Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities

Enhancing Patient Response to Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Insights From a Leading Dutch University Hospital

OBJECTIVES

Engaging patients with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is a widely recognized and pressing challenge, yet our understanding of how to achieve this is limited. This study investigated strategies implemented by a Dutch university hospital aimed at enhancing response rates among outpatients from nearly 70 subdepartments. Response rates improved, but remained below desired levels. To deepen understanding and inform future strategies, we identified patient and consultation characteristics associated with response behavior.

METHODS

We investigated strategies and their underlying rationales through a document analysis of internal hospital documentation (2020-2023) using the COM-B model. We exploited electronic health record data to identify patient and consultation characteristics associated with PROMs completion, estimating a multivariate logistic regression model (n = 46 468 outpatient consultations).

RESULTS

Thirteen strategies targeted outpatients' capability, opportunity, and motivation to complete PROMs. In 2023, PROMs were completed in more than half of the 46 468 unique consultations (56%) for which a PROM was sent. Challenges persisted in establishing effective feedback mechanisms and accommodating non-Dutch-speaking patients. The multivariate analysis showed a significantly higher response among patients of high or middle socioeconomic status and those with an in-person consultation, ie, not using telehealth. Women, patients attending a follow-up visit, or those having their consultation on a Friday were slightly less likely to complete PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

Response rates to PROMs improved but remained below desired levels, despite multiple strategies. Hospitals may benefit from effective patient feedback on PROMs and tailoring strategies to engage specific patient groups. These approaches can enhance successful implementation and promote equity in value-based healthcare.

Understanding factors impacting patient-reported outcome measures integration in routine clinical practice: an umbrella review

PURPOSE

Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice.

METHODS

An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework.

RESULTS

34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, 'change champions' to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators.

CONCLUSIONS

The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.

Barriers and facilitators to the uptake of electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures in routine care of older adults: a systematic review with qualitative evidence synthesis

Objective

The aims of this systematic review were to (1) synthesize the available qualitative evidence on the barriers and facilitators influencing implementation of the electronic collection and use of patient-reported measures (PRMs) in older adults' care from various stakeholder perspectives and (2) map these factors to the digital technology implementation framework Non-adoption, Abandonment, challenges to the Scale-up, Spread, Sustainability (NASSS) and behavior change framework Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour (COM-B).

Materials and Methods

A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, and Web of Science databases from 1 January 2001 to 27 October 2021 was conducted and included English language qualitative studies exploring stakeholder perspectives on the electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care. Two authors independently screened studies, conducted data extraction, quality appraisal using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), data coding, assessed confidence in review findings using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research (GRADE CERQual), and mapped the findings to NASSS and COM-B. An inductive approach was used to synthesize findings describing the stakeholder perspectives of barriers and facilitators.

Results

Twenty-two studies were included from the 3368 records identified. Studies explored older adult, caregiver, healthcare professional, and administrative staff perspectives. Twenty nine of 34 review findings (85%) were graded as having high or moderate confidence. Key factors salient to older adults related to clinical conditions and socio-cultural factors, digital literacy, access to digital technology, and user interface. Factors salient to healthcare professionals related to resource availability to collect and use PRMs, and value of PRMs collection and use.

Conclusion

Future efforts to implement electronic collection and use of PRMs in older adults' care should consider addressing the barriers, facilitators, and key theoretical domains identified in this review. Older adults are more likely to adopt electronic completion of PRMs when barriers associated with digital technology access, digital literacy, and user interface are addressed. Future research should explore the perspectives of other stakeholders, including those of organizational leaders, digital technology developers and implementation specialists, in various healthcare settings and explore factors influencing implementation of PREMs.

PROSPERO registration number

CRD42022295894.

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures as an Intervention: A Comprehensive Overview of Systematic Reviews on the Effects of Feedback

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have emerged as a promising approach to involve patients in their treatment process. Beyond serving as outcome measures, PROMs can be applied to provide feedback to healthcare providers and patients, thereby offering valuable insights that can improve health outcomes and care processes. This overview offers a comprehensive synthesis of the effects of PROM feedback, contributing to the evidence-based discussion on PROMs' potential to enhance patient care.

METHODS

Following Cochrane Collaboration recommendations, this overview included literature reviews across diverse treatment areas, investigating the impact of PROM feedback on patient health outcomes (including quality of life, symptoms, or survival) and care process outcomes (including communication, symptom identification, or clinical practice). The methodological quality of the evidence was assessed with a modified version of A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2, and the potential overlap of primary studies was quantified. Results were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Forty reviews grouped into 4 categories of treatment areas were included. Overall, their methodological quality was low. The overall overlap of primary studies was 2.2%, reaching up to 15.7% within specific treatment areas. The results indicate that PROM feedback may enhance the quality-of-care processes, whereas its effects on patient health outcomes remained less conclusive.

CONCLUSIONS

PROM feedback positively influences the interaction between physicians and patients across the included treatment areas. Further research is needed to comprehend the trickle-down effects of PROM feedback and how to enhance its potential in yielding health benefits for patients.

Development of the Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) conceptual framework to monitor and improve the performance of primary care for people living with chronic conditions

BackgroundThe Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) initiative aims to support countries in improving care for people living with chronic conditions by collecting information on how people experience the quality and performance of primary and (generalist) ambulatory care services. This paper presents the development of the conceptual framework that underpins the rationale for and the instrumentation of the PaRIS survey.

METHODS

The guidance of an international expert taskforce and the OECD Health Care Quality Indicators framework (2015) provided initial specifications for the framework. Relevant conceptual models and frameworks were then identified from searches in bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE and the Health Management Information Consortium). A draft framework was developed through narrative review. The final version was codeveloped following the participation of an international Patient advisory Panel, an international Technical Advisory Community and online international workshops with patient representatives.

RESULTS

85 conceptual models and frameworks were identified through searches. The final framework maps relationships between the following domains (and subdomains): patient-reported outcomes (symptoms, functioning, self-reported health status, health-related quality of life); patient-reported experiences of care (access, comprehensiveness, continuity, coordination, patient safety, person centeredness, self-management support, trust, overall perceived quality of care); health and care capabilities; health behaviours (physical activity, diet, tobacco and alcohol consumption), sociodemographic characteristics and self-reported chronic conditions; delivery system characteristics (clinic, main healthcare professional); health system, policy and context.

DISCUSSION

The PaRIS conceptual framework has been developed through a systematic, accountable and inclusive process. It serves as the basis for the development of the indicators and survey instruments as well as for the generation of specific hypotheses to guide the analysis and interpretation of the findings.

4 Domain Sports PROM in Spanish: Cross-cultural adaptation in the Chilean population and reliability analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are tools of increasing interest in the sports population. The purpose of this study was to perform the cross-cultural adaptation and reliability analysis of the 4 Domain Sports Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (4DSP) into Spanish.

METHODS

A six-stage cross-cultural adaptation protocol was executed to obtain the Spanish version of the 4DSP (S-4DSP). Subsequently, the questionnaire was administered to a population of 108 postoperative athletes with ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) injuries. The questionnaire was administered again after 30 days. Acceptability, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and reproducibility (Intraclass Correlation) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The S-4DSP was fully completed by 108 participants (mean age 34±10.75, 26% women), achieving 100% acceptability. No floor effect was detected. The statistical analysis yielded a global Cronbach's alpha for the questionnaire of 0.65, and domain-specific alphas of 0.88, 0.72, 0.27, and 0.68 for the first, second, third, and fourth domains, respectively. The Intraclass Correlation test reached a maximum of 0.94 and a minimum of 0.48 for the first and fifth questions, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The S-4DSP is a reliable and useful tool for evaluating Spanish-speaking athletes after ACL reconstruction.

[Translated article] 4 Domain Sports PROM in Spanish: Cross-cultural adaptation in the Chilean population and reliability analysis

BACKGROUND

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are tools of increasing interest in the sports population. The purpose of this study was to perform the cross-cultural adaptation and reliability analysis of the 4 Domain Sports Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (4 DSP) into Spanish.

METHODS

A six-stage cross-cultural adaptation protocol was executed to obtain the Spanish version of the 4 DSP (S-4DSP). Subsequently, the questionnaire was administered to a population of 108 postoperative athletes with ACL (Anterior Cruciate Ligament) injuries. The questionnaire was administered again after 30 days. Acceptability, floor and ceiling effects, internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha), and reproducibility (Intraclass Correlation) were evaluated.

