Use of patient-reported outcome measures in everyday clinical practice in ophthalmology: results of a European multicountry survey

BackgroundVenous thromboembolism (VTE) can considerably limit patients' functioning and quality of life. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the full impact of VTE on individual patients can be captured.MethodsTo evaluate the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals with the routine use of PROMs for VTE patients visiting the outpatient clinic, a mixed-methods study was performed at Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. VTE PROMs were incorporated into routine care since March 2023, through a digital application sending patients invitations to complete PROMs. Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with patients and involved healthcare professionals. The NoMAD (normalization measure development) questionnaire was used to assess the implementation process from the professionals' perspective. Patients aged ≥18 years who experienced VTE and completed PROMs at two follow-up time points during ≥3 months follow-up and VTE patients who did not complete PROMs at both time points were asked to participate.ResultsEight patients (five completed PROMs; three did not) and four professionals were interviewed. Both patients and professionals experienced the use of PROMs as neutral to predominantly positive (lower limit 3 on a scale of 1–5). All professionals valued the effects of PROMs on their work. Most patients felt the questionnaires contained too many questions. Suggestions to improve the completion rate, accessibility, PROMs content, and the digital tool were shared.ConclusionPROMs were believed to provide additional value during preparation for the appointment and during the consultation. The first experiences of patients and professionals, tending toward positive, can be used to improve PROMs application and support implementation in routine thrombosis care.

BackgroundDiscrepancies in symptom assessment between providers and patients are reported in cancer care, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been recommended for patients receiving palliative care. However, the status of the routine use of PROMs in palliative care in Japan is presently unclear. Therefore, this study aimed to clarify this complex question. To this end, we administered a questionnaire survey either online or via telephone interviews (questionnaire: sent to 427 designated cancer hospitals, 423 palliative care units [PCUs], and 197 home hospices; interviews: conducted at 13 designated cancer hospitals, nine PCUs, and two home hospices).ResultsQuestionnaires were returned from 458 institutions (44% response rate). We found that 35 palliative care teams (PCTs, 15%), 66 outpatient palliative care services (29%), 24 PCUs (11%) and one (5%) home hospice routinely used PROMs. The most frequently implemented instrument was the Comprehensive Care Needs Survey questionnaire. Moreover, 99 institutions (92%) that routinely used PROMs responded these instruments as useful in relieving patients’ symptoms; and moreover, the response rate in regard to usefulness in symptom management was higher than that of institutions that did not routinely use PROMs (p = 0.002); > 50% of the institutions that routinely used PROMs stated that use of these instruments was influenced by disease progression and patients’ cognitive function. Moreover, 24 institutions agreed to be interviewed, and interviews demonstrated the benefits of and the barriers to the implementation of PROMs. Effective methods used in the implementation of PROMs were introduced as efforts to reduce the burden placed on patients and to promote healthcare providers’ education in the use of PROMs.ConclusionsThis survey quantified the status of the routine use of PROMs within specialized palliative care in Japan, revealed barriers to wider PROM use, and identified needed innovations. Only 108 institutions (24%) routinely used PROMs within specialized palliative care. Based on the results of the study, it is necessary to carefully consider the usefulness of PROs in clinical palliative care, perform careful selection of PROMs according to the patient's condition, and evaluate how specifically to introduce and operate PROMs.

