Patient and practitioners' views on the most important outcomes arising from primary care consultations: a qualitative study

Understanding access to general practice through the lens of candidacy: a critical review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Dominant conceptualisations of access to health care are limited, framed in terms of speed and supply. The Candidacy Framework offers a more comprehensive approach, identifying diverse influences on how access is accomplished.

AIM

To characterise how the Candidacy Framework can explain access to general practice - an increasingly fraught area of public debate and policy.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative review guided by the principles of critical interpretive synthesis.

METHOD

We conducted a literature review using an author-led approach, involving iterative analytically guided searches. Articles were eligible for inclusion if they related to the context of general practice, without geographical or time limitations. Key themes relating to access to general practice were extracted and synthesised using the Candidacy Framework.

RESULTS

A total of 229 articles were included in the final synthesis. The seven features identified in the original Candidacy Framework are highly salient to general practice. Using the lens of candidacy demonstrates that access to general practice is subject to multiple influences that are highly dynamic, contingent, and subject to constant negotiation. These influences are socioeconomically and institutionally patterned, creating risks to access for some groups. This analysis enables understanding of the barriers to access that may exist, even though general practice in the UK is free at the point of care, but also demonstrates that a Candidacy Framework specific to this setting is needed.

CONCLUSION

The Candidacy Framework has considerable value as a way of understanding access to general practice, offering new insights for policy and practice. The original framework would benefit from further customisation for the distinctive setting of general practice.

Examining utility and feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures in occupational therapy primary care practice

Introduction

Occupational therapists are increasingly part of interprofessional primary care teams, helping to expand primary care to meet client needs. Effectiveness of occupational therapy services is difficult to determine with currently collected data, and little is known about the best tools to use or how to integrate tools into practice. We explored the utility and feasibility of implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) within occupational therapy primary care practice.

Method

We integrated pre-test/post-test and exploratory qualitative designs. Over 7 months, nine occupational therapists administered two PROMs to clients receiving falls prevention services, addressing falls efficacy and participation in daily occupations. Subsequent interviews with therapists explored the utility and feasibility of using the tools. We assessed pre-to-post change in PROM scores and thematically analyzed interview data.

Results

The occupational therapists valued measuring function and participation in daily occupations to inform practice, communicate with team members, and demonstrate effectiveness. The falls efficacy scale appeared to capture change over time and was feasible to implement at pre-test.

Conclusion

PROMs appear useful within occupational therapy primary care falls prevention services and can be feasible with attention to administration processes. Further development and testing of PROMs is needed to support occupational therapy primary care practice.

Perceived Barriers to Treatment in Persons Treated for Functional Gastrointestinal Disease with Constipation

INTRODUCTION

Despite expanding treatment options, patients with functional gastrointestinal disorders (FGID) frequently express concerns about problems with access to care. We hypothesized that health insurance coverage contributes to the perceived problems with care delivery.

METHODS

Using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, we examined a cohort of participants defined by the diagnosis code for FGID plus the recorded prescription for laxative therapy. Demographic data, healthcare utilization and cost, insurance coverage, comorbid conditions, and information about provider characteristics were extracted for the years 2005-2015. Age- and sex-matched controls were identified for each year included. Barriers to care were based on responses to questions about inability to receive timely care or medication. Logistic regression was used to identify independent predictors of perceived barriers.

RESULTS

The cohort was female predominant (67.8%; mean age: 58.8 ± 0.33 years) with 15.4% reporting problems with access to care. Limited insurance coverage was most commonly cited by respondents. Consistent with this result, uninsured persons were significantly more likely to report barriers to care, while the type of insurance for those covered did not independently predict access problems. In addition, comorbidity burden and provider-specific factors, such as available contact options or insufficient explanations, correlated with perceived barriers to care delivery.

CONCLUSION

While the study design cannot establish causal links, persons with FGID commonly report access problems, which correlate with lack of health insurance and comorbidities. Providers can influence this perception by offering more flexible office hours and incorporating patient expectations related to treatment explanations and shared decision-making.

Relational continuity and patients' perception of GP trust and respect: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Despite the benefits of relational continuity of care, particularly for patients with multimorbidity, the traditional model of continuity is changing. Revisiting what patients with ongoing problems want from relational continuity could encourage initiatives to achieve these within a modern healthcare system.

AIM

To examine the attributes of GPs that patients with long-term conditions value most, and which attributes patients believe are facilitated by relational continuity.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Qualitative study in UK general practice.

METHOD

A thematic analysis was carried out, based on secondary analysis of interviews with 25 patients with long-term conditions that were originally conducted to inform a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care.