RESULTS

The S-4DSP was fully completed by 108 participants (mean age 34±10.75, 26% women), achieving 100% acceptability. No floor effect was detected. The statistical analysis yielded a global Cronbach's alpha for the questionnaire of 0.65, and domain-specific alphas of 0.88, 0.72, 0.27, and 0.68 for the first, second, third, and fourth domains, respectively. The Intraclass Correlation test reached a maximum of 0.94 and a minimum of 0.48 for the first and fifth questions, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The S-4DSP is a reliable and useful tool for evaluating Spanish-speaking athletes after ACL reconstruction.

Facilitators and Barriers in the Implementation and Adoption of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurements in Daily Practice

OBJECTIVES

At the Erasmus Medical Center, patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) are implemented on a hospital-wide scale. However, less than half of the patients and healthcare professionals (HCPs) use these PROMs. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate facilitators and barriers for adoption of PROMs to develop guidance around implementation.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study with a combination of interviews and focus groups and questionnaires was conducted, involving patients, both PROM nonresponders and PROM responders, HCPs, and medicine students and nurse specialists in training (hereafter "students"). Interview transcripts were subjected to thematic content analysis. Subsequently, questionnaires were developed and presented to all stakeholders to validate the findings. Finally, identified themes and implementation recommendations were presented in a final questionnaire to the Value-Based Healthcare Erasmus Medical Center expert group to prioritize findings.

RESULTS

Interviews were conducted with 15 patients, 14 HCPs and 4 students, and 2 focus groups with 5 students. The questionnaire was completed by 370 of 999 responders (37.0%), 173 of 1395 nonresponders (12.5%), and 44 of 194 HCPs (22.7%), and 40 students were reached via an open link. The identified facilitators and barriers were grouped into 4 overarching themes: training on PROMs at different levels in the education of (future) HCPs, motivate and reduce the burden for the HCP, implement generic and disease-specific PROMs simultaneously, and motivate, activate, and reduce the patient burden.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing end users with digital tools, implementation support, and a clear hospital-wide vision is important, yet this does not guarantee successful adoption of PROMs. Successful adoption necessitates ongoing efforts to engage, motivate, and train end users.

Further psychometric evaluation of the WOUND-Q: A responsiveness study

The WOUND-Q is a modular patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) with 13 scales measuring constructs across 4 domains (i.e., wound characteristics, health related quality of life, experience of care and wound treatment). The psychometrics of the WOUND-Q were previously assessed and the 13 scales evidenced good validity and reliability. However, the responsiveness (i.e., ability to detect clinical change) of the WOUND-Q has yet to be assessed. The objective of this study was to evaluate responsiveness for 9 WOUND-Q scales that assess outcomes, in a sample of people 18 years of age or older with chronic wounds that were present for at least 3 months. This study conducted a 4 month follow-up of 421 participants who completed the WOUND-Q as part of a previous psychometric study. Participants completed an online survey answering questions about their current wound state (e.g., number, type, size, smell, drainage), anchor questions about change, as well as the WOUND-Q scales that they had completed in their initial assessment. Pre-defined hypotheses were tested with a 75% acceptance threshold indicating sufficient evidence of responsiveness. Minimally important differences (MIDs) were also calculated using both anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Of 390 invited participants, 320 provided responses, ranging in age from 19 to 84 years. Acceptance of hypotheses ranged from 60% to 100%, with only the Symptom scale not meeting the 75% threshold. The findings of this study provide evidence that the WOUND-Q can validly measure clinical change in patients with chronic wounds.

Remote Symptom Monitoring Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: Process Evaluation of a Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

In Denmark, outpatient follow-up for patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is changing from in-hospital visits toward more remote health care delivery. The nonuse of remote patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is a well-known challenge, and it can be difficult to explain which mechanisms of interventions influence the outcome. Process evaluation may, therefore, be used to answer important questions on how and why interventions work, aiming to enhance the implications for clinical practice.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to provide insight into the intervention process by evaluating (1) the representativity of the study population, (2) patient and physician use patterns, (3) patient adherence to the intervention, and (4) clinical engagement.

METHODS

A process evaluation determining the reach, dose, fidelity, and clinical engagement was carried out, alongside a multicenter randomized controlled trial (RCT). We developed and implemented an intervention using PRO measures to monitor outpatients remotely. Data were collected for the PRO intervention arms in the RCT from 4 sources: (1) PRO data from the participants to determine personal factors, (2) the web-based PRO system to identify key usage intervention patterns, (3) medical records to identify clinical factors relating to the use of the intervention, and (4) semistructured interviews conducted with involved physicians.

RESULTS

Of the 320 patients invited, 152 (47.5%) accepted to participate. The study population reflected the target population. The mean adherence rate to the PRO intervention arms was 82% (95% CI 76-87). The questionnaire response rate was 539/544 (99.1%). A minority of 13 (12.9%) of 101 patients needed assistance to complete study procedures. Physicians assessed 477/539 (88.5%) of the questionnaires. Contact was established in 417/539 (77.4%) of the cases, and 122/539 (22.6%) of the patients did not have contact. Physicians initiated 288/417 (69.1%) and patients requested 129/417 (30.9%) of all the contacts. The primary causes of contact were clinical data (242/417, 58%), PRO data (92/417, 22.1%), and medication concerns and precautionary reasons (83/417, 19.9%). Physicians found the use of PRO measures in remote follow-up beneficial for assessing the patient's health. The inclusion of self-reported clinical data in the questionnaire motivated physicians to assess patient responses. However, some barriers were emphasized, such as loss of a personal relationship with the patient and the risk of missing important symptoms in the absence of a face-to-face assessment.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates the importance and practical use of remote monitoring among patients with CKD. Overall, the intervention was implemented as intended. We observed high patient adherence rates, and the physicians managed most questionnaires. Some physicians worried that distance from the patients made it unfeasible to use their "clinical glance," posing a potential risk of overlooking crucial patients' symptoms. These findings underscore key considerations for the implementation of remote follow-up. Introducing a hybrid approach combining remote and face-to-face consultations may address these concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03847766; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03847766.

Service Evaluation of MyChristie-MyHealth, an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Integrated Into Clinical Cancer Care

PURPOSE

Electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) are digitalized health questionnaires used to gauge patients' subjective experience of health and disease. They are becoming prevalent in cancer care and have been linked to a host of benefits including improved survival. MyChristie-MyHealth is the ePROM established at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust in 2019. We conducted an evaluation of this service to understand user experiences, as well as strategies to improve its functioning.

METHODS

Data collection: Patients who had opted never to complete MyChristie-MyHealth (n = 87), and those who had completed at least one (n = 87) were identified. Demographic data included age, sex, ethnicity, postcode, diagnosis, treatment intent, and trial status. Semistructured interviews were held with noncompleters (n = 30) and completers (n = 31) of MyChristie-MyHealth, as well as clinician users (n = 6), covering themes such as accessibility, acceptability and usefulness, and open discourse on ways in which the service could be improved.

RESULTS

Noncompleters of MyChristie-MyHealth were older (median age 72 v 66 years, P = .005), receiving treatment with curative rather than palliative intent (odds ratio [OR], 1.45; P = .045), and less likely to be enrolled on a clinical trial (OR, 0.531; P = .011). They were less likely to own a smartphone (33% v 97%) or have reliable Internet access (45% v 100%). Satisfaction with MyChristie-MyHealth was high in both groups: 93% (n = 29) of completers and 87% (n = 26) noncompleters felt generally happy to complete. Completers of MyChristie-MyHealth wanted their results to be acknowledged by their clinicians. Clinicians wanted results to be displayed in a more user-friendly way.

CONCLUSION

We have broadly characterized noncompleters of the Christie ePROM to identify those in need of extra support or encouragement in the clinic. An action plan resulting from this review has been compiled and will inform the future development of MyChristie-MyHealth.

Evaluation of SINERGIAPS, an intervention to improve patient safety in primary healthcare centers in Spain based on patients' perceptions and experiences: a protocol for a hybrid type I randomized clinical trial

Background

Adverse events in the primary care setting result in a direct cost equivalent to at least 2.5% of total healthcare spending. Across OECD countries, they lead to more than seven million avoidable hospital admissions annually. In this manuscript, we describe the protocol of a trial aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of SinergiAPS (a patient-centered audit and feedback intervention) in reducing avoidable hospital admission and explore the factors that may affect its implementation.

