A framework to make PROMs relevant to patients: qualitative study of communication preferences of PROMs

Evaluating the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in routine clinical care: co-design of tools from the perspective of patients and healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Implementation of patient-reported measures (PRMs) is an integral element for patient-centered models; however, there is still hardly any quantitative evidence regarding its impact in routine care settings. The objective of this study was to codesign two concise tools that allow for a standardized and longitudinal assessment of the implementation of PRMs in routine care in terms of acceptability and perceived value from the perspective of both patients and healthcare professionals.

METHODS

A list of constructs and items to be presented, separately, to patients and healthcare professionals was created from evidence gathered through a narrative literature review. Focus groups, composed of either patients or healthcare professionals from different chronic conditions, were conducted for the co-design of independent assessments. Once agreement was reached, the content validity was examined in separate consensus meetings.

RESULTS

A total of 10 patients and 10 healthcare professionals participated in the focus groups. After 7 focus groups, the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tool for patients (PRMIAT-P) was developed with 33 items in 9 constructs, and the tool for healthcare professionals (PRMIAT-HP) had 33 items in 16 constructs. Content validity was confirmed for both tools.

CONCLUSIONS

The perspective of patients and healthcare professionals regarding the implementation of PRMs in routine care can be evaluated quantitively with the PRMIAT tools. These tools are understandable, concise and comprehensive, and can be used in multiple settings and for different chronic conditions. They have been codesigned as a standard set to facilitate both longitudinal assessments and performing benchmarking among different initiatives.

Improving the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure in Clinical Practice: Tackling Current Challenges With Innovative Digital Communication Technologies

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice is challenging. We believe effective communication is key to realizing the clinical benefits of PROMs. Communication processes for PROMs in clinical practice typically involve (1) health care professionals (HCPs) inviting patients to complete PROMs, (2) patients completing PROMs, (3) HCPs and patients interpreting the resulting patient-reported outcomes (PROs), and (4) HCPs and patients using PROs for health management. Yet, communication around PROMs remains underexplored. Importantly, patients differ in their skills, knowledge, preferences, and motivations for completing PROMs, as well as in their ability and willingness to interpret and apply PROs in managing their health. Despite this, current communication practices often fail to account for these differences. This paper highlights the importance of personalized communication to make PROMs accessible to diverse populations. Personalizing communication manually is highly labor-intensive, but several digital technologies can offer a feasible solution to accommodate various patients. Despite their potential, these technologies have not yet been applied to PROMs. We explore how existing principles and tools, such as automatic data-to-text generation (including multimodal outputs like text combined with data visualizations) and conversational agents, can enable personalized communication of PROMs in practice.

Moving beyond barriers: a mixed-method study to develop evidence-based strategies to improve implementation of PROMs in clinical oncology care

PURPOSE

This study aimed to identify feasible, evidence-based strategies to improve the use of Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) implemented in clinical oncology practice.

METHODS

A mixed-method study involving observations of consultations and semi-structured interviews with patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) was conducted to identify facilitators and barriers for using PROMs; barriers and facilitators were structured following the Theoretical Domains Framework. For each barrier, evidence-based improvement strategies were selected using the Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy v1. Subsequently, improvement strategies were ranked on priority and feasibility by an expert panel of HCPs, information technology professionals, and PROMs implementation specialists, creating an implementation improvement strategy.

RESULTS

Ten consultations were observed and 14 interviews conducted. Barriers for implementation included that the electronic health record and PROMs did not align to the individual needs of end users, the HCPs' hesitance to advice patients about health-related quality-of-life issues, and a lack of consensus on which HCPs were responsible for discussing PROMs with patients. Forty-one improvement strategies were identified, of which 25 remained after ranking. These included: redesigning the PROMs dashboard by including patient management advice, enhancing patient support to complete PROMs, and clarifying HCPs' responsibilities for discussing PROMs. Strategies currently considered less feasible were: improving user-friendliness of the patient portal due to technical constraints, aligning PROMs assessment frequency with clinical courses, and using baseline PROMs for early identification of vulnerabilities and supportive care needs. These will be studied in future research.

