiatives were analysed using five online databases (Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, JSTOR and Google Advanced Search), and then studied using the same keywords. We selected 61 articles and 19 websites/reports and identified 29 PREMs and 48 PROMs from 14 countries and two international initiatives that routinely used them as QIs for HCOs' comparisons. Four types of barriers to this specific use were identified relating to the definition of a standard set, scientific soundness, data collection, and the actionability of such measures. Despite current developments, different barriers still must be overcome before PRMs can be used for health policy purposes in oncology. Future research is needed to ensure that valid QIs related to PRMs are applied at a national level.

Application of the child community health inclusion index for measuring health inclusion of children with disabilities in the community: a feasibility study

BACKGROUND

Participation in the community is a fundamental human right for children with disabilities and is a key component of their health and development. Inclusive communities can enable children with disabilities to participate fully and effectively. The Child Community Health Inclusion Index (CHILD-CHII) is a comprehensive assessment tool developed to examine the extent to which community environments foster healthy, active living for children with disabilities.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the feasibility of applying the CHILD-CHII measurement tool across different community settings.

METHODS

Participants recruited through maximal representation, and purposeful sampling from four community sectors (Health, Education, Public Spaces, Community Organizations) applied the tool on their affiliated community facility. Feasibility was examined by assessing length, difficulty, clarity, and value for measuring inclusion; each rated on a 5-point Likert scale. Participants provided comments for each indicator through the questionnaire and a follow-up interview.

RESULTS

Of the 12 participants, 92% indicated that the tool was 'long' or 'much too long'; 66% indicated that the tool was clear; 58% indicated that the tool was 'valuable' or 'very valuable'. No clear consensus was obtained for the level of difficulty. Participants provided comments for each indicator.

CONCLUSION

Although the length of the tool was regarded as long, it was seen to be comprehensive and valuable for stakeholders in addressing the inclusion of children with disabilities in the community. The perceived value and the evaluators' knowledge, familiarity, and access to information can facilitate use of the CHILD-CHII. Further refinement and psychometric testing will be conducted.

Facilitators and barriers to implementing electronic patient-reported outcome and experience measures in a health care setting: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

This systematic literature review aimed to identify factors that influence the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (ePREMs) in healthcare settings.

INTRODUCTION

Improvements in health care through increased patient engagement have gained traction in recent years. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are tools used to improve the quality of care from the patient perspective. The influence of implementing PROMs and PREMs using electronic information systems (ePROMs and ePREMs) is not well understood.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies with information related to the implementation of ePROMs and/or ePREMs with a focus on health-related services, irrespective of provider type, were included.

METHODS

A literature search of peer-reviewed databases was conducted on the 24th of January 2022 for articles about barriers and facilitators of the implementation of ePROMs/ePREMs in healthcare settings. Two reviewers independently extracted relevant findings from the included studies and performed a descriptive code-based synthesis before collaboratively creating a final consensus set of code categories, which were then mapped to the consolidated framework of implementation research (CFIR). Study quality was appraised using a mixed-methods appraisal tool (MMAT).

RESULTS

24 studies were eligible for inclusion in the screening of 626 nonduplicate studies. Quality assessment using the MMAT revealed that 20/24 studies met at least 60% of the MMAT criteria. Ninety-six code categories were identified and mapped to the constructs across all CFIR domains.

CONCLUSION

To guide the effective implementation of ePROMs/ePREMs in healthcare settings, factors shown to influence their implementation have been summarised as an implementation checklist for adoption and use by clinicians, organisations, and policymakers.

Feasibility of using a patient-reported outcome measure into clinical practice following pediatric liver transplantation: The Starzl Network experience

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are not routinely used in clinical care by pediatric liver transplant (LT) teams. The Starzl Network for Excellence in Pediatric Transplantation (SNEPT) assessed feasibility of using a disease-specific Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire in the ambulatory setting at 10 SNEPT sites.

METHODS

A mixed methods feasibility project assessing administration processes, barriers, and user experiences with the Pediatric Liver Transplant Quality of Life (PeLTQL) tool. Iterative processes sought stakeholder feedback across four phases (Pilot, Extended Pilot, Development of a Mobile App PeLTQL version, and Pilot App use).

RESULTS

A total of 149 patient-parent dyads completed the PeLTQL during LT clinic follow-up. Clinicians, parents, and patients evaluated and reported on feasibility of operationalization. Only two of 10 SNEPT sites continued PeLTQL administration after the initial two pilot phases. Reasons include limited clinical time and available personnel aggravated by the COVID-19 pandemic. In response, a mobile application version of the PeLTQL was initiated. Providing PeLTQL responses electronically was "very easy" or "easy" as reported by 96% (22/23) parents.

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of a PROM into post-pediatric LT clinical care was feasible, but ongoing utilization stalled. Use of a mobile app towards facilitating completion of the PeLTQL outside of clinic hours may address the time and work-flow barriers identified.

Reducing the pressures of outpatient care: the potential role of patient-reported outcomes

The global demand for hospital treatment exceeds capacity.The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this issue, leading to increased backlogs and longer wait times for patients. The amount of outpatient attendances undertaken in many settings is still below pre-pandemic levels and this, combined with delayed referrals, means that patients are facing delays in treatment and poorer health outcomes. Use of digital health technologies, notably the use of remote symptom monitoring systems based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), may offer a solution to reduce outpatient waiting lists and tailor care to those in greatest need. Drawing on international examples, the authors explore the use of electronic PRO systems to triage clinical care. We summarise the key benefits of the approach and also highlight the challenges for implementation, which need to be addressed to promote equitable healthcare delivery.

A landscape assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measures in research, quality improvement and clinical care across a healthcare organisation

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used by healthcare organisations to inform improvements in service delivery. However, routine collection of PROMs is difficult to achieve across an entire healthcare organisation. An understanding of the use of PROMs within an organisation can provide valuable insights on the purpose, scope and practical considerations of PROMs collection, which can inform implementation of PROMs.

METHODS

We used multiple research methods to assess the use of PROMs in research projects, data registries and clinical care across a healthcare organisation from January 2014 to April 2021. The methods included an audit of ethics applications approved by the organisation's human research ethics committee and registries which the health organisation had contributed data to; a literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on research projects conducted at the organisation; and a survey of health professionals use of PROMs in research projects, data registries and clinical care. The scope of PROMs was determined by classifying PROMs as either 'specific' to a particular disease and/or condition, or as a 'generic' measure with further classification based on the health domains they measured, using the World Health Organization International Classification Framework. Practical considerations included mode and timing of PROMs administration. Data were described using frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

PROMs were used by 22% of research projects (n = 144/666), 68% of data registries (n = 13/19), and 76% of clinical specialties in their clinical care (n = 16/21). Disease specific PROMs were most commonly used: 83% of research projects (n = 130/144), 69% of clinical registries (n = 9/13), and 75% of clinical specialties (n = 12/16). Greater than 80% of research projects, clinical registries and clinical specialties measured health domains relating to both body impairments and participation in daily life activities. The most commonly used generic PROM was the EQ-5D (research projects n = 56/144, 39%; data registries n = 5/13, 38%; clinical specialties n = 4/16, 25%). PROMs used in clinical care were mostly paper-based (n = 47/55, 85%).