Methods

We will conduct a 24-month, parallel, open-label, multicenter, pragmatic, hybrid type 1 randomized clinical trial. 118 primary healthcare centers with wide geographical distribution in Spain will be randomly assigned (ratio 1:1) to two groups. The intervention group will receive two audits (baseline and intermediate at 12 months) based on information collected through the administration of the PREOS-PC questionnaire (a measure of patient-reported patient safety) to a convenience sample of 100 patients per center. The intervention group will receive reports on the results of both audits, along with educational resources aimed at facilitating the design and implementation of safety improvement plans. The control group will receive care as usual. The primary outcome will be the rate of avoidable hospitalizations (administrative data). Secondary outcomes: patient-reported patient safety experiences and outcomes (PREOS-PC questionnaire); patient safety culture as perceived by professionals (MOSPSC questionnaire); adverse events reported by healthcare professionals (ad hoc questionnaire); the number of safety improvement actions which the re has implemented (ad hoc questionnaire). Outcome data will be collected at baseline and 24 months follow-up. For the evaluation of the implementation of the SinergiAPS intervention, we will draw on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). We will collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data (30 individual interviews, implementation logbooks; questionnaires for professionals from intervention centers, and level of use of the SinergiAPS web tool).

Discussion

This study will expand the scarce body of evidence existing regarding the effects and implementation of interventions aimed at promoting patient and family engagement in primary healthcare, specifically for enhancing patient safety. The study has the potential to produce an impact on clinical practice, healthcare systems, and population health.Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05958108?term=sinergiAPS&rank=1 (NCT05958108).

Development and acceptability of PETS-Now, an electronic point-of-care tool to monitor treatment burden in patients with multiple chronic conditions: a multi-method study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to develop a web-based tool for patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCC) to communicate concerns about treatment burden to their healthcare providers.

METHODS

Patients and providers from primary-care clinics participated. We conducted focus groups to identify content for a prototype clinical tool to screen for treatment burden by reviewing domains and items from a previously validated measure, the Patient Experience with Treatment and Self-management (PETS). Following review of the prototype, a quasi-experimental pilot study determined acceptability of using the tool in clinical practice. The study protocol was modified to accommodate limitations due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

RESULTS

Fifteen patients with MCC and 18 providers participated in focus groups to review existing PETS content. The pilot tool (named PETS-Now) consisted of eight domains (Living Healthy, Health Costs, Monitoring Health, Medicine, Personal Relationships, Getting Healthcare, Health Information, and Medical Equipment) with each domain represented by a checklist of potential concerns. Administrative burden was minimized by limiting patients to selection of one domain. To test acceptability, 17 primary-care providers first saw 92 patients under standard care (control) conditions followed by another 90 patients using the PETS-Now tool (intervention). Each treatment burden domain was selected at least once by patients in the intervention. No significant differences were observed in overall care quality between patients in the control and intervention conditions with mean care quality rated high in both groups (9.3 and 9.2, respectively, out of 10). There were no differences in provider impressions of patient encounters under the two conditions with providers reporting that patient concerns were addressed in 95% of the visits in both conditions. Most intervention group patients (94%) found that the PETS-Now was easy to use and helped focus the conversation with the provider on their biggest concern (98%). Most providers (81%) felt they had learned something new about the patient from the PETS-Now.

CONCLUSION

The PETS-Now holds promise for quickly screening and monitoring treatment burden in people with MCC and may provide information for care planning. While acceptable to patients and clinicians, integration of information into the electronic medical record should be prioritized.

Palliative Care Costs in Different Ambulatory-Based Settings: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Cost-of-illness studies in palliative care are of growing interest in health economics. There is no standard methodology to capture direct and non-direct healthcare and non-healthcare expenses incurred by health services, patients and their caregivers in the course of the ambulatory palliative care process.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to describe the type of healthcare and non-healthcare expenses incurred by patients with cancer and non-cancer patients and their caregivers for palliative care in ambulatory-based settings and the methodology used to capture the data.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of studies on the costs of ambulatory-based palliative care in patients with cancer (breast, lung, colorectal) and non-cancer conditions (chronic heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia) found in six bibliographic databases (PubMed, EMBASE [via Ovid], Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EconLit, the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Database and the National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database at the University of York, and Google Scholar). The studies were published between January 2000 and December 2022. We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) methodology for study selection and assessed study quality using the Quality of Health Economic Studies instrument. The study was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021250086).

RESULTS

Of 1434 identified references, 43 articles met the inclusion criteria. The primary data source was databases. More than half of the articles presented data from public healthcare systems (65.12%) were retrospective (60.47%), and entailed a bottom-up costing analysis (93.2%) made from a healthcare system perspective (53.49%). The sociodemographic characteristics of patients and families/caregivers were similar across the studies. Cost outcomes reports were heterogeneous; almost all of the studies collected data on direct healthcare costs (97.67%). The main driver of costs was inpatient care (55.81%), which increased during the end-of-life period. Nine studies (20.97%) recorded costs due to productivity losses for caregivers and three recorded such costs for patients. Caregiving costs were explored through an opportunity cost analysis in all cases, based on interviews conducted with and questionnaires administered to patients and caregivers, mainly via telephone calls (23.23%).

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review reveals that studies on the costs of ambulatory-based palliative care are increasing. These studies are mostly conducted from a healthcare system perspective, which leaves out costs related to patients'/caregivers' economic burden. There is a need for prospective studies to assess this financial burden and evaluate, with strong evidence, the interventions and actions designed to improve the quality of life of palliative care patients. Future studies should propose cost calculation approaches using a societal perspective to better estimate the economic burden imposed on patients in ambulatory-based palliative care.

Implications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures among patients with recently diagnosed type 2 diabetes

BACKGROUND

For the past two decades, the assessment of the quality of diabetes care has mostly relied on clinical quality indicators. These have not included Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) which provide information on outcomes deemed valuable by patients. We aimed to examine the potential utility of PROMs in type 2 diabetes care and to study the association of PROMs with patients' characteristics and clinical quality indicators.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of recently (≤ 4 years) diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes (n = 392) in the setting of a large health plan. PROMs were based on two well-validated questionnaires, the Problem Areas in Diabetes (PAID) one-page questionnaire that measures diabetes-related distress, and the ten item PROMIS-10 global health questionnaire that measures general health. Additional items were added following a previous qualitative study among Israeli patients with diabetes. The survey was carried out using phone interviews, and data collected were linked to the electronic medical records. Multivariable regression models were used to assess the associations of socio-demographic variables and clinical quality indicators with the PROMs.

RESULTS

About a fifth of participants (22%) had high diabetes-related distress (PAID score ≥ 40), a third reported that they did not feel confident in self-management of diabetes and about a third reported having sexual dysfunction. Women, younger patients, and those with a low education level (≤ 12 years) reported worse general health, were more likely to experience high diabetes-related distress, and to have low confidence in diabetes self-management. Interestingly, performance of all seven diabetes quality indicators was associated with worse general health and high diabetes-related distress. Of note, levels of glycated hemoglobin, LDL-cholesterol, or blood pressure were not associated with PROMs.

CONCLUSIONS

PROMs provide important information on patient self-reported health status and are likely to reflect aspects of the quality of care that are not otherwise available to clinicians. Thus, the use of PROMs has the potential to expand the evaluation of diabetes care and promote patient-centered care. We recommend that policy-makers in the Ministry of Health and health maintenance organizations implement PROMs for assessing and improving the care for patients with type 2 diabetes.

The use of outcome data in patient consultations from the healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives: A mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

To gain insight into healthcare professionals' (HCPs') perspectives on the use of outcome data in consultations and to understand which aggregated outcomes patients find important.

METHODS

This study had a mixed-methods design and consisted of two steps: RESULTS: HCPs indicated that aggregated outcome data are not routinely used in consultations. They pointed out various barriers to using outcome data, e.g., low response rates of PROMs, and suggested actions to address these barriers, including training of HCPs in outcome data usage. Patients rated the majority of aggregated outcomes as important, although preferences differed between the studied health conditions.

CONCLUSION

Both HCPs and patients underscored the importance of discussing outcome data in consultations. Nevertheless, HCPs encountered several barriers to using outcome data. Furthermore, patients with different health conditions have somewhat different information needs.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The study identified several actionable steps to enhance the collection and application of outcome data in consultations.

The implementation, use and impact of patient reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare programmes: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Value-Based Healthcare (VBHC) focuses on the value of patient outcomes and is achieved by ensuring resources already available are managed to realise the best possible individual and population health outcomes. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) measure the impact of illnesses from the patient perspective. We conducted a scoping review to understand how PROMs were implemented and used, and their impact in the context of VBHC.

METHODS

Arksey and O'Malley's overarching framework supplemented by principles from mixed-methods Framework Synthesis were used. CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Google Scholar and reference lists were searched. An a priori data extraction framework was created using the review question and objectives as key domains against which to extract data. Mixed-methods data were organised, integrated and preserved in original format and reported for each domain.