BackgroundThere is a growing interest among healthcare providers (HCPs) to use Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in clinical care. PROMs can help improve patient-care provider communication and may be used to inform the need for interdisciplinary care for Low Back Pain (LBP). However, PROM implementation to support clinical decision-making is complex and requires knowledge translation (KT) interventions that will overcome barriers to using PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical settings.Objectivesto 1) identify potential barriers and enablers to using PROMs in primary care LBP clinical practice from the perspective of healthcare team members, and 2) develop a theory-based tailored KT intervention to facilitate the use of PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical practice.MethodsWe invited 25 HCPs working in an interdisciplinary team to complete a self-administered survey designed based on the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) to identify the barriers and enablers to using PROM scores in LBP clinical practice. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and included open-ended questions (qualitative). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed to estimate the frequency of barriers and enablers. Findings were then reviewed by a panel of four KT experts who mapped behaviour change techniques to barriers identified that informed the design of a KT intervention.ResultsEighteen HCPs responded to the survey. Factors identified as likely to restrict the use of PROM scores included knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, goals, decision processes, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, behavioural regulation, and social influence. A multi-component evidence-based KT intervention was proposed by the panel of experts to address these barriers: a training workshop; educational materials; and use of PROM score reports to HCPs that were all delivered by an opinion leader.ConclusionThe routine use of PROMs in clinical practice may optimize the quality of LBP care and improve patients’ outcomes. The proposed multi-component KT intervention is expected to be an effective strategy to increase HCPs’ ability to integrate PROMs into clinical decision-making and to engage patients in their care.

Within healthcare services, there is increasing emphasis to incorporate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), rather than relying solely on clinical outcomes. A 12-item caries-specific measure (CARIES-QC) has been developed and validated for children aged 5–16 years. To date, the routine use of PROMs in paediatric dentistry new patient clinics (NPC) has not been reported. The aim was to conduct a pilot study to assess the feasibility, utility and validity of routine use of a PROM in paediatric dentistry NPC in a UK teaching hospital. Children attending NPC over a four-week period were asked to complete CARIES-QC with an additional free-text box. Interviews were held with members of staff to assess the feasibility of using a PROM routinely. CARIES-QC was completed by 99 children. Almost half of the participants had caries (n = 49, 49.5%). CARIES-QC demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.9) and reliability with the global question (r = 0.75, p = 0.01). Clinical staff valued the information provided by the PROM. An electronic delivery method would be beneficial to both clinical and administrative staff. CARIES-QC was able to capture impacts for children with a range of oral conditions. Its use aided treatment planning and future studies should investigate the use of an electronic delivery system to reduce the administrative burden.

IntroductionRecently, the literature has promoted the use of patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical practice as a means to foster patient engagement. However, conditions necessary to support the use of PROMs to encourage asthma patient engagement are not clearly defined. Therefore, we sought (1) to explore the current and ideal use of PROMs by healthcare professionals (HP) in specialized asthma management centers in French‐speaking Belgium and (2) to understand under which conditions the use of PROMs contributes to patient engagement.MethodsWe undertook a mixed‐methods study with both anonymous online survey and in‐person qualitative semi‐structured interviews conducted with HPs to understand their perspectives on the routine use of PROMs. HPs were recruited from 16 asthma centers (French‐speaking Belgium) identified via the Belgian Respiratory Society.ResultsOf the 170 HPs identified from the 16 participating centers, 51 (30%) responded to the survey (n = 51) and 11 completed semi‐structured interviews. 53% (27/51) of the surveyed HPs reported using PROMs primarily for asthma monitoring and clinical research while all reported that PROMs should primarily be used in practice to facilitate communication with the patient and to address neglected aspects of the care relationship such as the psychosocial aspects of the disease. The qualitative interviews revealed avenues for moving from a medical‐centered and utilitarian use of PROMs to a use serving patient engagement. This would require HPs to go beyond their current representation of PROMs, to use instruments offering a more holistic image of the patient, to incorporate PROMs into a digital tool and to integrate PROMs in a patient education process.ConclusionThe main findings of this study suggest relevant avenues for using PROMs in ways that support patient engagement.

