Exploration of the use and impact of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in oncology settings: A systematic review.

Abstract

166 Background: In addition to patient-reported outcome measures, the use of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) is also developing as a patient-centred method for evaluating health performance. PREMs are tools that measure patients’ experience of health care including accessibility, the physical environment of services, and their interactions with health service providers and clinicians. This systematic review aimed to explore the use and impact of PREMs in the clinical care of cancer patients and survivors. Methods: This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. An a priori protocol was established and systematic searches of major databases (CINAHL, Medline, PsycINFO, Ovid Emcare and Scopus) were conducted between 2009 and 2019. Quantitative studies of adult or paediatric populations were eligible for inclusion. Articles reporting patient satisfaction only were excluded. Quality appraisal was conducted using the Johanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools. A narrative synthesis of findings was conducted. Results: A total of 3246 articles were screened for eligibility with 45 studies included in the systematic review. The majority of included studies (n=37) were cross-sectional in design with a variety of PREMs used, most commonly the National Cancer Patient Experience Survey. Most studies were assessed as ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ for quality. Studies were categorised according to the use of the PREM with the majority (n=40) utilising a PREM to evaluate cancer services at the service or national level, and five using a PREM to evaluate a specific clinical intervention. Various gaps in care were identified across studies highlighting areas for improvement such as time to diagnosis and information provision. Few studies reported the barriers or enablers to PREM collection or discussed service improvement initiatives arising from them. Conclusions: Whilst PREM collection is becoming more common in oncology settings, the use and impact of this valuable data is not well reported. Patients willingly share their experiences of oncology care, yet planned or complete actions resulting from the data to improve care are seldom reported. The collection of PREMs should be met with a commitment to service improvement and longitudinal collection of PREMs is recommended to evaluate quality improvement initiatives.