How do third sector organisations or charities providing health and well-being services in England implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? A qualitative interview study

Bridging technology and care: integrating web-based PROMs in mental health services for refugees: a study on clinician training and technology adoption

This study explores the integration of a web-based electronic database technology containing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) with electronic health records for refugees with PTSD, emphasizing the systematic inclusion of patient perspectives in clinical decision-making. Our research addresses the notable gap in literature regarding training clinicians for the competent integration of health information technology in healthcare. The training program developed aimed at equipping clinicians, particularly inexperienced with technology, to effectively utilize an electronic PROM system for collecting systematic patient information. Our study is set in the context of the Mental Health Services (MHS) in Denmark, focusing on a specialized clinic for treating trauma-affected refugees. The multidisciplinary team involved in this project reflects a wide range of healthcare professionals. The training program employed a variety of activities over nearly 2 years, adapting to feedback and aiming to engage clinicians in continuous improvement processes. Analyzing qualitative data with thematic analysis we interpreted that the training's extended focus on discussion of the implementation process, with limited hands-on experience, potentially reinforced clinicians' hesitations toward new technology, rather than reducing them. Clinicians prioritized immediate concerns over potential long-term benefits. Despite this, their approach reflects a strong commitment to patient welfare and careful evaluation of new practices. Notably, there were also positive engagements with the technology, highlighting its potential in patient care. This study concludes that the successful integration of technology in clinical settings hinges on its alignment with clinicians' workflows, respect for their professional judgment, and clear benefits to patient care.

The Danish Trauma Database for Refugees (DTD): A Multicenter Database Collaboration-Overcoming the Challenges and Enhancing Mental Health Treatment and Research for Refugees

Mental health of trauma-affected refugees is an understudied area, resulting in inadequate and poorer treatment outcomes. To address this, more high-quality treatment studies that include predictive analyses, long-term evaluations, cultural adaptations, and take account for comorbidities, are needed. Moreover, given the complex intertwining of refugees' health with post-migration stressors and other social factors, it is crucial to examine the social determinants of refugee mental health. The Danish Trauma Database for Refugees (DTD) is a multicenter research database uniting six national centers that provide outpatient treatment for trauma-affected refugees. Through the database, we collect clinical and sociodemographic data from approximately 1200 refugees annually and will merge the database with Danish population register data. The purpose of the DTD is two-fold; clinical and research. The DTD offers data-driven guidance for routine clinical treatment planning of the individual patient, as well as exceptional research opportunities for testing treatment interventions in clinical settings, with larger sample sizes, and more representative heterogeneity of the population. Complex analyses of risk and protective factors, barriers, access to treatment, and societal and transgenerational aspects of trauma are possible with the DTD. This conceptual paper introduces the DTD, the historical background, the development process and implementation strategy, and the associated challenges with developing and running a multicenter database. Most importantly, it highlights the clinical and research potential of the DTD for advancing the understanding and treatment of trauma-affected refugees.

Learning from the challenges of undertaking an evaluation of a multi-partner housing support initiative delivered within a hospital setting

Objectives

We present learning from a mixed-methods evaluation of a housing support initiative for hospital inpatients.

Study design

A mixed-methods process evaluation.

Methods

A social housing provider delivered a housing support service in two hospitals (mental health unit and general hospital). Healthcare providers, the social housing provider and academic researchers designed and undertook a co-produced, mixed-methods process evaluation of the intervention. The evaluation included questionnaires, semi-structured interviews, analysis of routinely collected data and economic analysis. Despite commitment from the partners, the evaluation faced challenges. We reflect on the lessons learnt within our discussion paper.

Results

Despite the commitment of the partners, we faced several challenges.

We took an iterative approach to the design and processes of the evaluation to respond to arising challenges. Recruitment of service-users was more difficult than anticipated, requiring additional staff resources. Given the small-scale nature of the intervention, and the quality of data recorded in hospital records, the planned economic analysis was not feasible. Positive factors facilitating evaluation included involvement of staff delivering the intervention, as well as managers. Being able to offer payment to partner organisations for staff time also facilitated ongoing engagement.

Conclusions

Multi-partner evaluations are useful, however, researchers and partners need to be prepared to take an iterative, resource intensive approach. Both availability and quality of routine data, and the resources required to support data collection, may limit feasibility of specific methods when evaluating small-scale cross-sector initiatives. Thus, this necessitates a flexible approach to design and analysis.

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.