RESULTS

Forty-three studies were included with 60,200 participants. Few studies reported a well-developed programme theory and we found little robust evidence of effect. PROMs were universally considered to have the potential to increase patient satisfaction with treatment and services, enhance patient awareness of symptoms and self-management, and improve health outcomes such as quality of life and global health status. Evidence is currently limited on how PROMs work and how best to optimally implement PROMs to achieve the target outcome. Implementation challenges commonly prevented the realisation of optimal outcomes and patients generally needed better and clearer communication about why PROMs were being given and how they could optimally be used to support their own self-management.

CONCLUSION

PROMSs have yet to demonstrate their full potential in a VBHC context. Optimal PROMs implementation is poorly understood by clinicians and patients. Future studies should explore different models of PROM implementation and use within VBHC programmes to understand what works best and why for each specific context, condition, and population.

Usage and impact of patient-reported outcomes in epilepsy

BACKGROUND

The use of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical practice is gaining increasing attention. This study aimed to provide a critical assessment of the current state-of-the-art and beliefs about the use of PRO in the management of people with epilepsy across some European countries.

METHODS

Structured interviews were conducted with European experts to collect insights about (I) the personal experience with PRO; (II) the value and impact of PRO in the decision-making process at the national level; and (III) the interest for and use of PRO by national health authorities.

RESULTS

Nine neurologists (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, Italy, Poland, and United Kingdom), three health economists (Portugal, Romania, and Sweden), and one epidemiologist (Slovakia) participated. They all stated that PRO are collected at their own countries in the context of clinical trials and/or specific projects. During everyday clinical practice, PRO are collected routinely/almost routinely in Austria and Sweden and only at the discretion of the treating physicians in Czechia, Denmark, France, Greece, and Portugal. There was complete consensus about the favorable impact that the PRO can have in terms of clinical outcomes, healthcare resources utilization, and general patient satisfaction. Only participants from Portugal and Sweden answered that the PRO are perceived as very important by the National Health Authorities of their respective countries.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences exist in attitudes and perspectives about PRO in epilepsy across Europe. An active plan is warranted to harmonize the measurement of PRO and ensure they can be relevant to people with epilepsy and health services.

What is the association between gender and self-perceived health status when controlling for disease-specific conditions? A retrospective data analysis of pre- and post-operative EQ-5D-5L differences in total hip and knee arthroplasty

BACKGROUND

The self-perceived health status of patients undergoing total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) might differ post-operatively due to gender, age, or comorbidities. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) such as the EQ-5D-5L measure the self-perceived health status. This study investigates whether the index score of the EQ-5D-5L is a valid tool for interpreting gender differences in outcomes for patients undergoing THA and TKA.

METHODS

Routine and PROM-data of elective primary THA or TKA patients in two German hospitals between 2016 and 2018 were analyzed. Univariate analysis with Pearson's chi-square was conducted to identify control variables for gender. To quantify the association between gender and the EQ-5D-5L dimensions, a cumulative odds ordinal logistic regression with proportional odds was conducted.

RESULTS

Two thousand three hundred sixty-eight​​ THA patients (m = 978; f = 1390) and 1629 TKA patients (m = 715; f = 914) were considered. The regression analysis of the individual EQ-5D-5L dimensions showed that female gender was significantly associated with better self-care (THA and TKA) and better post-operative mobility (THA). In contrast, male gender was significantly associated with less pain/discomfort (TKA) and less anxiety/depression (THA) pre-surgery and 3-months post-surgery.

CONCLUSION

Our results confirmed that the self-perceived health status improved after surgery. However, due to the different associations of gender to the individual dimensions of the EQ-5D-5L, the weighted index score clouds the comparability between patients with different gender undergoing THA or TKA. Therefore, we argue to use the individual five dimensions for health status analysis, to reveal relevant additional information.

The impact of COVID-19 on PRO development, collection and implementation: views of UK and Ireland professionals

BACKGROUND

PROs are valuable tools in clinical care to capture patients' perspectives of their health, symptoms and quality of life. However the COVID-19 pandemic has had profound impacts on all aspects of life, in particular healthcare and research. This study explores the views of UK and Irish health professionals, third sector and pharmaceutical industry representatives and academic researchers on the impact of COVID-19 on PRO collection, use and development in clinical practice.

METHODS

A volunteer sample took part in a 10 question cross sectional qualitative survey, on the impact of COVID-19, administered online via Qualtrics. Demographic data was descriptively analysed, and the qualitative free text response data was subject to thematic analysis and summarised within the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats (SWOT) framework.

RESULTS

Forty nine participants took part located in a range of UK settings and professions. Participants highlighted staff strengths during the pandemic including colleagues' flexibility and ability to work collaboratively and the adoption of novel communication tools. Weaknesses were a lack of staff capacity to continue or start PRO projects and insufficient digital infrastructure to continue studies online. Opportunities included the added interest in PROs as useful outcomes, the value of electronic PROs for staff and patients particularly in relation to integration into systems and the electronic patient records. However, these opportunities came with an understanding that digital exclusion may be an issue for patient groups. Threats identified included that the majority of PRO research was stopped or delayed and funding streams were cut.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most PRO research was on hold during the pandemic, the consensus from participants was that PROs as meaningful outcomes were valued more than ever. From the opportunities afforded by the pandemic the development of electronic PROs and their integration into electronic patient record systems and clinical practice could be a lasting legacy from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Exploring the Nurses' Perspective on Using Remote Electronic Symptom Monitoring in Clinical Decision-Making Among Patients With Metastatic Lung Cancer

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are commonly used in clinical practice, and an important aspect is how healthcare professionals use these measures to make clinical decisions. This study aimed 1) to understand how remote electronic symptom monitoring using PRO measures can support oncology nurses' clinical decision-making in patients with metastatic lung cancer and 2) to explore factors that potentially can influence how remote symptom monitoring supports clinical decision-making.

DATA SOURCES

A qualitative approach using semistructured interviews was conducted with 18 registered nurses working with remote symptom monitoring at oncology departments at eight Danish hospitals.

CONCLUSION

Nurses reported that remote symptom monitoring supports clinical decision-making because it assisted in identifying relevant problems, monitoring relevant changes over time, and prompting relevant clinical actions. Factors that affected how remote symptom monitoring could support clinical decision-making were access to supplemental information, the trustworthiness of PRO data, nursing competencies and responsibilities, working conditions, and care at a distance.

IMPLICATION FOR NURSING PRACTICE

The use of PRO data in the clinical decision-making process is highly dependent on the nurses' professional competencies, the organizational structure, and the trustworthiness of PRO data. Thus, we recommend considering these factors before implementing PRO data in routine care. For example, train clinical staff in using PRO data in their clinical decision-making, develop guidance for how to use PRO data with other forms of data to make sound clinical actions, and ensure that organizational resources are sufficient.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Your Practice Needs

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures offer a unique opportunity to systematically incorporate patient perspectives of their health and wellbeing into treatment, view progress over time, and develop opportunities related to clinical decision support, shared decision making, and outcomes-driven payment and practice transformation. As healthcare institutions increasingly look toward adopting PRO measures in their practices, more information is needed regarding the practicalities of implementing a successful PRO program outside of the research setting. This article offers a stepwise approach to implementing a PRO program while overcoming barriers and leveraging facilitators that commonly exist in the realms of human contribution or team building, technological infrastructure, and process design. To routinely adopt and implement these instruments, we need a multifaceted approach to operationalizing patient-reported outcome measure (PROMs) for high-value outcomes-driven, patient-centered musculoskeletal care.

Development of a Short Form Assessment Combining the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity and the Wolf Motor Function Test for Evaluating Stroke Recovery

OBJECTIVE

To use Rasch methodologies to combine the items of the Fugl-Meyer Assessment-Upper Extremity (FMA-UE, motor skill) and the Wolf Motor Function Test (WMFT, motor function) onto a single measurement metric and create an FMA-UE+WMFT short form.

DESIGN

Secondary analysis of preintervention data from 2 upper extremity stroke rehabilitation trials. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch rating scale analysis were first applied to examine the properties of the pooled item bank and then item response theory methodologies were used to develop the short form. Confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch analysis were then applied to the short form to examine the dimensionality and measurement properties.

SETTING

Outpatient academic medical research center.

PARTICIPANTS

Data from 167 participants who completed the FMA-UE and WMFT (rating scale score) were pooled (N=167). Participants were eligible if they had a stroke ≥3 months prior and had upper extremity (UE) hemiparesis and excluded if they had severe UE hemiparesis, severe UE spasticity, or UE pain.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The dimensionality and measurement properties of the pooled 30-item FMA-UE and the 15-item WMFT and short form were examined.