CONCLUSIONS

We have elicited information on the use of PROMs to inform a health organisation wide implementation strategy. Future work will determine clinician and patient acceptability of the EQ-5D, and co-design a system for the collection of PROMs.

Cancer Care Team's Management of Clinical Alerts Generated by Electronically Collected Patient Reported Outcomes: We Could Do Better

Electronically administered patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are effective digital health tools for informing clinicians about cancer patients' symptoms and facilitating timely patient-centred care. This paper describes the delivery of healthcare activities supported by the PROMPT-Care model, including ePROMs generated clinical alerts, cancer care team (CCT) response to alerts, and patients' perceptions of the CCT response and ePROMs system. This mixed-methods study includes cancer patients from four cancer therapy centres in New South Wales, Australia. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected regarding clinical alert activity, CCT response, and patient perceptions of the CCT responses and ePROMs system. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Of the 328 participants whose care was informed by the digital health tool, 70.8% (n = 233) generated at least one alert during the trial period, with 877 alerts generated in total. Although 43.7% (n = 383) were actioned by the CCT, at least 80% of participants found follow-up CCT phone calls beneficial, with multiple benefits confirmed in interviews. The cancer care delivery arm of the PROMPT-Care trial involving clinical alerts to the CCT was positively perceived by most participants, resulting in a diverse range of benefits. However, further work is required, informed by implementation science, to improve the percentage of actioned clinical alerts.

Moving from development to implementation of digital innovations within the NHS: myHealthE, a remote monitoring system for tracking patient outcomes in child and adolescent mental health services

Objective

This paper aims to report our experience of developing, implementing, and evaluating myHealthE (MHE), a digital innovation for Child and Adolescents Mental Health Services (CAMHS), which automates the remote collection and reporting of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into National Health Services (NHS) electronic healthcare records.

Methods

We describe the logistical and governance issues encountered in developing the MHE interface with patient-identifiable information, and the steps taken to overcome these development barriers. We describe the application's architecture and hosting environment to enable its operability within the NHS, as well as the capabilities needed within the technical team to bridge the gap between academic development and NHS operational teams.

Results

We present evidence on the feasibility and acceptability of this system within clinical services and the process of iterative development, highlighting additional functions that were incorporated to increase system utility.

Conclusion

This article provides a framework with which to plan, develop, and implement automated PROM collection from remote devices back to NHS infrastructure. The challenges and solutions described in this paper will be pertinent to other digital health innovation researchers aspiring to deploy interoperable systems within NHS clinical systems.

Patient Compliance in Assessing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures after Urologic Surgery

INTRODUCTION

This study aimed to assess patient compliance with a newly established electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system after urologic surgery and to identify influencing factors.

METHODS

Digital surveys were provided to patients undergoing cystectomy, radical or partial nephrectomy, or transurethral resection of bladder tumor via a newly established ePROM system. Participants received a baseline survey preoperatively and several follow-up surveys postoperatively. Multivariable regression analysis was performed to identify factors predicting compliance.

RESULTS

Of N = 435 eligible patients, n = 338 completed the baseline survey (78.0%). Patients who did not participate were significantly more likely male (p = 0.004) and older than 70 years (p = 0.005). Overall, 206/337 patients (61.3%) completed the survey at 1-month, 167/312 (53.5%) at 3-month, and 142/276 (51.4%) at 6-month follow-up. Lower baseline quality of life (odds ratio: 2.27; p = 0.004) was a significant predictor for dropout at 1-month follow-up. Low educational level was significantly associated with low compliance at 3- (OR: 1.92; p = 0.01) and 6-month follow-up (OR: 2.88; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Acceptable compliance rates can be achieved with ePROMs following urologic surgery. Several factors influence compliance and should be considered when setting-up ePROM surveys.

Stepping into the real world: a mixed-methods evaluation of the implementation of electronic patient reported outcomes in routine lung cancer care

Background

To realize the broader benefits of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in routine care, we used the RE-AIM (Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance) framework to inform the translation of a clinically effective ePROM system (hereafter referred to as the PRM system) into practice. The study aimed to evaluate the processes and success of implementing the PRM system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer.

Method

A controlled before-and-after mixed-methods study was undertaken. Data sources included a self-report questionnaire and interviews with healthcare providers, electronic health record data for PRMs patients and historical controls, and field notes. Descriptive statistics, logistic regression modelling, negative binomial models, generalized estimating equations and repeated measures ANOVA were used to analyze quantitative data. Qualitative data was thematically analyzed.

Results

A total of 48/79 eligible people diagnosed with lung cancer completed 90 assessments during the 5-month implementation period (RE-AIM reach). Every assessment breached the pre-defined threshold and care coordinators reviewed and actioned 95.6% of breaches, resulting in 146 referrals to allied health services, most frequently for social work (25.3%), dietetics (18.5%), physiotherapy (18.5%) and occupational therapy (17.1%). PRMs patients had significantly fewer visits to the cancer assessment unit for problematic symptoms (M = 0.23 vs. M = 0.43; p = 0.035), and were significantly more likely to be offered referrals (71% vs. 29%, p < 0.0001) than historical controls (RE-AIM effect). The levels of ‘organizational readiness for implementing change’ (ORIC) did not show much differences between baseline and follow-up, though this was already high at baseline; but significantly more staff reported improved confidence when asking patients to complete assessments (64.7% at baseline vs. 88.2% at follow-up, p = 0.0046), and when describing the assessment tool to patients (64.7% at baseline vs. 76.47% at follow-up, p = 0.0018) (RE-AIM adoption). A total of 78 staff received PRM system training, and 95.6% of the PRM system alerts were actioned (RE-AIM implementation); and all lung cancer care coordinators were engaged with the PRM system beyond the end of the study period (RE-AIM maintenance).

Conclusion

This study demonstrates the potential of the PRM system in enhancing the routine care of lung cancer patients, through leveraging the capabilities of automated web-based care options.

Plain English summary

Research has shown the clear benefits of using electronically collected patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) for cancer patients and health services. However, we need to better understand how to implement ePROMs as part of routine care. This study evaluated the processes and outcomes of implementing an ePROMs system in the routine care of patients diagnosed with lung cancer. Key findings included: (a) a majority of eligible patients completed the scheduled assessments; (b) patient concerns were identified in every assessment, and care coordinators reviewed and actioned almost all of these, including making significantly more referrals to allied health services; (c) patients completing assessments regularly were less likely to present to the cancer assessment unit with problematic symptoms, suggesting that ePROMs identified patient concerns early and this led to a timely response to concerns; (d) staff training and engagement was high, and staff reporting increased confidence when asking patients to complete assessments and when describing the assessment tool to patients at the end of the implementation period. This study shows that implementing ePROMs in routine care is feasible and can lead to improvements in patient care.

Using co-production to implement patient reported outcome measures in third sector organisations: a mixed methods study

Background

Third sector organisations such as charities and community groups are using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at an aggregated service level to demonstrate their impact to commissioners to generate or retain funding. Despite this motivation, organisations can struggle with implementing PROMs. Previous studies have identified facilitators including organisations using an appropriate measure, co-producing the PROMs process with staff, and investing resources to support the use of measures. However, to date no studies have applied this learning to third sector organisations to evaluate whether taking an evidence-informed implementation approach improves the use of PROMs.