RESULTS

Patients with long-term conditions wanted their GPs to be clinically competent, to examine, listen to, care for, and take time with them, irrespective of whether they have seen them before. They believed that relational continuity facilitates a GP knowing their history, giving consistent advice, taking responsibility and action, and trusting and respecting them. Patients acknowledged practical difficulties and safety issues in achieving the first three of these without relational continuity. However, patients felt that GPs should trust and respect them even when continuity was not possible.

CONCLUSION

Policy initiatives promoting continuity with a GP or healthcare team should continue. Many patients see continuity as a safety issue. When patients experience relationship discontinuity, they often feel that they are not taken seriously or believed by their GP. GPs should therefore consistently seek to visibly demonstrate trust in their patients, particularly when they have not seen them before.

General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study

Background

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented.

We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised.

Methods

Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs.

Results

Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62).

Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care.

Conclusion

Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

KLOSURE: Closing in on open-ended patient questionnaires with text mining

Background

Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) is an instrument used to quantify patients’ perceptions about their knee condition and associated problems. It is administered as a 42-item closed-ended questionnaire in which patients are asked to self-assess five outcomes: pain, other symptoms, activities of daily living, sport and recreation activities, and quality of life. We developed KLOG as a 10-item open-ended version of the KOOS questionnaire in an attempt to obtain deeper insight into patients’ opinions including their unmet needs. However, the open–ended nature of the questionnaire incurs analytical overhead associated with the interpretation of responses. The goal of this study was to automate such analysis. We implemented KLOSURE as a system for mining free–text responses to the KLOG questionnaire. It consists of two subsystems, one concerned with feature extraction and the other one concerned with classification of feature vectors. Feature extraction is performed by a set of four modules whose main functionalities are linguistic pre-processing, sentiment analysis, named entity recognition and lexicon lookup respectively. Outputs produced by each module are combined into feature vectors. The structure of feature vectors will vary across the KLOG questions. Finally, Weka, a machine learning workbench, was used for classification of feature vectors.

Results

The precision of the system varied between 62.8 and 95.3%, whereas the recall varied from 58.3 to 87.6% across the 10 questions. The overall performance in terms of F–measure varied between 59.0 and 91.3% with an average of 74.4% and a standard deviation of 8.8.

Conclusions

We demonstrated the feasibility of mining open-ended patient questionnaires. By automatically mapping free text answers onto a Likert scale, we can effectively measure the progress of rehabilitation over time. In comparison to traditional closed-ended questionnaires, our approach offers much richer information that can be utilised to support clinical decision making. In conclusion, we demonstrated how text mining can be used to combine the benefits of qualitative and quantitative analysis of patient experiences.

A patient-centred intervention to improve the management of multimorbidity in general practice: the 3D RCT

Background

People with multimorbidity experience impaired quality of life, poor health and a burden from treatment. Their care is often disease-focused rather than patient-centred and tailored to their individual needs.

Objective

To implement and evaluate a patient-centred intervention to improve the management of patients with multimorbidity in general practice.

Design

Pragmatic, cluster randomised controlled trial with parallel process and economic evaluations. Practices were centrally randomised by a statistician blind to practice identifiers, using a computer-generated algorithm.

Setting

Thirty-three general practices in three areas of England and Scotland.

Participants

Practices had at least 4500 patients and two general practitioners (GPs) and used the EMIS (Egton Medical Information Systems) computer system. Patients were aged ≥ 18 years with three or more long-term conditions.

Interventions

The 3D (Dimensions of health, Depression and Drugs) intervention was designed to offer patients continuity of care with a named GP, replacing separate reviews of each long-term condition with comprehensive reviews every 6 months. These focused on individualising care to address patients’ main problems, attention to quality of life, depression and polypharmacy and on disease control and agreeing treatment plans. Control practices provided usual care.

Outcome measures

Primary outcome – health-related quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol-5 Dimensions, five-level version) after 15 months. Secondary outcomes – measures of illness burden, treatment burden and patient-centred care. We assessed cost-effectiveness from a NHS and a social care perspective.

Results

Thirty-three practices (1546 patients) were randomised from May to December 2015 [16 practices (797 patients) to the 3D intervention, 17 practices (749 patients) to usual care]. All participants were included in the primary outcome analysis by imputing missing data. There was no evidence of difference between trial arms in health-related quality of life {adjusted difference in means 0.00 [95% confidence interval (CI) –0.02 to 0.02]; p = 0.93}, illness burden or treatment burden. However, patients reported significant benefits from the 3D intervention in all measures of patient-centred care. Qualitative data suggested that both patients and staff welcomed having more time, continuity of care and the patient-centred approach. The economic analysis found no meaningful differences between the intervention and usual care in either quality-adjusted life-years [(QALYs) adjusted mean QALY difference 0.007, 95% CI –0.009 to 0.023] or costs (adjusted mean difference £126, 95% CI –£739 to £991), with wide uncertainty around point estimates. The cost-effectiveness acceptability curve suggested that the intervention was unlikely to be either more or less cost-effective than usual care. Seventy-eight patients died (46 in the intervention arm and 32 in the usual-care arm), with no evidence of difference between trial arms; no deaths appeared to be associated with the intervention.