RESULTS

Five items from the pool of 45 items were misfit and were removed. The 40-item pool demonstrated adequate measurement properties. A 15-item short form was then developed and met rating diagnostic scale criteria. All items on the 15-item short form met the Rasch fit criteria, and the assessment met criteria for reliability (Cronbach alpha=.94), separation (person separation = 3.7), and strata (number of strata = 5).

CONCLUSIONS

Items from the FMA-UE and WMFT can be pooled to create a psychometrically sound 15-item short form.

Delivery of the HIV Service and Telemedicine Through Effective Patient-Reported Outcomes (+STEP) Intervention to Increase Screening and Treatment of Mental Health and Substance Use Disorders for People Living With HIV in Alabama: Protocol for an Effectiveness-Implementation Study

BACKGROUND

The syndemic of mental health (MH) and substance use disorders (SUDs) is common among persons living with HIV and jeopardizes HIV treatment adherence, engagement in care, and viral load suppression. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), completed through tablet or computer, and telemedicine are evidence- and technology-based interventions that have been used to successfully increase screening and treatment, respectively, a model that holds promise for persons living with HIV. To date, there is limited guidance on implementing ePROs and telemedicine into HIV clinical practice even though it is well known that these evidence-based tools improve diagnosis and access to care.

OBJECTIVE

To address this, we aim to conduct a multicomponent intervention for persons living with HIV, including the delivery of HIV services and telemedicine through effective ePROs (+STEP), to increase screening and treatment of MH and SUD in Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program (RWHAP)-funded clinics in Alabama.

METHODS

Through this intervention, we will conduct a readiness, acceptability, and accessibility assessment and implement +STEP to improve the diagnosis and treatment of MH and SUD at RWHAP clinics in Alabama. To describe implementation strategies that address barriers to the uptake of +STEP in RWHAP clinics, we will conduct qualitative interviews in years 1 (early implementation), 2 (scale up), and 4 (maintenance) with patients and key staff to evaluate barriers, facilitators, and implementation strategies. Our Results will enable us to modify strategies to enhance +STEP penetration over time and inform the implementation blueprint, which we will develop for both RWHAP clinics in Alabama and future sites. We will assess the impact of implementing +STEP on diagnoses, referrals, and health care use related to MH, SUD, and HIV by comparing clinical outcomes from patients receiving these interventions (ePROs and telemedicine) with historical controls.

RESULTS

The first study site began implementation in April 2022. A total of 2 additional sites have initiated ePROs. Final results are expected in 2026. The results of this study will provide a foundation for future research expanding access to ePROs for improved diagnosis linked to telemedicine access to accelerate patients along the continuum of care from MH and SUD diagnosis to treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Achieving the end of the HIV epidemic in the United States necessitates programs that accelerate movement across the MH and SUD care continuum from diagnosis to treatment for persons living with HIV. Scaling these services represents a path toward improved treatment outcomes with both individual health and population-level prevention benefits of sustained HIV viral suppression in the era of undetectable=untransmittable (U=U). This study will address this evidence gap through the evaluation of the implementation of +STEP to establish the necessary systems and processes to screen, identify, and better treat substance use and MH for people living with HIV.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

DERR1-10.2196/40470.

Acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic patient reported outcome measure from the perspective of healthcare staff: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a measure of self-perceived health status or health-related quality of life. They have been used to support provider-patient decisions, healthcare delivery, and value-based healthcare models. A barrier to routine collection of PROMs is the perception that PROMs lack clinical utility. As such, it is important to establish clinicians' acceptability of the PROM prior to large-scale implementation. This study explored the acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic PROM in healthcare services from the perspective of healthcare staff.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were completed from September 2020 to March 2021 with 26 staff from two multi-disciplinary community healthcare services in Melbourne, Australia. Interviews explored their experiences of using the EQ-5D-5L in their routine care. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed according to a framework approach, using inductive and deductive techniques.

RESULTS

Participants discussed the acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L with reference to four themes: practicalities of use; holistic nature; influence on client care; and influence on health service. Participants found the EQ-5D-5L quick and easy to administer, and appreciated that it measured multiple domains of health that were relevant to their clients' care. They believed the EQ-5D-5L helped to identify client problems, and inform service delivery. They also reported features that were less acceptable, including a lack of item specificity to some healthcare disciplines. Participants reported the challenge of managing conflict between their assessment of the client's health and the client's perspective of their own health, leading some to question whether the client could provide an accurate reflection of their own health.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-5D-5L has several features that healthcare staff viewed as acceptable for routine collection and use in healthcare. Training on the validity of the patient reported perspective and broadening the scope of PROMs collection beyond the EQ-5D-5L should be considered to facilitate large-scale implementation.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements in chronic and malignant diseases: ten years' experience with PRO-algorithm-based patient-clinician interaction (telePRO) in AmbuFlex

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported Outcome (PRO) measures may be used as the basis for out-patient follow-up instead of fixed appointments. The patients attend follow-up from home by filling in questionnaires developed for that specific aim and patient group (telePRO). The questionnaires are handled in real time by a specific algorithm, which assigns an outcome color reflecting clinical need. The specific questionnaires and algorithms (named solutions) are constructed in a consensus process with clinicians. We aimed to describe AmbuFlex' telePRO solutions and the algorithm outcomes and variation between patient groups, and to discuss possible applications and challenges.

METHODS

TelePRO solutions with more than 100 processed questionnaires were included in the analysis. Data were retrieved together with data from national registers. Characteristics of patients, questionnaires and outcomes were tabulated for each solution. Graphs were constructed depicting the overall and within-patient distribution of algorithm outcomes for each solution.

RESULTS

From 2011 to 2021, 29 specific telePRO solutions were implemented within 24 different ICD-10 groups. A total of 42,015 patients were referred and answered 171,268 questionnaires. An existing applicable instrument with cut-off values was available for four solutions, whereas items were selected or developed ad hoc for the other solutions. Mean age ranged from 10.7 (Pain in children) to 73.3 years (chronic kidney disease). Mortality among referred patients varied between 0 (obesity, asthma, endometriosis and pain in children) and 528 per 1000 patient years (Lung cancer). There was substantial variation in algorithm outcome across patient groups while different solutions within the same patient group varied little.

DISCUSSION

TelePRO can be applied in diseases where PRO can reflect clinical status and needs. Questionnaires and algorithms should be adapted for the specific patient groups and clinical aims. When PRO is used as replacement for clinical contact, special carefulness should be observed with respect to patient safety.

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.

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.

Higher Dissatisfaction Rate Following Revision Compared With Primary Total Knee Arthroplasty: 1-Year Follow-up of 2151 Primary and 235 Aseptic Revision Surgeries

Postoperative patient satisfaction is related to preoperative expectations. Information regarding expected results following surgery is therefore important. This study evaluated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient satisfaction up to 1 year after primary and aseptic revision total knee arthroplasty (TKA). The study included 2151 primary and 235 aseptic revision TKA surgeries conducted between 2010 and 2018. Pain, Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score-Physical Function-Short Form and European Quality of Life-5 Dimension surveys were recorded preoperatively and at 8 weeks and 1 year. To determine satisfaction, patients were asked to rate their knee function compared with that before surgery and to answer whether they would undergo the surgery again given their current knowledge. Patients who had primary TKA improved in all PROMs in each follow-up up to 1 year, whereas patients who had revision TKA showed improvement at 8 weeks with no further improvement at 1 year. In terms of patient satisfaction, 88% of patients in the primary TKA group reported better knee function, and 87% were willing to have the surgery again at 1 year; the proportions were lower for patients who underwent revision TKA (66% and 68%, respectively). Aseptic revision TKA demonstrates inferior PROMs compared with those of primary TKA 1 year after surgery, and more than 30% of the patients who underwent revision TKA stated that they would not have their TKA revised or were uncertain, given the outcome of the procedure. Thus, patients who are candidates for revision TKA should be informed to expect less of an improvement following revision surgery than with the primary TKA. Our findings can facilitate the shared decision-making process by surgeons and patients based on realistic expectations of surgical outcomes. [Orthopedics. 2023;46(1):e52-e57.].

Implementing the Patient Needs in Asthma Treatment (NEAT) questionnaire in routine care: a qualitative study among patients and health professionals

BACKGROUND

Many patients with asthma report unmet health care needs. The Patient Needs in Asthma Treatment (NEAT) questionnaire is a validated instrument to quantify these unmet needs. We explored how health professionals evaluated the instrument's utility as well as patients' and professionals' perspectives of how NEAT could be incorporated into routine clinical practice.

METHODS

Qualitative interviews were conducted by telephone between February and September 2021 with 19 patients with asthma and 21 health professionals (i.e., general practitioners, pneumologists, health professionals in pulmonary rehabilitation, and medical assistants). Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim and content-analyzed using both deductive and inductive approaches using MAXQDA.