Methods

A Community-Based Participatory Research approach was used which involved university-based researchers supporting two third sector organisations to implement PROMs. The researchers provided evidence-informed advice and training. The organisations were responsible for implementing PROMs. The researchers evaluated implementation through a mixed methods approach including five key informant interviews, four evaluation groups and analysis of collected PROMs data (n = 313).

Results

Both third sector organisations faced considerable constraints in incorporating known facilitators and addressing barriers. The organisations involved staff in choosing an acceptable measure. However, competing priorities including external pressures to use specific PROMs, busy workloads and staff opinions created challenges to using measures. Investment of time and energy into developing an outcomes-based organisational culture was key to enable the prioritisation of PROMs. For example, discussing PROMs in supervision so that they were viewed as part of people’s job roles. Organisations found that implementation took several years and was disrupted by other pressures.

Conclusions

Whilst organisations were motivated to implement PROMs to obtain or retain funding, they faced considerable practical and ideological challenges. Consequently, some stakeholders felt that alternative methods to measuring impact could potentially be more feasible than PROMs.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00485-4.

Reporting unit context data to stakeholders in long-term care: a practical approach

Background

The importance of reporting research evidence to stakeholders in ways that balance complexity and usability is well-documented. However, guidance for how to accomplish this is less clear. We describe a method of developing and visualising dimension-specific scores for organisational context (context rank method). We explore perspectives of leaders in long-term care nursing homes (NHs) on two methods for reporting organisational context data: context rank method and our traditionally presented binary method—more/less favourable context.

Methods

We used a multimethod design. First, we used survey data from 4065 healthcare aides on 290 care units from 91 NHs to calculate quartiles for each of the 10 Alberta Context Tool (ACT) dimension scores, aggregated at the care unit level based on the overall sample distribution of these scores. This ordinal variable was then summed across ACT scores. Context rank scores were assessed for associations with outcomes for NH staff and for quality of care (healthcare aides’ instrumental and conceptual research use, job satisfaction, rushed care, care left undone) using regression analyses. Second, we used a qualitative descriptive approach to elicit NH leaders’ perspectives on whether the methods were understandable, meaningful, relevant, and useful. With 16 leaders, we conducted focus groups between December 2017 and June 2018: one in Nova Scotia, one in Prince Edward Island, and one in Ontario, Canada. Data were analysed using content analysis.

Results

Composite scores generated using the context rank method had positive associations with healthcare aides’ instrumental research use (p < .0067) and conceptual research use and job satisfaction (p < .0001). Associations were negative between context rank summary scores and rushed care and care left undone (p < .0001). Overall, leaders indicated that data presented by both methods had value. They liked the binary method as a starting point but appreciated the greater level of detail in the context rank method.

Conclusions

We recommend careful selection of either the binary or context rank method based on purpose and audience. If a simple, high-level overview is the goal, the binary method has value. If improvement is the goal, the context rank method will give leaders more actionable details.

Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide insight into patients' experienced health and needs, and can improve patient-professional communication. However, little is known about how to discuss PROM results. This study aimed to provide in-depth knowledge of patients' and healthcare professionals' experiences with and perspectives on discussing PROM results as part of routine dialysis care.

DESIGN

A qualitative study was performed using an interpretive description approach. Individual semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 patients and healthcare professionals. Interviews focused on general and specific situations (eg, addressing sensitive topics or when no medical treatment is available). Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed inductively using thematic analysis.

SETTING

Participants were purposively sampled from eight dialysis centres across the Netherlands.

PARTICIPANTS

Interviews were conducted with 10 patients receiving dialysis treatment and 12 healthcare professionals (nephrologists and nurses).

RESULTS

Patients and healthcare professionals provided practical guidance for optimal discussion about PROM results. First, patients and healthcare professionals emphasised that PROM results should always be discussed and indicated how to create a suitable setting, adequately prepare, deal with time constraints and use PROMs as a tool for personalised holistic consultations. Second, patients should actively participate and healthcare professionals should take a guiding role. A trusting patient-professional relationship was considered a prerequisite and patient-professional interaction was described as a collaboration in which both contribute their knowledge, experiences and ideas. Third, follow-up after discussing PROM results was considered important, including evaluations and actions (eg, symptom management) structurally embedded into the multidisciplinary treatment process. These general themes also applied to the specific situations, for example: results should also be discussed when no medical treatment is available. Though, healthcare professionals were expected to take more initiative and a leading role when discussing sensitive topics.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides insight into how to organise and conduct conversations about PROM results and lays the foundation for training healthcare professionals to optimally discuss PROM results in routine nephrology care. Further research is needed to provide guidance on follow-up actions in response to specific PROM results.

Is the Promise of PROMs Being Realized? Implementation Experience in a Large Orthopedic Practice

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), increasingly used for research and quality measurement, are lauded for their potential to improve patient-centered care, both through aggregate reporting and when integrated into clinical practice. However, there are few published studies of the resultant use of PROMs in clinical practice. This case study describes the implementation and use of PROMS in a Midwestern multispecialty medical group orthopedic practice among patients undergoing total knee and hip surgery. Specifically, rates of PROMs use by care teams are tracked over time once made available in the electronic health record. During this time, the orthopedics department achieved a patient PROMS survey response rate of 68% at baseline, 58% 3 months post-surgery, and 55% 12 months post-surgery. However, these data were only accessed by the care teams for fewer than 1% of associated clinical encounters. This suggests that making PROMs available for care team review in the electronic health record, even when coupled with relatively high response rates from patients and departmental leadership support is not enough to encourage integration of PROMs into clinical care for patients. Additional effort is required to identify barriers to PROMs use in clinical care and to test methods to enhance use.

Validation of the pedHALshort and HALshort in Dutch children and adults with haemophilia

INTRODUCTION

The Haemophilia Activities List (HAL) and paediatric HAL assess self-reported limitations in various daily activities. To reduce patient burden, shorter versions of the pedHAL (22 items) and HAL (18 items) have been developed.

AIM

This study aimed to determine the agreement between the pedHAL/HAL_full and pedHAL/HAL_short and construct validity and internal consistency of the pedHAL_/ HAL_short in persons with haemophilia (PWH).

METHODS

A cross-sectional secondary analysis of the Hemophilia in the Netherlands-6 national survey was performed. Adult and paediatric PWH completed the original pedHAL/HAL_full , from which pedHAL_/ HAL_short were derived. Score differences between the original and short versions were calculated. Construct validity was studied by testing hypotheses regarding the relationship of the pedHAL/HAL_short with the pedHAL/HAL_full , Haemophilia & Exercise Project Test-Questionnaire (HEP-Test-Q), Canadian Haemophilia Outcomes-Kids' Life Assessment Tool (CHO-KLAT) and RAND 36-item Health Survey (RAND-36) (convergent/discriminant validity) as well as its ability to discriminate between subgroups (known-group validity). Internal consistency was assessed with Cronbach's α.

RESULTS

We included 113 children (median 10y [range 4-17], 53% severe haemophilia) and 691 adults (median 51y [range 18-88], 35% severe). Scores of the pedHAL/HAL_full and pedHAL/HAL_short were similar with high correlations (>0.9). Construct validity was confirmed for the pedHAL/HAL_short . The HAL_short was able to discriminate between different disease severities and ages. Cronbach's α of the pedHAL/HAL_short was 0.95-0.97.