Limitations

In this pragmatic trial, the implementation of the intervention was incomplete: 49% of patients received two 3D reviews over 15 months, whereas 75% received at least one review.

Conclusions

The 3D approach reflected international consensus about how to improve care for multimorbidity. Although it achieved the aim of providing more patient-centred care, this was not associated with benefits in quality of life, illness burden or treatment burden. The intervention was no more or less cost-effective than usual care. Modifications to the 3D approach might improve its effectiveness. Evaluation is needed based on whole-system change over a longer period of time.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN06180958.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Services and Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health Services and Delivery Research; Vol. 7, No. 5. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Patient understanding of two commonly used patient reported outcome measures for primary care: a cognitive interview study

Background

Standardised generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) which measure health status are often unresponsive to change in primary care. Alternative formats, which have been used to increase responsiveness, include individualised PROMs (in which respondents specify the outcomes of interest in their own words) and transitional PROMs (in which respondents directly rate change over a period). The objective of this study was to test qualitatively, through cognitive interviews, two PROMs, one using each respective format.

Methods

The individualised PROM selected was the Measure Yourself Medical Outcomes Profile (MYMOP). The transitional PROM was the Patient Enablement Instrument (PEI). Twenty patients who had recently attended the GP were interviewed while completing the questionnaires. Interview data was analysed using a modification of Tourangeau’s model of cognitive processing: comprehension, response, recall and face validity.

Results

Patients found the PEI simple to complete, but for some it lacked face validity. The transitional scale was sometimes confused with a status scale and was problematic in situations when the relevant GP appointment was part of a longer episode of care. Some patients reported a high enablement score despite verbally reporting low enablement but high regard for their GP, which suggested hypothesis-guessing. The interpretation of the PEI items was inconsistent between patients.

MYMOP was more difficult for patients to complete, but had greater face validity than the PEI. The scale used was open to response-shift: some patients suggested they would recalibrate their definition of the scale endpoints as their illness and expectations changed.

Conclusions

The study provides information for both users of PEI/MYMOP and developers of individualised and transitional questionnaires.

Users should heed the recommendation that MYMOP should be interview-administered, and this is likely to apply to other individualised scales. The PEI is open to hypothesis-guessing and may lack face-validity for a longer episode of care (e.g. in patients with chronic conditions). Developers should be cognisant that transitional scales can be inconsistently completed: some patients forget during completion that they are measuring change from baseline. Although generic questionnaires require the content to be more general than do disease-specific questionnaires, developers should avoid questions which allow broad and varied interpretations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0850-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire: psychometric testing of a new instrument

Background

Patients attend primary care for many reasons and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) designed to capture these diverse outcomes, and trials of interventions in primary care may thus fail to detect beneficial effects.

Aim

This study describes the psychometric testing of the Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ), which was designed to capture a broad range of outcomes relevant to primary care.

Design and setting

Questionnaires were administered in primary care in South West England.

Method

Patients completed the PCOQ in GP waiting rooms before a consultation, and a second questionnaire, including the PCOQ and seven comparator PROMs, after 1 week. Psychometric testing included exploratory factor analysis on the PCOQ, internal consistency, correlation coefficients between domain scores and comparator measures, and repeated measures effect sizes indicating change across 1 week.

Results

In total, 602 patients completed the PCOQ at baseline, and 264 (44%) returned the follow-up questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis suggested four dimensions underlying the PCOQ items: health and wellbeing, health knowledge and self-care, confidence in health provision, and confidence in health plan. Each dimension was internally consistent and correlated as expected with comparator PROMs, providing evidence of construct validity. Patients reporting an improvement in their main problem exhibited small to moderate improvements in relevant domain scores on the PCOQ.

Conclusion

The PCOQ was acceptable, feasible, showed strong psychometric properties, and was responsive to change. It is a promising new tool for assessment of outcomes of primary care interventions from a patient perspective.

Identification, description and appraisal of generic PROMs for primary care: a systematic review

Background

Patients attend primary care with many types of problems and to achieve a range of possible outcomes. There is currently a lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) designed to capture these diverse outcomes. The objective of this systematic review was to identify, describe and appraise generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care.