CONCLUSION

Evidence-based improvement strategies to ensure lasting adoption of PROMs in clinical practice were identified.

The Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Practice: A National Survey of Hand Surgeons

Purpose

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) use in practice could be limited secondary to logistical constraints and lack of consensus regarding PROMs' clinical value. Therefore, the goals of this study are to determine (1) the use of PROMs by practicing hand surgeons, (2) which questionnaires are most used and the purpose for collection, and (3) the barriers to use.

Methods

A survey of American Society for Surgeons of the Hand members was conducted in May 2023. Demographic data of respondents, PROMs collected, and implementation and barriers to use were assessed. Associations between variables were determined by Fischer exact tests and logistic regression.

Results

A total of 419 surveys were completed from the 4,523 individuals contacted, representing a 9.3% response rate. Eighty-one percent (81%) were US/Canadian respondents, and 19% reported as other nationalities, with other nationalities reporting use of PROMs at a higher rate than US/Canadian respondents. Odds of PROM use were higher for academic, hybrid, and hospital employed respondents relative to those in private practice settings. The 247 (58%) respondents who did not use PROMs cited barriers including logistic or administrative concerns, uncertainty on application in practice, having no interest, and cost concerns. The most frequently used upper-extremity questionnaire among the 172 (42%) respondents using PROMs was the QuickDASH (Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand), which was used by 112 respondents (65.1%). Patient-reported outcome measures were collected for research/database purposes by 130 (76%) and monitoring routine clinical care by 103 (60%). Among those using PROMs for clinical care, 79 (77%) of respondents use PROMs for postoperative recovery monitoring and 52 (55%) for counseling regarding surgical expectations.

Conclusions

Patient-reported outcome measure use varies by practice setting, with most respondents not collecting PROMs. There remains large variability in the application of PROMs, and further research is needed to determine and demonstrate the value of PROMs in hand surgery for routine clinical care.

Type of study/level of evidence

Prognostic IIc.

Factors that impact the implementation of patient reported outcomes in routine clinical care for peripheral artery disease from the patient perspective

PURPOSE

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are well-suited for the longitudinal assessment of quality of life, including depression and physical limitations associated with peripheral artery disease (PAD) that are not routinely assessed in clinical care. This study was designed to gain the patient perspective to facilitate implementation of PROMs into clinical practice for PAD management.

METHODS

Twenty-three patients with PAD at a single vascular surgery clinic were enrolled for a qualitative interview, July-December 2022. Patients completed PROMIS Physical Function and Depression assessments before undergoing semi-structured interviews. Two researchers used an inductive thematic analysis to analyze emergent themes from transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

The average age of participants was 69.5 ± 8.2 years; 91% were Caucasian, and 39% were female. Qualitative interviews revealed three implementation-related themes: (1) patient preferences on the timing and type of PROMs collected, (2) PROMs applications in outpatient PAD care, including discussions with their physician, and (3) the clinical value of PROMs. Overall, patients with PAD prefer PROMs related to quality of life and physical function over other domains. Patients appreciate the convenience to complete PROMs before their appointment. Patients would like to verbally discuss meaningful score changes with their providers without the use of graphical aids. Most patients believe PROMs are valuable in their clinical care if their physician reviews the results and the PROM questions apply to their disease symptoms.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient preferences inform future successful implementations and will improve patient completion rates for the collection and clinical use of PROMs in PAD clinical care.

Implementation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure: A Quality Improvement Project

ABSTRACT

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are seen as increasingly beneficial to patient-centered clinical practice, but implementation of routine collection and utilization into clinical care can be challenging. Our interdisciplinary quality improvement (QI) team used the Institute for Health Care Improvement Model for Improvement methodology to address this problem in our outpatient neurorehabilitation program. We used a participatory approach to identify the PROM rehabilitation stakeholders found to be most appropriate to implement in the outpatient settings; chart audits were conducted to determine the extent to which clinicians implemented the PROM and documented a PROM-related goal. Opportunistic clinician feedback was collected to determine single PROM usefulness and acceptability. Our 4-month initiative demonstrated increased collection of a PROM, the Patient-Specific Functional Scale (PSFS), and incorporation into patient-centered goal. Use of QI methodology was beneficial when planning and executing our initiative. Future work is needed to examine factors to sustain PSFS use, incorporation into patient-centered goal setting, and maximize meaningful patient outcomes.