CONCLUSION

This study confirmed the agreement between the pedHAL/HAL_full and the pedHAL/HAL_short and the construct validity of the pedHAL/HAL_short . The next step is to study construct validity of the pedHAL/HAL_short when administered as short forms.

Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK

Background

The independent healthcare sector in the UK collects PROMs for several surgical procedures, but implementation has been challenging. We aimed to understand the enablers and barriers to PROMs implementation in the independent healthcare sector in the UK.

Method

Between January and May 2021, we remotely conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital consultants, hospital managers and other clinical staff using a topic guide developed from an implementation science framework called the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results

We interviewed 6 hospital consultants, 5 hospital managers, and 3 other clinical staff (1 nurse and 2 physiotherapists) across 8 hospitals. Common barriers included: the perception that PROMs are predominantly a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool, absence of feedback mechanisms for PROMs data for clinicians, poor awareness of PROMs among healthcare professionals and the public, absence of direction or commitment from leadership, and limited support from hospital consultants. Common enablers included: regular feedback of PROMs data to clinicians, designating roles and responsibilities, formally embedding PROMs collection into patient pathways, and involvement of hospital consultants in developing strategies to improve PROMs uptake.

Conclusion

To support PROMs implementation, independent hospitals need to develop long-term organisational strategies that involve sustained leadership commitment, goals or targets, training opportunities to staff, and regular feedback of PROMs data at clinical or governance meetings. The primary purpose of PROMs needs to be reframed to independent healthcare sector stakeholders as a quality improvement tool rather than a reporting requirement.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5.

Use of Patient-Reported Data within the Acute Healthcare Context: A Scoping Review

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and patient satisfaction surveys provide important information on how care can be improved. However, data collection does not always translate to changes in practice or service delivery. This scoping review aimed to collect, map and report on the use of collected patient-reported data used within acute healthcare contexts for improvement to care or processes. Using JBI methods, an extensive search was undertaken of multiple health databases and trial registries for published and unpublished studies. The concepts of interest included the types and characteristics of published patient experience and PROMs research, with a specific focus on the ways in which data have been applied to clinical practice. Barriers and facilitators to the use of collected data were also explored. From 4057 records, 86 papers were included. Most research was undertaken in North America, Canada or the UK. The Hospital Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems tool (HCAHPS) was used most frequently for measuring patient satisfaction. Where reported, data were applied to improve patient-centred care and utilization of health resources. Gaps in the use of patient data within hospital services are noticeable. Engaging management and improving staff capability are needed to overcome barriers to implementation.

Toward System-Wide Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Framework for Countries, States, and Regions

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to develop a framework facilitating (1) the maturity assessment of healthcare systems regarding patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation and (2) the comparison of different healthcare systems' PROM implementation levels to guide discussions and derive lessons for regional, state-level, and national PROM initiatives.

METHODS

Guided by the grounded theory methodology, a PROM healthcare system implementation framework was developed following multiple steps. Based on interviews with 28 experts from 12 countries and a literature review, a framework was drafted and refined through 29 additional validation interviews.

RESULTS

The resulting framework comprises 5 implementation stages along 7 dimensions. Implementation stages range from "first experimentation" to "system-wide adoption and a vibrant ecosystem." The dimensions are grouped into patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement and PRO utilization, the former with the dimensions "scope and condition coverage," "metric and process standardization," and "tools and information technology-based solutions" and the latter with "patient empowerment and clinical decision support," "reporting and quality improvement," and "rewarding and contracting." The "culture and stakeholder involvement" dimension connects both groups. Although a concerted implementation approach across dimensions can be observed in advanced countries, others show a more uneven adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

The framework and its preliminary application to different healthcare systems demonstrate (1) the importance of coherent progress across complementing dimensions and (2) the relevance of PROM integration across clinical specialties and care sectors to strengthen patient-centered care. Overall, the framework can facilitate dialogues between stakeholders to analyze the current PROM implementation status and strategies to advance it.

Patient-reported outcome measures in pediatric asthma care: using theoretical domains framework to explore healthcare providers’ perceptions

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) play an important role in promoting and supporting patient and family-centered care. Implementing interventions like PROMs in routine clinical care require key stakeholders to change their behavior. The aim of this study was to utilize the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to identify barriers and enablers to the implementation of PROMs in pediatric outpatient asthma clinics from healthcare providers’ perspective.

Methods

This TDF-guided qualitative descriptive study is part of a larger multi-phase project to develop the KidsPRO program, an electronic platform to administer, collect, and use PROMs in pediatrics. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with 17 participants, which included pediatricians, nurses, allied health professionals and administrative staff from outpatient asthma clinics. All the interviews were transcribed, deductively coded, inductively grouped in themes, and categorized into barriers and enablers.

Results

We identified 33 themes within 14 TDF domains, which were further categorized and tabulated into 16 barriers and 17 enablers to implementing PROMs in asthma clinics. Barriers to behavioral change were attributed to personal, clinical, non-clinical, and other system-level factors; they ranged from limited awareness of PROMs to language barriers and patient’s complex family background. Enablers ranged from a personal commitment to providing patient and family-centered care to administering PROMs electronically.

Conclusion

This implementation of science-based systematic inquiry captured the complexity of PROMs implementation in pediatric outpatient clinical care for asthma. Considering the consistency in barriers and enablers to implementing PROMs across patient populations and care settings, many findings of this study will be directly applicable to other pediatric healthcare settings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00494-3.

Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Perinatal Care to Guide Clinical Practice: Prospective Observational Study

Background

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement has published a set of patient-centered outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs). To establish value-based pregnancy and childbirth care, the PCB set was implemented in the Netherlands, using the outcomes on the patient level for shared decision-making and on an aggregated level for quality improvement.

Objective

This study aims to report first outcomes, experiences, and practice insights of implementing the PCB set in clinical practice.

Methods

In total, 7 obstetric care networks across the Netherlands, each consisting of 1 or 2 hospitals and multiple community midwifery practices (ranging in number from 2 to 18), implemented the PROM and PREM domains of the PCB set as part of clinical routine. This observational study included all women participating in the clinical project. PROMs and PREMs were assessed with questionnaires at 5 time points: 2 during pregnancy and 3 post partum. Clinical threshold values (alerts) supported care professionals interpreting the answers, indicating possibly alarming outcomes per domain. Data collection took place from February 2020 to September 2021. Data analysis included missing (pattern) analysis, sum scores, alert rates, and sensitivity analysis.

Results

In total, 1923 questionnaires were collected across the 5 time points: 816 (42.43%) at T1 (first trimester), 793 (41.23%) at T2 (early third trimester), 125 (6.5%) at T3 (maternity week), 170 (8.84%) at T4 (6 weeks post partum), and 19 (1%) at T5 (6 months post partum). Of these, 84% (1615/1923) were filled out completely. Missing items per domain ranged from 0% to 13%, with the highest missing rates for depression, pain with intercourse, and experience with pain relief at birth. No notable missing patterns were found. For the PROM domains, relatively high alert rates were found both in pregnancy and post partum for incontinence (469/1798, 26.08%), pain with intercourse (229/1005, 22.79%), breastfeeding self-efficacy (175/765, 22.88%), and mother-child bonding (122/288, 42.36%). Regarding the PREM domains, the highest alert rates were found for birth experience (37/170, 21.76%), shared decision-making (101/982, 10.29%), and discussing pain relief ante partum (310/793, 39.09%). Some domains showed very little clinical variation; for example, role of the mother and satisfaction with care.