RESULTS

Health professionals could see the potential value of using NEAT to inform clinical decisions. However, health professionals tended to be skeptical towards the routine use of NEAT in outpatient settings, mainly due to a lack of time. Implementation of NEAT was seen as more valuable in the context of patient education (i.e., in Disease Management Programs [DMPs] or pulmonary rehabilitation) by patients and health professionals alike, because it offered greater opportunities to address any unmet needs identified. Both patients and health professionals considered it more useful to use the questionnaire for the first time some time after the initial diagnosis has been made (e.g., when the treatment regime is found rather than at time of initial diagnosis). In the context of DMPs and pulmonary rehabilitation, NEAT could be used twice, i.e., before and after patient education to support patient-centered planning and evaluation.

CONCLUSION

Both patients and health professionals consider the use of the NEAT, in particular in educational programs (i.e., during DMPs or pulmonary rehabilitation), as feasible and useful. There is now a need to undertake a feasibility trial in routine care.

Implementing electronic patient reported outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease: patient participation, score reliability and validity

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are recommended for assessing patient-centered outcomes in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). The main aims were to assess the level of participation in an electronic PROM (ePROM) data collection system among patients with IBD, and evaluate reliability and validity of the resulting scores.

METHODS

Patients included in the IBD registry of Maccabi Healthcare Services, a state-mandated healthcare provider for over 2.6 million people in Israel, were invited to complete the IBD-Control measure and a general health item, with follow-up ePROMs at 3 and 6 months including a global rating of change item. Descriptive statistics were used to compare patient characteristics by participation rate, and assess survey completion time. Initial scores were assessed for internal consistency reliability using Cronbach's alpha. Test-retest reliability was assessed using the intraclass correlation coefficient from paired scores of patients identified as unchanged between the initial and first follow-up. Construct validity was assessed by the ability of IBD-control scores to discriminate between patient sub-groups in expected ways. Empirical validity was assessed using ePROM score correlations with laboratory markers of disease activity. Score coverage was also assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 13,588 patients were invited to participate [Mean age = 49 years (SD = 17); females = 51%]. Participation rate was 31.5%. Participants compared to non-participants were slightly older, were more likely to be female, to have a history of biologic treatment, to have higher socio-economic status, and to be more experienced in the usage of the digital patient portal. Median survey completion time was approximately 1:30 min. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were 0.86 and 0.98, respectively. Scores discriminated between patient sub-groups in clinically expected ways, with expected correlations to laboratory markers of disease activity. A notable ceiling effect was observed (> 15%) for IBD-Control scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Feasibility, reliability, and validity of the ePROM system was supported for measuring the level of perceived disease control in patients diagnosed with IBD in Israel. Additional research is needed to identify ways to increase patient participation, assess clinical implications of the identified measurement ceiling of the IBD-control, and evaluate the added value of the derived scores in support of clinical decision making.

The Role of Wearable Technology in Measuring and Supporting Patient Outcomes Following Total Joint Replacement: Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

The incidence rate of total joint replacement (TJR) continues to increase due to the aging population and the surgery that is very successful in providing pain relief to and improving function among patients with advanced knee or hip arthritis. Improving patient outcomes and patient satisfaction after TJR remain important goals. Wearable technologies provide a novel way to capture patient function and activity data and supplement clinical measures and patient-reported outcome measures in order to better understand patient outcomes after TJR.

OBJECTIVE

We examined the current literature to evaluate the potential role of wearable devices and compare them with existing methods for monitoring and improving patient rehabilitation and outcomes following TJR.

METHODS

We performed a literature search by using the research databases supported by the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School's Lamar Soutter Library, including PubMed and Scopus, supplemented with the Google Scholar search engine. A specific search strategy was used to identify articles discussing the use of wearable devices in measuring and affecting postoperative outcomes of patients who have undergone TJR. Selected papers were organized into a spreadsheet and categorized for our qualitative literature review to assess how wearable data correlated with clinical measures and patient-reported outcome measures.

RESULTS

A total of 9 papers were selected. The literature showed the impact of wearable devices on evaluating and improving postoperative functional outcomes. Wearable-collected data could be used to predict postoperative clinical measures, such as range of motion and Timed Up and Go times. When predicting patient-reported outcomes, specifically Hip Disability and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores/Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Scores and Veterans RAND 12-Item Health Survey scores, strong associations were found between changes in sensor-collected data and changes in patient-reported outcomes over time. Further, the step counts of patients who received feedback from a wearable improved over time when compared to those of patients who did not receive feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that wearable technology has the potential to remotely measure and improve postoperative orthopedic patient outcomes. We anticipate that this review will facilitate further investigation into whether wearable devices are viable tools for guiding the clinical management of TJR rehabilitation.

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.

Association of Function, Symptoms, and Social Support Reported in Standardized Outpatient Clinic Questionnaires With Subsequent Hospital Discharge Disposition and 30-Day Readmissions

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether patient-reported information, routinely collected in an outpatient setting, is associated with readmission within 30 days of discharge and/or the need for post-acute care after a subsequent hospital admission.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study. Six domains of patient-reported information collected in the outpatient setting (psychological distress, respiratory symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, family support, mobility, and activities of daily living [ADLs]) were linked to electronic health record hospitalization data. Mixed effects logistic regression models with random intercepts were used to identify the association between the 6 domains and outcomes.

SETTING

Outpatient clinics and hospitals in a Midwestern health system.

PARTICIPANTS

7671 patients who were hospitalized 11,445 times between May 2004 and May 2014 (N=7671).

INTERVENTION

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

30-day hospital readmission and discharge home vs facility.

RESULTS

Domains were significantly associated with 30-day readmission and placement in a facility. Specifically, mobility (odds ratio [OR]=1.30; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16, 1.46), ADLs (OR=1.27; 95% CI, 1.13, 1.42), respiratory symptoms (OR=1.26; 95% CI, 1.12, 1.41), and psychological distress (OR=1.20; 95% CI, 1.07, 1.35) had the strongest associations with 30-day readmission. The ADL (OR=2.52; 95% CI, 2.26, 2.81), mobility (OR=2.35; 95% CI, 2.10, 2.63), family support (OR=2.28; 95% CI, 1.98, 2.62), and psychological distress (OR=1.38; 95% CI, 1.25, 1.52) domains had the strongest associations with discharge to an institution.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient-reported function, symptoms, and social support routinely collected in outpatient clinics are associated with future 30-day readmission and discharge to an institutional setting. Whether these data can be leveraged to guide interventions to address patient needs and improve outcomes requires further research.

How the Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hemodialysis Care Influences Patient-Clinician Communication: A Mixed-Methods Study

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures invite patients to self-report aspects of their quality of life and have been reported to enhance communication with clinicians. We aimed to examine how routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in in-center hemodialysis units influenced patient-clinician communication.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

A concurrent, longitudinal, mixed-methods approach was used. We used data from a cluster randomized controlled trial of 17 hemodialysis units in northern Alberta that introduced a patient-reported outcome measures intervention. Patient-clinician communication was assessed using a modified Communication Assessment Tool. Using interpretive description, we explored patients' and nurses' perceptions of communication pertaining to routine patient-reported outcome measure use. Through purposeful sampling, we interviewed ten patients and eight nurses and conducted six observations in the dialysis units, which were documented in field notes. We reviewed 779 patient responses to open-ended survey questions from randomized controlled trial data. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.

RESULTS

Overall, patient-reported outcome measure use did not substantively improve patient-clinician communication. There was a small positive change in mean total Communication Assessment Tool scores (range, 1-5) from baseline to 12 months in patient-reported outcome measure use units (0.25) but little difference from control group units that did not use patient-reported outcome measures (0.21). The qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into why patient-reported outcome measure use did not improve patient-clinician communication. The purpose of patient-reported outcome measure use was not always understood by patients and clinicians; patient-reported outcome measures were not implemented as originally intended in the trial, despite clinician training; there were challenges using patient-reported outcome measures as a means to communicate; and patient-reported outcome measure use was perceived to have limited value.

CONCLUSIONS

While patient-reported outcome measures use did not improve patient-clinician communication, qualitative data suggest implementation challenges, including limited clarity of purpose and perceived limited value, that may have limited the effectiveness of the intervention.

Tracking dynamic changes in implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 trial of an electronic patient-reported oncology symptom and needs monitoring program

Background

Longitudinal tracking of implementation strategies is critical in accurately reporting when and why they are used, for promoting rigor and reproducibility in implementation research, and could facilitate generalizable knowledge if similar methods are used across research projects. This article focuses on tracking dynamic changes in the use of implementation strategies over time within a hybrid type 2 effectiveness-implementation trial of an evidence-based electronic patient-reported oncology symptom assessment for cancer patient-reported outcomes in a single large healthcare system.