Research areas and trends in family-centered care in the 21st century: a bibliometric review

Introduction

Family-centered care (FCC) is a model of care provision that sees a patient's loved ones as essential partners to the health care team and positively influences the psychological safety of patients and loved ones.

Objectives

This review aims to present an overview of impactful publications, authors, institutions, journals, countries, fields of application and trends of FCC in the 21st century as well as suggestions on further research.

Methods

The Web of Science Database was searched for publications on FCC between January 2000 and Dezember 2023. After screening for duplicates, VOS Viewer and CiteSpace were used to analyze and visualize the data.

Results

Scientific interest in FCC has grown and resulted in the scientific output of 4,836 publications originating from 103 different countries. Based on the frequent author keywords, FCC was of greatest interest in neonatology and pediatrics, nursing, critical and intensive care, end-of-life and palliative care, and patient-related outcomes. The recent research hotspots are "patient engagement," "qualitative study," and "health literacy."

Conclusion

FCC has gained recognition and spread from the pediatric to the adult palliative, intensive, end-of-life and geriatric care settings. This is a very reassuring development since adults, especially when older, want and need the assistance of their social support systems. Recent research directions include the involvement of patients in the development of FCC strategies, health literacy interventions and the uptake of telemedicine solutions.

Measuring Symptoms Across the Spectrum of Chronic Kidney Disease: Strategies for Incorporation Into Kidney Care

Many people across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease (CKD) experience a large symptom burden. Measuring symptoms can be a way of responding to the concerns of patients and their priorities of care and may help to improve overall outcomes, including health-related quality of life. The objective of this article is to discuss approaches to measuring symptoms across the spectrum of CKD and to highlight strategies to facilitate the incorporation of routine symptom assessment into kidney care. Specifically, we discuss the use of validated patient-reported outcome measures in CKD as they relate to measuring symptoms, including their benefits and limitations, and describe commonly used patient-reported outcome measures. We discuss potential barriers that should be considered when contemplating the development of a program to routinely measure and address symptoms. Finally, we outline a systematic, stepwise approach to measuring symptoms with implementation strategies to address the common barriers. Although the principles outlined in this article can be applied to research and audit, the principal focus is on symptom measurement aimed at informing clinical practice and directly improving patient outcomes.

Equitable Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Practice-Opportunities, Challenges, and a Roadmap for Implementation

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a standardized assessment from the patient about their own health status. Although originally developed as research tools, PROMs can be used in clinical care to complement objective functional measures (eg, range of motion) and are increasingly integrated to guide treatment decisions and predict outcomes. In some situations, when PROMs are used during clinical care they can improve patient mortality, outcomes, engagement, well-being, and patient-physician communication. Guidance on how PROMs should be communicated with patients continued to be developed. However, PROM use may have unintended consequences, such as when used implemented without accounting for confounding factors (eg, psychological and social health) or in perpetuating healthcare disparities when used imprecisely (eg, lack of linguistic or cultural validation). In this review, we describe the current state of PROM use in orthopaedic surgery, highlight opportunities and challenges of PROM use in clinical care, and provide a roadmap to support orthopaedic surgery practices in incorporating PROMs into routine care to equitably improve patient health.