Conclusions

The PCB set is a useful tool to assess patient-reported outcomes and experiences that need to be addressed over the whole course of pregnancy and childbirth. Our results provide opportunities to improve and personalize perinatal care. Furthermore, we could propose several recommendations regarding methods and timeline of measurements based on our findings. This study supports the implementation of the PCB set in clinical practice, thereby advancing the transformation toward patient-centered, value-based health care for pregnancy and childbirth.

The History and Applications of the Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey (VR-12)

There has been an increasing emphasis on placing patients at the center of clinical care and health care research and, in particular, assessing outcomes and experiences from the patient's perspective. One of the most widely used patient-reported outcome instruments is the Veterans RAND 12-item Health Survey (VR-12). This article reviews the VR-12 development and its applications over the last 2 decades, including research and potential uses in clinical care.

A Narrative Review on the Collection and Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Survivorship Care with Emphasis on Symptom Monitoring

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) applications promise great added value for improving symptom management and health-related quality of life. The aim of this narrative review is to describe the collection and use of ePROs for cancer survivorship care, with an emphasis on ePRO-symptom monitoring. It offers many different perspectives from research settings, while current implementation in routine care is ongoing. ePRO collection optimizes survivorship care by providing insight into the patients' well-being and prioritizing their unmet needs during the whole trajectory from diagnosis to end-of-life. ePRO-symptom monitoring can contribute to timely health risk detection and subsequently allow earlier intervention. Detection is optimized by automatically generated alerts that vary from simple to complex and multilayered. Using ePRO-symptoms during in-hospital consultation enhances the patients' conversation with the health care provider before making informed decisions about treatments, other interventions, or self-management. ePRO(-symptoms) entail specific implementation issues and complementary ethics considerations. The latter is due to privacy concerns, digital divide, and scarcity of adequately representative data for particular groups of patients.

Defining a Standard Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Patients With Advanced Ovarian Cancer

Purpose

Advanced ovarian cancer (AOC) and its treatment cause several symptoms and impact on patients’ health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aim to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcome (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during AOC patients’ follow-up from patients’ and healthcare professionals’ (HCP) perspective.

Methods

The project comprised five steps: 1) a literature review, 2) a focus group with patients, 3) a nominal group with HCP, 4) two round-Delphi consultations with patients and HCP, and 5) a final meeting with HCP. Delphi questionnaire was elaborated based on literature review, focus group (n=5 patients), and nominal group (n=16 HCP). The relevance of each PRO and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of the proposed PROM were assessed (Likert scale 1=strongly agree; 9=strongly disagree). The consensus was reached when at least 75% of the panelists rated it as ‘relevant’, ‘appropriate’, or ‘feasible’ (score 7-9).

Results

A total of 56 HCP [51.8% Hospital Pharmacy; 41.1% Oncology; 3.6% Nursing; and 3.6% Psycho-oncology; mean time in specialty 12.5 (8.0) years] and 10 AOC patients [mean time diagnosis 5.4 (3.0) years] participated in the 1^st round. All PROs achieved consensus regarding their relevance, except dry skin (58.0%). Agreement was reached for PRO-CTCAE to be used to assess fatigue (A:84.9%; F:75.8%), neuropathy (A:92.4%; F:77.3%), diarrhea (A:87.9%; F:88.7%), constipation (A:86.4%; F:75.8%), nausea (A:89.4%; F:75.8%), insomnia (A:81.8%; F:88.7%), abdominal bloating (A:82.2%; F:82.2%) and sexuality (A:78.8%; F:88.6%); EQ-5D to determine patients’ HRQoL (A:87.9%; F:80.3%), pain (A:87.9%; F:75.8%) and mood (A:77.7%; F:85.5%); to assess treatment adherence the Morisky-Green (A:90.9%; F:84.9%) and the dispensing register (A:80.3%; F:80.3%) were chosen. It was agreed to note in the medical record whether the patient’s treatment preferences had been considered during decision-making (A:78.8%; F:78.8%) and to use a 5-point Likert scale to assess treatment satisfaction (A:86.4%; F:86.4%). Panelists agreed (A:92.4%; F: 77.3%) to collect these PROs (1) at the time of diagnosis/relapse; (2) one month after starting treatment/change therapeutic strategy; (3) every three months during the 1^st-year of treatment; and later (4) every six months until treatment completion/change.

Conclusions

The consensus reached represents the first step towards including the patient’s perspective in AOC follow-up. The standardized collection of PROs in clinical practice may contribute to optimizing the follow-up of these patients and thus improving the quality of care.

Experiences of Norwegian child and school health nurses with the "Starting Right™" child health assessment innovation: a qualitative interview study

Background

Although child health services are well established in Norway, the use of information technology for the systematic collection of evidence-based child- and proxy-reported health measures may be beneficial in the early identification of child development problems. The Norwegian “Starting Right™” health service innovation consists of parent- and child-reported online structured health assessments tools, including practical routines for child and school health assessments. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of child and school health nurses with the Starting Right innovation.

Methods

We used a qualitative design and conducted three focus group interviews with 18 child and school health nurses from three child health centres one year after the implementation of the innovation.

Results

The experiences of professionals with the Starting Right innovation were captured by three themes: (1) the digital innovation could be used to obtain a good overview of a child’s health and development; (2) interpreting the questionnaires was a challenge; and (3) implementing the new digital innovation was time-consuming.

Conclusions

Overall, the child and school health nurses experienced that the Starting Right innovation was useful for providing a comprehensive overview of child development and health. The challenges related to interpreting the parents’ scores and follow-up of children, as well as providing the questionnaires in relevant foreign languages, should be addressed to allow all children and families to be reached.

Effect of routinely assessing and addressing depression and diabetes distress on clinical outcomes among adults with type 2 diabetes: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

This study examined the effect of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) routinely to assess and address depressive symptoms and diabetes distress among adults with type 2 diabetes.

DESIGN

A systematic review of published peer-reviewed studies.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL Complete, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies including adults with type 2 diabetes, published in English, from the inception of the databases to 24 February 2022 inclusive; and where the intervention included completion of a PROM of depressive symptoms and/or diabetes distress, with feedback of the responses to a healthcare professional.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Using Covidence software, screening and risk of bias assessment were conducted by two reviewers independently with any disagreements resolved by a third reviewer.

RESULTS

The search identified 4512 citations, of which 163 full-text citations were assessed for eligibility, and nine studies met the inclusion criteria. Five studies involved assessment of depressive symptoms only, two studies assessed diabetes distress only, and two studies assessed both. All studies had an associated cointervention. When depressive symptoms were assessed (n=7), a statistically significant between-group difference in depressive symptoms was observed in five studies; with a clinically significant (>0.5%) between-group difference in HbA1c in two studies. When diabetes distress was assessed (n=4), one study demonstrated statistically significant difference in depressive symptoms and diabetes distress; with a clinically significant between-group difference in HbA1c observed in two studies.