Methods

The Longitudinal Implementation Strategies Tracking System (LISTS), a timeline follow-back procedure for documenting strategy use and modifications, was applied to the multiyear study. The research team used observation, study records, and reports from implementers to complete LISTS in an electronic data entry system. Types of modifications and reasons were categorized. Determinants associated with each strategy were collected as a justification for strategy use and a potential explanation for strategy modifications.

Results

Thirty-four discrete implementation strategies were used and at least one strategy was used from each of the nine strategy categories from the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) taxonomy. Most of the strategies were introduced, used, and continued or discontinued according to a prospective implementation plan. Relatedly, a small number of strategies were introduced, the majority unplanned, because of the changing healthcare landscape, or to address an emergent barrier. Despite changing implementation context, there were relatively few modifications to the way strategies were enacted, such as a change in the actor, action, or dose. Few differences were noted between the trial's three regional units under investigation.

Conclusion

This study occurred within the ambulatory oncology clinics of a large, academic medical center and was supported by the Quality team of the health system to ensure greater uptake, uniformity, and implementation within established practice change processes. The centralized nature of the implementation likely contributed to the relatively low proportion of modified strategies and the high degree of uniformity across regions. These results demonstrate the potential of LISTS in gathering the level of data needed to understand the impact of the many implementation strategies used to support adoption and delivery of a multilevel innovation.

Clinical trial registration

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04014751, identifier: NCT04014751.

The predictive value of patient-reported outcomes on the impact of breast cancer treatment-related quality of life

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been widely used to measure breast cancer (BC) treatment outcomes. However, evidence is still limited on using routinely PROs to personalize treatment decision-making, including or not chemotherapy, targeted therapy, and radiotherapy. Using patient baseline PRO scores, we aimed to use PROs before treatment initiation to predict improvement or decline in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) due to treatment that they receive.

Methods

In two French cancer sites, women with non-metastatic BC completed the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and BREAST-Q questionnaires to assess their PROs at baseline and again at 6 months. The outcome measured was post-operative change in PROs with minimal important difference for QLQ-C30 domains. We performed multivariate ordinal logistic regression to estimate the incremental probability of post-operative PRO improvements and deteriorations depending upon treatment options and baseline HRQoL.

Results

One hundred twenty-seven women completed questionnaires. Chemotherapy had significant negative impacts on Global health status (GHS) and on physical and social functioning. Chemotherapy and radiotherapy increased patient fatigue scores after adjusting for clinical factors (p< 0.01 and p< 0.05, respectively). The incremental probability of GHS deteriorations for chemotherapy was +0.3, +0.5, and +0.34 for patients with baseline GHS scores of 40, 70, and 100, respectively. This showed that different pre-treatment PROs might predict differential effects of chemotherapy on women change in HRQoL.

Conclusion

Patients with different baseline PRO scores may experience dissimilar impacts from BC treatments on post-operative PROs in terms of improvements and deteriorations. Oncologists might decide to adapt the treatment option based on a given level of the negative impact. Future studies should concentrate on incorporating this information into routine clinical decision-making strategies to optimize the treatment benefit for patients.

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.

Feasibility and acceptability of electronic EQ-5D-5L for routine measurement of HRQOL in patients with chronic musculoskeletal problems in Hong Kong primary care

BACKGROUND

Information on HRQOL can enhance patient diagnosis and management but it is rarely available in routine clinical practice. This mixed-method study evaluated the feasibility and acceptability of the electronic EQ-5D-5L measurement of HRQOL in patients with chronic musculoskeletal problems in primary care.

METHODS

In three primary care clinics, 665 patients with musculoskeletal problems completed the electronic EQ-5D-5L and Visual Analogue Scale (e-EQ-5D-5L/VAS), and a questionnaire on socio-demographics, perceived ease of use (PEOU), and perceived usefulness (PU) at baseline and two follow-ups. Patient completion and response rates, and time to complete the e-EQ-5D-5L/VAS were measured. During the same consultations, 49 doctors reviewed the e-EQ-5D-5L/VAS reports and completed a clinician questionnaire on PEOU, PU, and time spent to address each report. Individual interviews along with focus group discussions were conducted on patients, doctors, and research assistants for further exploration.

RESULTS

Mean completion time reduced from baseline to first and second follow-up (120.66, 83.99, and 105.22 s, respectively). Completion and response rates were high at each follow-up visit (> 99.8% and > 91.11%, respectively). Doctors needed less than 2 min to read the report but felt the time required to address the report was a significant barrier. Some patients had difficulties using e-platforms, in understanding or answering questions; but, PEOU improved with time (p < 0.001). Most patients found the e-platforms useful (> 85.3%). Clinicians agreed a great majority of the reports were easy to use (76.0-85.1%) and useful (69.2-72.0%), particularly aiding with a holistic view of the patient's musculoskeletal problem.

CONCLUSION

The e-EQ-5D-5L/VAS is a feasible and acceptable measurement of HRQOL of patients with chronic musculoskeletal problems in routine primary care in Hong Kong which can assist real-time management decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03609762.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in HIV Infection: Points to Consider and Challenges

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to reach consensus on the use of PROs (patient-reported outcome measures) in people living with HIV (PLHIV).

METHODS

A scientific committee of professionals with experience in PROMs methodology issued recommendations and defined the points to support by evidence. A systematic review of the literature identified the coverage, utility, and psychometric properties of PROMs used in PLHIV. A Delphi survey was launched to measure the degree of agreement with the recommendations of a group of practicing clinicians and a group of patient representatives.

RESULTS

Four principles and ten recommendations were issued; however, the results of the Delphi showed significant differences in the opinion between health professionals and PLHIV, and polarization within collectives, hampering consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a wealth of evidence on the benefit of PROMs, there are clear barriers to their use by healthcare professionals in HIV care. Intervention on these barriers is paramount to allow truly patient-centered care.

Use of computerised adaptive testing to reduce the number of items in patient-reported hip and knee outcome scores: an analysis of the NHS England National Patient-Reported Outcome Measures programme

OBJECTIVE

Over 160 000 participants per year complete the 12-item Oxford Hip and Knee Scores (OHS/OKS) as part of the NHS England Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) programme. We used a modern computational approach, known as computerised adaptive testing (CAT), to simulate individually tailored OHS and OKS assessment, with the goal of reducing the number of questions a patient must complete without compromising measurement accuracy.

METHODS

We fit the 2018/2019 PROMs data to an item response theory (IRT) model. We assessed IRT model assumptions alongside reliability. We used parameters from the IRT model with data from 2017/2018 to simulate CAT assessments. Two simulations were run until a prespecified SE of measurement was met (SE=0.32 and SE=0.45). We compared the number of questions required to meet each cut-off and assessed the correlation between the full-length and CAT administration.

RESULTS

We conducted IRT analysis using 40 432 OHS and 44 714 OKS observations. The OHS and OKS were both unidimensional (root mean square error of approximation 0.08 and 0.07, respectively) and marginal reliability 0.91 and 0.90. The CAT, with a precision limit of SE=0.32 and SE=0.45, required a median of four items (IQR 1) and two items (IQR 1), respectively, for the OHS, and median of four items (IQR 2) and two items (IQR 0) for the OKS. This represents a potential 82% reduction in PROM length. In the context of 160 000 yearly assessments, these methodologies could result in the omission of some 1 280 000 redundant questions per year, which equates to 40 000 hours of patient time.

CONCLUSION

The application of IRT to the OHS and OKS produces an efficient and substantially reduced CAT. We have demonstrated a path to reduce the burden and potentially increase the compliance for these ubiquitous outcome measures without compromising measurement accuracy.

Patient Goals and Motivation for Thumb Carpometacarpal Osteoarthritis Surgery

BACKGROUND

Knowledge is lacking on patient goals and motivation for carpometacarpal joint osteoarthritis (CMCJ OA) surgery. The objective of this study was to explore patient goals and motivation for surgery, whether patient goals were reflected in self-reports of pain and function, and factors characterizing patients highly motivated for surgery.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included 180 patients referred from their general practitioner for CMCJ surgical consultation. Goals for surgery were collected with an open-ended question, categorized with the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health coding system, and compared to self-reports of pain and function. Motivation for surgery was rated with a Numeric Rating Scale (NRS, 0-10, 0 = not motivated). Factors characterizing patients highly motivated for surgery (NRS ≥ 8) were explored with multivariate regression analyses.

