The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMC Health Services Research
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 researc...
2020
Background: Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about strategies for implementing individual-level PROMs and PREMs data by healthcare providers in their everyday practice.Methods: This mixed method systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases with limiters of English from 2009 to 2019. Study selection criteria includes implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible st...
Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2006
Rationale, aims and objectives Regular use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) by health care providers in their routine practice may help to improve the quality of care, but more evidence is needed before routine use of PROMs can be recommended. A structured review was undertaken to examine whether and how regular use of PROMs might improve routine practice. Methods A systematic search of Medline accessed through Webspirs Silverplatter was undertaken for the years 1976-2004. Controlled trials in English evaluating the impact of clinical use of PROMs on routine practice were included. Data regarding study design, characteristics of PROMs feedback, patient populations and study results were extracted by three reviewers. Results Feedback of PROMs results to health care providers appears to have a substantial impact on some processes of care, particularly on diagnosis of mental health conditions. However, the impact on patient health status is less consistent. Most of the published studies evaluated PROMs as a one-off screening technology and measured only provider behaviours and patient health outcomes. Conclusions The pattern of results suggests a general lack of clarity in the field, especially regarding appropriate goals for PROMs and the mechanisms by which they might achieve them. To fully evaluate their role in routine practice, studies need to use PROMs that capture issues of importance to patients and to measure impacts relating to the patient-provider relationship and patient contributions to their well-being. Until studies evaluate PROMs as a means facilitate patient-centred care, their full potential in clinical practice will remain unknown.
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
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 le...
Background Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand the current use of PROMs in primary care, barriers and facilitators, and how their use might be optimised. Methods Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs. Results Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n=66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n=62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barri...
2020
Background: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised. Methods: Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs’ opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors’ community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs. Results: Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussi...
Monitoring of patients' physical and psychological problems during and after cancer treatment is essential in modern oncology practice. Traditional clinical methods can be supplemented by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measures (PROMs) measures. The potential role of PROMs is recognised and endorsed by national and international practice guidelines. The introduction of formal measurement of PROMs in clinical practice is a complex health care innovation requiring careful planning, design and successful implementation of a number of essential components, such as choosing the patient questionnaire(s), a convenient affordable electronic method for reporting and display in hospital records and engaging clinicians to use and act on the reports. There is mounting research evidence that using PROMs in individual patient care in oncology is beneficial to patients, but this approach has not found a place in routine clinical practice. A brief overview of this evidence will be provided. Following this, the presentation will focus on examples of incorporating PROMs and eHealth interventions into routine patient care during and after cancer treatment, drawing on 20 years' experience in Leeds of using electronic systems for capturing patient reported data in oncology settings. Examples will be given of: 1) Monitoring toxicity during systemic cancer treatment using online PROMs integrated with Electronic Patient Records (randomized trial part of NIHR eRAPID programme); 2) Service development project-Remote follow-up of testicular cancer patients using online PROMs plus community-based investigations. Examples of other online PROMs systems will be presented. The values and challenges of PROMs integration in routine oncology practice will be discussed.
Patient reported outcome measures in practice
BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2015
Patient reported outcome measures in practice Scores of tools to measure outcomes that matter to patients have been developed over the past 30 years but few are used routinely at the point of care. Nelson and colleagues describe examples where they are used in primary and secondary care and argue for their wider uptake to improve quality of care
2019
BackgroundPatient reported outcomes (PROs) provide information on a patient’s health status coming directly from the patient. Measuring PROs with patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) has gained wide interest in clinical practice for individual patient care, as well as in quality improvement, and for providing transparency of outcomes to stakeholders through public reporting. However, current knowledge of selecting and implementing PROMs for these purposes is scattered, and not readily available for clinicians and quality managers in healthcare organizations. The objective of this study is to develop a framework with tools to support the systematic selection, implementation and evaluation of PROs and PROMs in individual patient care, for quality improvement and public reporting.MethodsWe developed the framework in a national project in the Netherlands following a user-centered design. The development process of the framework contained five iterative components: (a) identificatio...