CONCLUSION

Studies are sparse in which PROMs are used to assess and address depressive symptoms or diabetes distress during routine clinical care of adults with type 2 diabetes. Further research is warranted to understand how to integrate PROMs into clinical care efficiently and determine appropriate interventions to manage identified problem areas.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020200246.

Implementing the Digital Diabetes Questionnaire as a Clinical Tool in Routine Diabetes Care: Focus Group Discussions With Patients and Health Care Professionals

BACKGROUND

The Diabetes Questionnaire is a digital patient-reported outcome and experience measure for adults living with diabetes. The Diabetes Questionnaire is intended for use in routine clinical visits in diabetes care and to enable patient perspectives to be integrated into the Swedish National Diabetes Register. The Diabetes Questionnaire was developed on the basis of patients' perspectives, and evidence for its measurement qualities has been demonstrated. Patients receive an invitation to complete the questionnaire before clinical visits, and the patient and health care professional (HCP) can discuss the findings, which are instantly displayed during the visit. Implementation processes for new tools in routine care need to be studied to understand the influence of contextual factors, the support needed, and how patients and HCPs experience clinical use.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to describe patients' and HCPs' experiences of initiating the use of the digital Diabetes Questionnaire as a clinical tool in routine diabetes care, supported by a structured implementation strategy involving initial education, local facilitators, and regular follow-ups.

METHODS

In this qualitative study, semistructured focus group discussions were conducted 12 months after the use of the Diabetes Questionnaire was initiated. Participants were diabetes specialist nurses and physicians (20 participants in 4 groups) at hospital-based outpatient clinics or primary health care clinics and adults with type 1 or type 2 diabetes (15 participants in 4 groups). The audiotaped transcripts were analyzed using inductive qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The results revealed 2 main categories that integrated patients' and HCPs' experiences, which together formed an overarching theme: While implementation demands new approaches, the Diabetes Questionnaire provides a broader perspective. The first main category (The Diabetes Questionnaire supports person-centered clinical visits) comprised comments expressing that the digital Diabetes Questionnaire can initiate and encourage reflection in preparation for clinical visits, bring important topics to light during clinical visits, and broaden the scope of discussion by providing additional information. The second main category (The process of initiating the implementation of the Diabetes Questionnaire) comprised comments that described differences in engagement among HCPs and their managers, challenges of establishing new routines, experiences of support during implementation, thoughts about the Diabetes Questionnaire, need to change local administrative routines, and opportunities and concerns for continued use.

CONCLUSIONS

The Diabetes Questionnaire can broaden the scope of health data in routine diabetes care. While implementation demands new approaches, patients and HCPs saw potential positive impacts of using the questionnaire at both the individual and group levels. Our results can inform further development of implementation strategies to support the clinical use of the questionnaire.

Implementing patient-reported outcomes into routine care: an audit of cancer patients from two local health districts in New South Wales to understand their capabilities and preferences

ObjectiveIt has been established that the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care provides significant benefits to patients, providers and health services. However, there are patient-level barriers that must be identified and addressed for the successful implementation of PROMs. This study aimed to understand the capabilities and preferences of our cancer patient population prior to implementation of electronically collected PROMs (ePROMs). Specifically, we conducted a clinic audit to determine the proportion of patients in clinics with access to out-of-clinic internet; those preferring to complete PROMs on paper or via an electronic device; those capable of completing PROMs in English; and those anticipating requiring assistance to complete PROMs.MethodsPatients receiving cancer treatment or follow-up care at two Local Health Districts (LHDs) in New South Wales, Australia, completed a questionnaire (audit form) with items about internet and mobile access, communication preferences and assistance needed to complete PROMs. Participant demographic and treatment information were extracted from their electronic medical records.ResultsAcross both LHDs, 637 of 1668 participants (38%) completed the audit forms. Mean participant age was 65 years (range = 23-98), 53% were female, and 92% were outpatients. Patients in the two LHDs differed in their levels of internet and email access, and ability to complete PROMs independently in English, suggesting that some LHD-specific tailoring of implementation strategies is necessary to optimise ePROMs uptake.ConclusionThis study highlights the importance of understanding the specific local contexts and patient populations, including potential technology and language barriers, which can influence patient ability to complete ePROMs.

Integrating patient- and caregiver-reported outcome measures into the daily care routines of specialised outpatient palliative care: a qualitative study (ELSAH) on feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness

Background

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and caregiver-reported outcome measures can raise the patient centeredness of treatment and improve the quality of palliative care. Nevertheless, the everyday implementation of self-report in patients and caregivers is complex, and should be adapted for use in specific settings. We aimed to implement a set of outcome measures that included patient and caregiver self- and proxy-reported outcome measures in specialised outpatient palliative care (SOPC). In this study, we explore how the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS), IPOS Views on Care (IPOS VoC) and the Short-form Zarit Caregiver Burden Interview (ZBI-7) can be feasibly, acceptably and appropriately implemented in the daily care routines of SOPC.

Methods

Five SOPC teams were trained, and used the outcome measures in daily practice. Team members were mainly nurses and physicians. To investigate their feedback, we used a multi-method qualitative design consisting of focus groups with SOPC-team members (n = 14), field notes of meetings and conversations with the SOPC teams. In an iterative process, we analysed the findings using qualitative content analysis and refined use of the outcome measures.

Results

We found that integrating patient and caregiver outcome measures into daily care routines in SOPC is feasible. To improve feasibility, acceptability and appropriateness, the resulting burden on patients and relatives should be kept to a minimum, the usefulness of the measures must be understood, they should be used considerately, and administration must be manageable. We removed ZBI-7 from the set of measures as a result of feedback on its content and wording.

Conclusions

SOPC-team members have reservations about the implementation of PROM in SOPC, but with appropriate adjustments, its application in daily care is feasible, accepted and perceived as appropriate. Previous to use, SOPC-team members should be trained in how to apply the measures, in the design of manageable processes that include integration into electronic documentation systems, and in ongoing evaluation and support. They should also be taught how useful the measures can be.

Trial registration

May 19th, 2017, German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00012421.

Patients’ experiences and perspectives of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical care: A systematic review and qualitative meta-synthesis

Background

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used by clinicians in everyday clinical practice to assess patients’ perceptions of their own health and the healthcare they receive. By providing insight into how illness and interventions impact on patients’ lives, they can help to bridge the gap between clinicians’ expectations and what matters most to the patient. Given increasing focus on patient-centred care, the objective of this meta-synthesis was to summarise the qualitative evidence regarding patients’ perspectives and experiences of the use of PROMs in clinical care.

Methods

A systematic search of the following databases was undertaken in August 2020: Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE, PsychINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research (CASP). A meta-ethnographic approach was used for data extraction and meta-synthesis of findings (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020202506).

Results

Fourteen studies from a range of countries with differing qualitative research methodologies were identified. Three themes were identified, namely ‘patient preferences regarding PROMs’, ‘patient perceived benefits’ and ‘barriers to patient engagement with PROMs’. The perspectives of patients suggested they preferred PROMs that were simple and relevant to their conditions and found benefits in the way they facilitated self-reflection and effective communication with their clinicians. Patients, however, questioned the relevance of some individual questions and purpose.

Conclusion

PROMs can be a useful tool in the clinical setting by enabling individualisation and patient centred care. This meta-synthesis provides insights into what patients find beneficial as well as barriers to their engagement, highlighting the importance of educating patients about PROMs.