RESULTS

The mean age of the participants was 63 years (SD = 7.6), and 142 (79%) were women. The most common goals for surgery were to reduce pain and improve arm and hand use, but these were not reflected in self-reports of pain and function. Fifty-six (31%) of the patients were characterized as highly motivated for surgery. High motivation for surgery was strongly associated with reporting more activity limitations (odds ratio [OR] = 4.00, P = .008), living alone (OR = 3.18, P = .007), and a young age (OR = 0.94, P = .002).

CONCLUSIONS

Decisions on CMCJ OA surgery should be based on assessment and discussion of patients' life situation, hand pain, activity limitations for, and goals and motivation for surgery. According to the european league against rheumatism (EULAR) recommendations, previously received conservative and pharmacological treatment should also be evaluated.

Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a web-based routine assessment with integrated recommendations for action for depression and anxiety (RehaCAT+): protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial for patients with elevated depressive symptoms in rehabilitation facilities

INTRODUCTION

The integration of a web-based computer-adaptive patient-reported outcome test (CAT) platform with persuasive design optimised features including recommendations for action into routine healthcare could provide a promising way to translate reliable diagnostic results into action. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of such a platform for depression and anxiety (RehaCAT+) compared with the standard diagnostic system (RehaCAT) in cardiological and orthopaedic health clinics in routine care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A two-arm, pragmatic, cluster-randomised controlled trial will be conducted. Twelve participating rehabilitation clinics in Germany will be randomly assigned to a control (RehaCAT) or experimental group (RehaCAT+) in a 1:1 design. A total sample of 1848 participants will be recruited across all clinics. The primary outcome, depression severity at 12 months follow-up (T3), will be assessed using the CAT Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Emotional Distress-Depression Item set. Secondary outcomes are depression at discharge (T1) and 6 months follow-up (T2) as well as anxiety, satisfaction with participation in social roles and activities, pain impairment, fatigue, sleep, health-related quality of life, self-efficacy, physical functioning, alcohol, personality and health economic-specific general quality of life and socioeconomic cost and benefits at T1-3. User behaviour, acceptance, facilitating and hindering factors will be assessed with semistructured qualitative interviews. Additionally, a smart sensing substudy will be conducted, with daily ecological momentary assessments and passive collection of smartphone usage variables. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle with additional per-protocol analyses. Cost-effectiveness analyses will be conducted from a societal perspective and the perspective of the statutory pension insurance.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study will be conducted according to the Declaration of Helsinki. The Ethics Committee of Ulm University, has approved the study (on 24 February 2021 ref. 509/20). Written informed consent will be obtained for all participants. Results will be published via peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

DRKS00027447.

Patient-Centered Core Impact Sets: What They are and Why We Need Them

A quote attributed to Mark Twain states, “What gets us into trouble is not what we don’t know. It’s what we know for sure that just ain’t so.” The growing focus on patient centricity has revealed a misalignment between what patients report as important to them about their disease and/or treatment, and the data collected in research and care. Decisions across healthcare are made using an evidence base most stakeholders acknowledge is inadequate. Patients might report that what is important to them are everyday life impacts, concepts that can be very different from the more typical clinical outcomes we often track. In this paper, we encourage expanding current thinking to all “impacts,” not only health outcomes, but also the other equally (and sometimes more important) concerns patients report as important to them. We propose that a patient-centered core impact set be developed for each disease or condition of interest, and/or subpopulation of patients. A patient-centered core impact set begins with gathering from patients and caregivers an inventory of all impacts disease and treatments have on a patient’s (and carers’ and families’) life. Then, through a formal prioritization process, a core set of impacts is derived, inclusive of but extending beyond relevant health outcomes. We offer several recommendations on how to move the goal of a patient-centered core impact set forward through collaboration, leadership, and establishment of a patient-centered core impact set development blueprint with supporting tools.

Measuring functional outcomes in major trauma: can we do better?

PURPOSE

There is relatively limited large scale, long-term unified evidence to describe how quality of life (QoL) and functional outcomes are affected after polytrauma. The aim of this study is to review validated measures available to assess QoL and functional outcomes and make recommendations on how best to assess patents after major trauma.

METHODS

PubMed and EMBASE databases were interrogated to identify suitable patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in major trauma, and current practice in their use globally.

RESULTS

Overall, 81 papers met the criteria for inclusion and evaluation. Data from these were synthesised. A full set of validated PROMs tools were identified for patients with polytrauma, as well as critique of current tools available, allowing us to evaluate practice and recommend specific outcome measures for patients following polytrauma, and system changes needed to embed this in routine practice moving forward.

CONCLUSION

To achieve optimal outcomes for patients with polytrauma, we will need to focus on what matters most to them, including their needs (and unmet needs). The use of appropriate PROMs allows evaluation and improvement in the care we can offer. Transformative effects have been noted in cases where they have been used to guide treatment, and if embedded as part of the wider system, it should lead to better overall outcomes. Accordingly, we have made recommendations to this effect. It is time to seize the day, bring these measures even further into our routine practice, and be part of shaping the future.

Relating person-centredness to quality-of-life assessments and patient-reported outcomes in healthcare: A critical theoretical discussion

Engagement with the historical and theoretical underpinnings of measuring quality of life (QoL) and patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) in healthcare is important. Ideas and values that shape such practices—and in the endgame, people's lives—might otherwise remain unexamined, be taken for granted or even essentialized. Our aim is to explicate and theoretically discuss the philosophical tenets underlying the practices of QoL assessment and PRO measurement in relation to the notion of person‐centredness. First, we engage with the late‐modern history of the concept of QoL and the act of assessing and measuring it. Working with the historical method of genealogy, we describe the development of both QoL assessments and PRO measures (PROMs) within healthcare by accounting for the contextual conditions for their possibility. In this way, the historical and philosophical underpinnings of these measurement practices are highlighted. We move on to analyse theoretical and philosophical underpinnings regarding the use of PROMs and QoL assessments in clinical practice, as demonstrated in review studies thereof. Finally, we offer a critical analysis regarding the state of theory in the literature and conclude that, although improved person‐centredness is an implied driver of QoL assessments and PROMs in clinical practice, enhanced theoretical underpinning of the development of QoL assessments is called for.

A Standard Set of Value-Based Patient-Centered Outcomes and Measures of Overall Health in Adults

BACKGROUND

The definition of population-specific outcomes is an essential precondition for the implementation of value-based health care. We developed a minimum standard outcome set for overall adult health (OAH) to facilitate the implementation of value-based health care in tracking, comparing, and improving overall health care outcomes of adults across multiple conditions, which would be of particular relevance for primary care and public health populations.

METHODS

The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) convened an international panel (patients, clinicians, and topic experts). Following the development of a conceptual framework, a modified Delphi method (supported by public consultations) was implemented to identify, in sequence, the relevant domains, the best instruments for measuring them, the timing of measurement, and the relevant adjustment variables.

FINDINGS

Outcomes were identified in relation to overall health status and the domains of physical, mental, and social health. Three instruments covering these domains were identified: PROMIS Scale v1.2-Global Health (10 items), WHO Wellbeing Index (5 items), and the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (12 items). Case-mix variables included a range of sociodemographic and biometric measures. Yearly measurement was proposed for all outcomes and most case-mix variables.

INTERPRETATION

The ICHOM OAH Standard Set has been developed through consensus-based methods based on predefined criteria following high standards for the identification and selection of high-quality measures The involvements of a wide range of stakeholders supports the acceptability of the set, which is readily available for use and feasibility testing in clinical settings.

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.

Readiness, acceptance and use of digital patient reported outcome in an outpatient clinic

Use of digital patient-reported outcomes is being introduced in care of chronic conditions, including Inflammatory Bowel Disease. The aim is to supplement face-to-face follow-up sessions through symptom screening, and to inform follow-up through questions about mental health and quality of life. However, little is known about who is using this as intended. This study aimed to map differences between users and non-users among people with IBD and explore the mechanisms behind. We administered a questionnaire including the Readiness and Enablement Index for Health Technology (ReadHy) and the Service User Technology Acceptability Questionnaire (SUTAQ) to all people with IBD registered at Silkeborg Regional Hospital. Comparison between users and non-users and cluster analysis was conducted. Effect size (Cohen's d) was used to estimate magnitude of difference between groups. The user and non-user groups differed most strongly by level of emotional distress (d = 0.45). Cluster analysis of the ReadHy scales showed profiles have different sets of difficulties and reservations towards digital solutions. These difficulties correlated moderately with SUTAQ dissatisfaction and low acceptability. The dimensions of ReadHy may help to better understand particular needs of people with IBD when accessing digital PROs, which may lead to higher acceptability and improved quality of care.