Methods

We carried out a systematic Medline search, supplemented by other online and hand-searches. All potentially relevant PROMs were itemised in a long-list. Each PROM in the long-list which met inclusion criteria was included in a short-list. Short-listed PROMs were then described in terms of their measurement properties and construct, based on a previously published description of primary care outcome as three constructs: health status, health empowerment and health perceptions. PROMs were appraised in terms of extent of psychometric testing (extensive, moderate, low) and level of responsiveness (high, medium, low, unknown).

Results

More than 5000 abstracts were identified and screened to identify PROMs potentially suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. 321 PROMs were long-listed, and twenty PROMs were catalogued in detail. There were five PROMs which measured change directly, without need for a baseline. Although these had less strong psychometric properties, they may be more responsive to change than PROMs which capture status at a point in time. No instruments provided coverage of all three constructs. Of the health status questionnaires, the most extensively tested was the SF-36. Of the health empowerment instruments, the PEI, PAM and heiQ provided the best combination of responsiveness and psychometric testing. The health perceptions instruments were all less responsive to change, and may measure a form of health perception which is difficult to shift in primary care.

Conclusions

This systematic review is the first of its kind to identify papers describing the development and validation of generic PROMs suitable for measuring outcomes from primary care. It identified that: 1) to date, there is no instrument which comprehensively covers the outcomes commonly sought in primary care, and 2) there are different benefits both to PROMs which measure status at a point in time, and PROMs which measure change directly.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12875-018-0722-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Qualitative assessment of the primary care outcomes questionnaire: a cognitive interview study

BACKGROUND

The Primary Care Outcomes Questionnaire (PCOQ) is a new patient-reported outcome measure designed specifically for primary care. This paper describes the developmental process of improving the item quality and testing the face validity of the PCOQ through cognitive interviews with primary care patients.

METHODS

Two formats of the PCOQ were developed and assessed: the PCOQ-Status (which has an adjectival scale) and the PCOQ-Change (which has the same items as the PCOQ-Status, but a transitional scale). Three rounds of cognitive interviews were held with twenty patients from four health centres in Bristol. Patients seeking healthcare were recruited directly by their GP or practice nurse, and others not currently seeking healthcare were recruited from patient participation groups. An adjusted form of Tourangeau's model of cognitive processing was used to identify problems. This contained four categories: general comprehension, temporal comprehension, decision process, and response process. The resultant pattern of problems was used to assess whether the items and scales were working as intended, and to make improvements to the questionnaires.

RESULTS

The problems identified in the PCOQ-Status reduced from 41 in round one to seven in round three. It was noted that the PCOQ-Status seemed to be capturing a subjective view of health which might not vary with age or long-term conditions. However, as it is designed to be evaluative (measuring change over time) as opposed to discriminative (measuring change between different groups of people), this does not present a problem for validity. The PCOQ-Status was both understood by patients and was face valid. The PCOQ-Change had less face validity, and was misunderstood by three out of six patients in round 1. It was not taken forward after this round.

CONCLUSIONS

The cognitive interviews successfully contributed to the development of the PCOQ. Through this study, the PCOQ-Status was found to be well understood by patients, and it was possible to improve comprehension through each round of interviews. The PCOQ-Change was poorly understood and, given that this corroborates existing research, this may call into question the use of transitional questionnaires generally.

Agreeing the content of a patient-reported outcome measure for primary care: a Delphi consensus study

BACKGROUND

As the first contact for any health-related need, primary care clinicians often address multiple patient problems, with a range of possible outcomes. There is currently no patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) which covers this range of outcomes. Therefore, many research studies into primary care services use PROMs that do not capture the full impact of these services.

OBJECTIVE

The study aim was to identify outcomes sought by primary care patients which clinicians can influence, thus providing the basis for a new primary care PROM.

METHODS

We used a Delphi process starting with an outcomes list inductively derived in a prior qualitative study. Thirty-five experts were recruited into patient, clinician and academic panels. Participants rated each outcome on whether it was (i) relevant to health, (ii) influenced by primary care and (iii) detectable by patients. In each round, outcomes which passed/failed preset levels of agreement were accepted/rejected. Remaining outcomes continued to the next round.

RESULTS

The process resulted in a set of outcomes occupying the domains of health status, health empowerment (internal and external), and health perceptions. Twenty-six of 36 outcomes were accepted for inclusion in a PROM. Primary care having insufficient influence was the main reason for exclusion.

CONCLUSIONS

To our knowledge, this is the first time PROM outcomes have been agreed through criteria which explicitly exclude outcomes less relevant to health, uninfluenced by primary care or undetected by patients. The PROM in development covers a unique set of outcomes and offers an opportunity for enhanced research into primary care.