In 2013, the Royal Dutch Society for Physical Therapy launched the program "Quality in Motion." This program aims to collect data from electronic health record systems in a registry that is fed back to physical therapists, facilitating quality improvement. The purpose of this study was to describe the development of an implementation strategy for the program and to evaluate the feasibility of building a registry and implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in physical therapist practices. A stepwise approach using mixed methods was established in 3 consecutive pilots with 355 physical therapists from 66 practices. Interim results were evaluated using quantitative data from a self-assessment questionnaire and the registry and qualitative data from 21 semistructured interviews with physical therapists. Descriptive statistics and McNemar's symmetry chi-squared test were used to summarize the feasibility of implementing PROMs. PROMs were selected for the 5 most prevalent musculoskeletal conditions in Dutch physical therapist practices. A core component of the implementation strategy was the introduction of knowledge brokers to support physical therapists in establishing the routine use of PROMs in clinical practice and to assist in executing peer assessment workshops. In February 2013, 30.3% of the physical therapist practices delivered 4.4 completed treatment episodes per physical therapist to the registry; this increased to 92.4% in November 2014, delivering 54.1 completed patient episodes per physical therapist. Pre- and posttreatment PROM use increased from 12.2% to 39.5%. It is unclear if the participating physical therapists reflect a representative sample of Dutch therapists. Building a registry and implementing PROMs in physical therapist practices are feasible. The routine use of PROMs needs to increase to ensure valid feedback of outcomes. Using knowledge brokers is promising for implementing the program via peer assessment workshops.

PurposeIn current cancer care, there is a growing debate about the value of using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in daily clinical follow-up. A systematic review of the literature was conducted to assess the evidence of the effectiveness of the routine use of PROMs in daily cancer care in terms of patient outcomes, patient experiences and process indicators and to identify the effect of giving feedback about PROM findings to patients and/or health care professionals (HCPs).MethodsA systematic search was performed. Studies were eligible for inclusion when they (1) used a PROM as an intervention, with or without feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with not using a PROM, and (2) used a PROM as an intervention with feedback to patients and/or HCPs, compared with using a PROM without giving feedback to patients and/or HCPs.ResultsAfter screening of 8341 references, 22 original studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies found a positive effect on survival, symptoms, HRQoL and patient satisfaction. In general, using feedback to patient and/or HCPs about the PROM results led to better symptom control, HRQoL, patient satisfaction and patient-doctor communication. The majority of included studies had insufficient power to detect significant differences in the outcomes assessed.ConclusionThis review shows that predominantly positive findings were found in the use of a PROM in daily cancer care. Additionally, more positive effects were seen when feedback is provided to patient and/or health care professionals, and it is thus highly recommended that this is always done.

Development of National Research and Clinical Agendas for Patient-Reported Outcomes in IR: Proceedings from a Multidisciplinary Consensus Panel

BackgroundDespite the increasing use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for collecting self-reported data among hospital outpatients, clinicians’ use of these data remains suboptimal. Insight into this issue and strategies to enhance the use of PROMs are critical but limited.ObjectiveThis study aimed to examine clinicians’ use of PROM data for value-based outpatient consultations and identify efforts to enhance their use of PROMs in a Dutch university hospital. First, we aimed to investigate clinicians’ use of outpatients’ PROM data in 2023, focusing on adoption, implementation, and maintenance. Second, we aimed to develop insights into the organizational-level strategies implemented to enhance clinicians’ use of PROM data from 2020 to 2023. This included understanding the underlying rationales for these strategies and identifying strategies that appeared to be missing to address barriers or leverage facilitators. Third, we aimed to explore the key factors driving and constraining clinicians’ use of PROMs in 2023.MethodsWe integrated data from 4 sources: 1-year performance data on clinicians’ use of PROMs (n=70 subdepartments), internal hospital documents from a central support team (n=56), a survey among clinicians (n=47), and interviews with individuals contributing to the organizational-level implementation of PROMs (n=20). The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework was used to analyze clinicians’ adoption, implementation, and maintenance of PROMs. Strategies were analyzed using the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy, and results were structured around the constructs of capability, opportunity, and motivation.ResultsOn average, around 2023, clinicians accessed PROM data for approximately 3 of 20 (14%) patients during their outpatient consultation, despite numerous strategies to improve this practice. We identified issues in adoption, implementation, and maintenance. The hospital’s strategies, shaped organically and pragmatically, were related to 27 (37%) out of 73 Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change strategies. These strategies focused on enhancing clinicians’ capability, opportunity, and motivation. We found shortcomings in the quality of execution and completeness of strategies in relation to addressing all barriers and leveraging facilitators. We identified variations in the factors influencing the use of PROMs among frequent PROM users, occasional users, and nonusers. Challenges to effective facilitation were apparent, with certain desired strategies being unfeasible or impeded.ConclusionsEnhancing clinicians’ use of PROMs has remained challenging despite various strategies aimed at improving their capability, opportunity, and motivation. The use of PROMs may require more substantial changes than initially expected, necessitating a shift in clinicians’ professional attitudes and practices. Hospitals can facilitate rather than manage clinicians’ genuine use of PROMs. They must prioritize efforts to engage clinicians with PROMs for value-based outpatient care. Specific attention to their professionalization may be warranted. Tailored strategies, designed to address within-group differences in clinicians’ needs and motivation, hold promise for future efforts.