Barriers and Facilitators When Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures at a Municipal Cancer Care Unit: A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Few qualitative studies of barriers and facilitators when implementing electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) in municipal cancer care exist within the large body of symptom assessment research. Such data, gathered from healthcare professionals' (HCPs) perspective, are central to the development and design of sustainable interventions aiming for a systematic and patient-centered symptom assessment to patients with cancer.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to identify and explore barriers and facilitators, as described by HCPs, in the implementation of the ePROM application "Eir" at a municipal cancer care unit in Norway.

METHODS

The study applies a qualitative method, conducting an inductive data inquiry of semistructured individual interviews and focus groups with 14 Norwegian HCPs. Analysis was inspired by thematic analysis as described by Braun and Clarke.

RESULTS

The analysis revealed 3 main themes affecting the implementation of ePROM in municipal cancer care: "achieving patient-centered care," "crucial management and training," and "technological barriers."

CONCLUSION

The results from this study suggest that HCPs' motivation plays a significant role when implementing ePROM. Motivation of HCPs was strongly influenced by whether the application added value to previously used symptom assessment. Hands-on management and a multiprofessional approach enabled the implementation by facilitating adaptations, training, and resources.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The findings show that adapting the implementation of ePROMs to patient population could be of major importance. Early integration of ePROMs in cancer care could facilitate use throughout the disease trajectory.

National Implementation of an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Program for Joint Replacement Surgery: Pilot Study

Background

There is a global emphasis on expanding data collection for joint replacement procedures beyond implant attributes and progression to revision surgery. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly considered as an important measure of surgical outcomes from a patient’s perspective. However, a major limitation preventing wider use of PROMs data in national data collection has been the inability to systematically collect and share electronic information with relevant stakeholders in a comprehensive and financially sustainable manner.

Objective

This study reports on the development of an electronic data capture and reporting system by a national registry for the collection of PROMs and the processes used to identify and overcome barriers to implementation and uptake. The study also aims to provide a cost breakdown of establishing and maintaining a nationwide electronic PROMs program.

Methods

Between 2018 and 2020, 3 governance and advisory committees were established to develop and implement a PROMs pilot program nested within a nationwide joint replacement registry. The program involved electronic collection of preoperative and 6-month postoperative data for hip, knee, or shoulder replacement surgery from 44 Australian hospitals. Resource requirements for the program included a project manager, software developers, data manager, and statistician. An online platform was tested, refined, and implemented for electronic PROMs collection with scalability considered for future expansion to all Australian hospitals and additional data fields. Technical capabilities included different access for multiple user types, patient registration, automatic reminders via SMS text messages and email, online consent, and patient outcome real-time dashboards accessible for different user groups (surgeons, patients, hospitals, and project stakeholders).

Results

During the PROMs pilot period there were 19,699 primary procedures undertaken with 10,204 registered procedures in the electronic system. This equated to 51.80% of people who had a joint replacement at participating hospitals during this period. Patient registration and data collection were efficient (20-30 seconds and 10-12 minutes, respectively). Engagement with the reporting dashboards (as a proportion of those who viewed their dashboard) varied by user group: 197/277 (71.1%) hospital administrators, 68/129 (52.7%) project stakeholders, 177/391 (45.3%) surgeons, and 1138/8840 patients (12.9%). Cost analysis determined an overall cost per patient of Aus $7-15 (approximately US $5-12) for 2 PROMs collections per joint replacement procedure once the program was established.

Conclusions

Successful implementation of an orthopedic PROMs program with planned scalability for a broader national rollout requires significant funding and staffing resources. However, this expenditure can be considered worthwhile, given that collection and reporting of PROMs can drive health care improvement processes. Further consideration of strategies to improve stakeholder engagement with electronic reporting dashboards (particularly for patients and surgeons) will be critical to the ongoing success of a national PROMs program.

What Do Orthopaedists Believe is Needed for Incorporating Patient-reported Outcome Measures into Clinical Care? A Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly promoted for use in routine orthopaedic care with the expectation that if they are made available during encounters, they will be incorporated into clinical practice. We investigated an initiative in which PROMs were systematically collected and provided via the electronic health record but were infrequently used.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES

In a qualitative study, we asked: (1) Why are PROM results not being used in clinical care when they are available to surgeons? (2) What aspects of PROMs are seen as useful for clinical care? (3) How are PROMs generally perceived by surgeons and orthopaedic leaders?

METHODS

A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted in a single health system in an urban setting using semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of orthopaedic surgeons and leaders who would have substantial knowledge of and experience with the organization's PROM system, which was embedded in the electronic health record and developed for use in clinical care but was not being used. We included surgeons whose practices consisted of at least 90% patients with osteoarthritis, including surgical and nonsurgical management, and thus their patients would be completing PROMs surveys, or surgeons who were leaders in one of the three orthopaedic divisions in the health plan. The senior research manager for orthopaedics identified 14 potential participants meeting these criteria, 11 of whom agreed to study participation. Participants included nine surgeons and two orthopaedic leaders; the majority were men, with a median of 13 years of clinical practice. Study interviews were conducted by an experienced interviewer not known to participants, in private conference rooms in the healthcare setting, and a median (range) of 27 minutes (16 to 40) in length. A content analysis approach was employed for data analysis, with thematic inductive saturation reached in the analysis and attention to trustworthiness and rigor during the analytic process.

RESULTS

Interviewees reported that PROM scores are not being used in patient clinical care because of logistical barriers, such as access and display issues and the time required, and perceptual barriers, such as concerns about patient understanding and the validity and reliability of measures. Surgeons preferred talking with patients about the personal outcomes patients had identified as important; most patients preferred to assess progress toward their own goals than PROMs scores for other people. Surgeons also identified changes that could facilitate PROM use and reduce barriers in clinical care, including pushing PROM scores to physicians' inboxes, developing inserts for physician notes, using easy-to-understand graphical displays, and engaging patients about PROMs earlier in the care process. Participants all agreed that PROMs in aggregate use are valuable for the organization, department, and individual surgeons, but individual patient scores are not.

CONCLUSION

Despite the availability of PROMs, there are important barriers to incorporating and using PROMs in clinical care. Providing access to PROM scores without clearly understanding how and why surgeons may consider using or incorporating them into their clinical practice can result in expensive and underused systems that add little value for the clinician, patient, or organization.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Involving front-line orthopaedic surgeons and leaders in shaping the design and structure of PROM systems is important for use in clinical care, but these interviewees seemed to see aggregate data as more valuable than individual patient scores.

Content validation of a new measure of patient-reported barriers to antiretroviral therapy adherence, the I-Score: results from a Delphi study

Background

Over a third of people living with HIV (PLHIV) have suboptimal adherence to antiretroviral therapy (ART). Measures of barriers to ART adherence often lack comprehensiveness. To help manage ART adherence barriers in HIV care, we are developing a new patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) of these barriers (the I-Score).