An Analysis of the Preoperative Factors, Spinopelvic Mobility and Sagittal Spinal Alignment in Pre-THA Patients

Hip arthroplasty is a very effective medical procedure. The optimal positioning of the components and the functioning of the endoprosthesis are influenced, among other things, by the mobility and balance of the spine. The aim of the study was to analyze the factors influencing the mobility of the lumbar-pelvic-iliac complex (spinopelvic mobility) together with the assessment of sagittal spinal alignment in patients prior to THA (total hip arthroplasty). Patients who underwent hip replacement surgery due to advanced osteoarthritis of the hip were enrolled in the study (n = 103). The sociodemographic characteristics, BMI, radiological advancement of the degenerative disease, quality of life, and range of joint mobility were completed using a proprietary questionnaire, the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire, and a clinical examination. X-ray images were analyzed: AP of the pelvis standing up, lateral of the spine standing and sitting. Key parameters were measured as ∆SS-change in sacrum angle value when changing from standing to sitting position and pelvic incidence (PI)-lumbar lordosis (LL) mismatch-sagittal lumbar pelvic balance measured in standing position. The patients were assigned to the appropriate groups according to the Hip-Spine Classification: normal group: 1A (n = 65; 63.1%), abnormal groups: 1B (n = 17; 16.5%), 2A (n = 16; 15.5%), 2B (n = 5; 4.9%). A correlation was shown between the abnormal groups and the individual components of PROMs in the scope of the self-service and normal activities categories (EQ-5D and EQ-VAS). However, the strength of the relationship turned out to be moderate, and the remaining components of the survey were statistically insignificant. The remaining factors analyzed, i.e., age, BMI, the range of hip motion, the presence of contracture in the joint in a clinical examination, and the radiological advancement of osteoarthritis on the Tonnis scale, do not predict abnormal relationships between the spine and the pelvis in our patients waiting for THA. Therefore, further investigations are needed to evaluate the correlation between preoperative factors and the lumbar-pelvic-iliac complex in patients prior to planned hip arthroplasty.

Total femoral arthroplasty for non-oncological indications

Aims

Total femoral arthroplasty (TFA) is a rare procedure used in cases of significant femoral bone loss, commonly from cancer, infection, and trauma. Low patient numbers have resulted in limited published work on long-term outcomes, and even less regarding TFA undertaken for non-oncological indications. The aim of this study was to evaluate the long-term clinical outcomes of all TFAs in our unit.

Methods

Data were collected retrospectively from a large tertiary referral revision arthroplasty unit's database. Inclusion criteria included all patients who underwent TFA in our unit. Preoperative demographics, operative factors, and short- and long-term outcomes were collected for analysis. Outcome was defined using the Musculoskeletal Infection Society (MSIS) outcome reporting tool.

Results

Overall, 38 TFAs were identified. The mean age was 73 years (42 to 80). All patients underwent TFA for non-oncological indications, most commonly as a consequence of infection (53%) and periprosthetic fracture (26%). The mean follow-up time was ten years (0 to 26); 63% of TFAs were considered a success based upon the MSIS outcome reporting tool. The mean time between TFA and death was 8.5 years (0.2 to 19.2), with two patients dying within one year of surgery. Within the cohort, 66% suffered at least one complication, dislocation being most common (37%); 55% of the total cohort required at least one subsequent operation. In total, 70% of TFAs undertaken for infection were considered infection-free at time of final follow-up. The percentage of mobile patients improved from 52% to 65% between pre- and postoperation, with all patients being able to at least transfer from bed to chair at time of final review.

Conclusion

This study is the largest in the UK assessing the use of TFA in patients with bone loss secondary to non-oncological conditions. It demonstrates that TFA has a significant complication profile, however it is favourable in terms of mortality and rehabilitation when compared to amputation and disarticulation.

Equity-Driven Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Musculoskeletal Care: Advancing Value for All

ABSTRACT

The clinical use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in musculoskeletal care is expanding, encompassing both individual patient management and population-level applications. However, without thoughtful implementation, we risk introducing or exacerbating disparities in care processes or outcomes. We outline examples of opportunities, challenges, and priorities throughout PROM implementation to equitably advance value-based care at both the patient and population level. Balancing standardization with tailored strategies can enable the large-scale implementation of PROMs while optimizing care processes and outcomes for all patients.

Techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix resection: insights from the ESTES SnapAppy study

INTRODUCTION

Surgically managed appendicitis exhibits great heterogeneity in techniques for mesoappendix transection and appendix amputation from its base. It is unclear whether a particular surgical technique provides outcome benefit or reduces complications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We undertook a pre-specified subgroup analysis of all patients who underwent laparoscopic appendectomy at index admission during SnapAppy (ClinicalTrials.gov Registration: NCT04365491). We collected routine, anonymized observational data regarding surgical technique, patient demographics and indices of disease severity, without change to clinical care pathway or usual surgeon preference. Outcome measures of interest were the incidence of complications, unplanned reoperation, readmission, admission to the ICU, death, hospital length of stay, and procedure duration. We used Poisson regression models with robust standard errors to calculate incident rate ratios (IRRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Three-thousand seven hundred sixty-eight consecutive adult patients, included from 71 centers in 14 countries, were followed up from date of admission for 90 days. The mesoappendix was divided hemostatically using electrocautery in 1564(69.4%) and an energy device in 688(30.5%). The appendix was amputated by division of its base between looped ligatures in 1379(37.0%), with a stapler in 1421(38.1%) and between clips in 929(24.9%). The technique for securely dividing the appendix at its base in acutely inflamed (AAST Grade 1) appendicitis was equally divided between division between looped ligatures, clips and stapled transection. However, the technique used differed in complicated appendicitis (AAST Grade 2 +) compared with uncomplicated (Grade 1), with a shift toward transection of the appendix base by stapler (58% vs. 38%; p < 0.001). While no statistical difference in outcomes could be detected between different techniques for division of appendix base, decreased risk of any [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.58 (0.41-0.82), p = 0.002] and severe [adjusted IRR (95% CI): 0.33 (0.11-0.96), p = 0.045] complications could be detected when using energy devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Safe mesoappendix transection and appendix resection are accomplished using heterogeneous techniques. Technique selection for both mesoappendix transection and appendix resection correlates with AAST grade. Higher grade led to more ultrasonic tissue transection and stapled appendix resection. Higher AAST appendicitis grade also correlated with infection-related complication occurrence. Despite the overall well-tolerated heterogeneity of approaches to acute appendicitis, increasing disease acuity or complexity appears to encourage homogeneity of intraoperative surgical technique toward advanced adjuncts.

Patients' perspectives on the benefits of feedback on patient-reported outcome measures in a web-based personalized decision report for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Applications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for individual patient management are expanding with the support of digital tools. Providing PROM-based information to patients can potentially improve care experiences and outcomes through informing and activating patients. This study explored patients' perspectives on the benefits of receiving feedback on PROMs in the context of a web-based personalized decision report to guide care for their hip or knee osteoarthritis.

METHODS

This qualitative descriptive interview study was nested in a pragmatic clinical trial of a personalized report, which includes descriptive PROM scores and predicted postoperative PROM scores. Patients completed a semi-structured interview within 6 weeks of an office visit with an orthopaedic surgeon. Only patients who reported receiving the report and reviewing it with the surgeon and/or a health educator were included. Data were iteratively analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding strategies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five patients aged 49-82 years (60% female, 72% surgical treatment decision) participated and described three primary benefits of the PROM feedback within the report: 1. Gaining Information About My Health Status, including data teaching new information, confirming what was known, or providing a frame of reference; 2. Fostering Communication Between Patient and Surgeon, encompassing use of the data to set expectations, ask and answer questions, and facilitate shared understanding; and 3. Increasing My Confidence and Trust, relating to the treatment outcomes, treatment decision, and surgeon.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients identified actual and hypothetical benefits of receiving feedback on PROM scores in the context of a web-based decision report, including advantages for those who had already made a treatment decision before seeing the surgeon. Findings provide insight into patients' perspectives on how digital PROM data can promote patient-centered care. Results should be considered in the context of the homogeneous sample and complex trial. While participants perceived value in this personalized report, questions remain regarding best practices in patient-facing data presentation and engagement.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102580. Registered on 5 April 2017.