Methods

We assessed the content validity of 100 items (distinct barriers) to retain only those most relevant to both PLHIV and HIV health/social service providers. A web-based Delphi was conducted in Canada and France, collecting data from December 2018 to October 2019. Items were evaluated on relevance (the combined rated importance and actionability for HIV care of items among both PLHIV and providers); comprehensibility (rated item clarity); comprehensiveness (examined against our conceptual framework); cross-cultural equivalence (based on comparisons by questionnaire language (English, French) and country of residence). Pearson’s chi-square tests were used for comparisons by language, country, gender, and stakeholder group (PLHIV, providers).

Results

Panelists included 40 PLHIV and 57 providers (66% response rate). Thirty-one items were retained based on consensus thresholds for relevance (minimum: 50% for PLHIV, 60% for providers) and showed good comprehensibility and comprehensiveness, when compared to our conceptual framework (representation of: 6/6 domains, 15/20 subdomains). No significant difference in relevance based on language or country was found among retained items, suggestive of cross-cultural equivalence. Among all 100 items, only 6 significant differences on relevance were observed for gender. For 62 items, the relevance ratings of PLHIV and providers differed significantly, with providers showing greater endorsement of all items but one.

Discussion

The Delphi led to a much-needed item reduction. Remaining items highlight the panel’s multidimensional priorities for the PROM on ART adherence barriers, with few, if any, differences by language, country, and gender. While the analyses may lack generalizability and power, the sample size is considered adequate for a PROM validation study.

Conclusion

Retained items showed good content validity. The different patterns of item endorsement observed underscore the utility of engaging multiple stakeholder groups in PROM development for use in clinical practice. The greater endorsement of items by providers versus patients merits further investigation, including the implications of such differentials for measure development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00435-0.

Development of a minimum dataset for subacute rehabilitation: a three-round e-Delphi consensus study

OBJECTIVES

To develop a minimum dataset to be routinely collected across a heterogenous population within a subacute rehabilitation service to guide best care and outcomes for patients, and value for the health service.

DESIGN

Three-round e-Delphi exercise, followed by consensus meetings.

SETTING

Multicentre study in Brisbane, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Rehabilitation decision-makers, researchers and clinicians were invited to participate in the e-Delphi exercise. A multidisciplinary project steering committee (rehabilitation decision makers, researchers, clinicians and consumers) participated in consensus meetings.

METHODS

In round 1 of the e-Delphi, participants responded to an open-ended question, generating data and outcomes that should be routinely collected in rehabilitation. In rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of collecting each item on a nine-point scale. Consensus was defined a priori, as items rated as 'essential' by at least 70%, and of 'limited importance' by less than 15%, of respondents. Consensus meetings were held to further refine and define the dataset for implementation.

RESULTS

In total, 38 participants completed round 1 of the e-Delphi. Qualitative content analysis of their responses generated 1072 codes, which were condensed into 39 categories and 209 subcategories. Following two rounds of rating (round 2: n=32 participants; round 3: n=28 participants), consensus was reached for 124 items. Four consensus meetings (n=14 participants) resulted in the final dataset which included 42 items across six domains: (1) patient demographics, (2) premorbid health and psychosocial information, (3) admission information, (4) service delivery and interventions, (5) outcomes and (6) caregiver information and outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 42 items that reflect the values and experiences of rehabilitation stakeholders. Items unique to this dataset include caregiver information and outcomes, and detailed service delivery and intervention data. Future research will establish the feasibility of collection in practice.

Examining the Utility of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) in Clinical Practice: Perspectives of People Living with HIV and Healthcare Providers

Our aim was to examine the utility of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ), a patient-reported outcome measure for use in clinical practice from the perspectives of people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthcare providers. We conducted a qualitative descriptive study. Fifteen PLWH and five healthcare providers participated in an interview, of which ten PLWH participated in a follow-up focus group discussion. The HDQ has value in clinical practice, including its role in assessing disability, facilitating communication, tailoring treatments, and guiding referrals. Strengths of the HDQ included its comprehensiveness, relevance of domains, and importance of specific items. Concerns related to length of the HDQ, the potential for some items to trigger emotional response, and negative connotations with the term ‘disability.’ Recommendations for HDQ implementation included the importance of score interpretability, shortening the questionnaire, and tailoring administration to the individual. Results suggest the HDQ possesses clinical utility with PLWH and healthcare providers.

Musculoskeletal healthcare at a Swiss university hospital chiropractic medicine outpatient clinic in 2019: a health services research study

Background

The Balgrist University Hospital in Zurich, Switzerland, is an academic hospital focused on musculoskeletal disorders. An integrated chiropractic medicine clinic provides chiropractic care to a broad patient population. This health services research study aims to advance understanding of chiropractic healthcare service for quality assurance and healthcare quality improvement.

Methods

We performed an observational clinical cohort study at the Balgrist chiropractic medicine outpatient clinic in 2019. The records of all patients with initial visits or returning initial visits (> 3 months since last visit) and their subsequent visits from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2019, were used to create the study dataset. Data collected included demographic characteristics, diagnoses, imaging data, conservative treatments, surgeries, and other clinical care data. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data.

Results

1844 distinct patients (52% female, mean age 48 ± 17 years) were eligible and included in the study. 1742 patients had a single initial visit, 101 had 2 initial visits, and 1 patient had 3 initial visits during the study period (total of 1947 initial visit records). The most common main diagnoses were low back pain (42%; 95% CI 40–46%), neck pain (22%; 20–24%), and thoracic pain (8%; 7–9%). 32% of patients presented with acute (< 4 weeks) symptoms, 11% subacute (4–12 weeks), and 57% chronic (> 12 weeks). Patients had a median of 5 chiropractic visits during their episode of care within a median of 28 days duration. Only 49% (95% CI 47–52%) of patient records had a clinical outcome that was extractable from routine clinical documentation in the hospital information system.

Conclusion

This health services study provides an initial understanding of patient characteristics and healthcare delivered in a Swiss academic hospital chiropractic outpatient setting and areas for improved clinical data quality assurance. A more concerted effort to systematically collect patient reported outcome measures would be a worthwhile healthcare quality improvement initiative.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12998-022-00417-5.

Priority recommendations for the implementation of patient-reported outcomes in clinical cancer care: a Delphi study

Purpose

The aim of this study was to develop priority recommendations for the service level implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical cancer care.

Methods

Development of draft guidance statements was informed by a literature review, the Knowledge to Action (KTA) implementation framework, and discussion with PRO experts and cancer survivors. A two-round modified Delphi survey with key stakeholders including cancer survivors, clinical and research experts, and Information Technology specialists was undertaken. Round 1 rated the importance of the statements and round 2 ranked statements in order of priority.

Results

Round 1 was completed by 70 participants with round 2 completed by 45 participants. Forty-seven statements were rated in round 2. In round 1, the highest agreement items (>90% agreement) included those that focused on the formation of strong stakeholder partnerships, ensuring ongoing communication within these partnerships, and the use of PROs for improvement and guidance in clinical care. Items ranked as the highest priorities in round 2 included assessment of current staff capabilities and service requirements, mapping of workflows and processes to enable collection, and using collected PROs to guide improved health outcomes.

Conclusions

This stakeholder consultation process has identified key priorities in PRO implementation into clinical cancer care that include clinical relevance, stakeholder engagement, communication, and integration within the existing processes and capabilities.

Implication for Cancer Survivors

Routine adoption of PRO collection by clinical cancer services requires multiple implementation steps; of highest priority is strong engagement and communication with key stakeholders including cancer survivors.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01135-2.