In Support of Ophthalmology-Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

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. 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. 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. 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.

The systematic use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has been advocated as an effective way to standardize cancer practice. Yet, the question of whether PROMs can lead to actual improvements in the quality of patient care remains under debate. This review examined whether inclusion of PROM in routine clinical practice is associated with improvements in patient outcomes, processes of care, and health service outcomes during active anticancer treatment. A systematic review of five electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL [Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature], PsycINFO, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection [PBSC]) was conducted from database inception to May 2012 to locate randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials of patients receiving active anticancer treatment or supportive care irrespective of type of cancer. Based on prespecified eligibility criteria, we included 26 articles that reported on 24 unique controlled trials. Wide variability in the design and use of interventions delivered, outcomes evaluated, and cancer- and modality-specific context was apparent. Health service outcomes were only scarcely included as end points. Overall, the number of statistically significant findings were limited and PROMs' intervention effect sizes were predominantly small-to-moderate. The routine use of PROMs increases the frequency of discussion of patient outcomes during consultations. In some studies, PROMs are associated with improved symptom control, increased supportive care measures, and patient satisfaction. Additional effort is required to ensure patient adherence, as well as additional support to clinicians who will respond to patient concerns and issues, with clear system guidelines in place to guide their responses. More research is required to support PROM cost-benefit in terms of patient safety, clinician burden, and health services usage.

PRM45 - A Synopsis on Opportunities and Challenges of Patient Related Outcome Measures (PROMS) for Patient Benefits

In breast reconstruction, understanding patients’ perceptions of surgical results is of primary importance. As new reconstructive techniques continue to advance, surgeons and patients require high quality information on key outcomes such as patient satisfaction and quality of life. The need for meaningful data is further accentuated by concerns over healthcare expenditures and the increasing involvement of patients in their own surgical decision-making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are questionnaires specifically designed to quantify aspects of outcome such as patient satisfaction and health-related quality of life. When developed and validated according to internationally recognized standards, PRO measures can provide reliable and valid assessment of patient outcomes. Traditionally, PRO measures were used in clinical research alone; however, advances in psychometric methods have now facilitated the development of a new generation of PRO measures that are also useful in clinical care. This presentation will provide an overview of PRO research in breast reconstruction. The BREAST-Q, a new PRO measure for breast surgery patients, will be highlighted. Physicians will gain the necessary critical appraisal skills to interpret and apply evidence from PRO studies in their own clinical practice. Approaches to routine use of PRO measures in clinical care will also be described. Citation Information: Cancer Res 2011;71(24 Suppl):Abstract nr ES8-3.

Оценка качества медицинской помощи во многих странах включает оценку пациентских показателей исхода — PROMs (patient-reported outcome measures). В статье дается определение и дифференциация понятия PROMs, классификация опросников, рекомендации по применению в рутинной клинической практике и в исследовательских целях. Оценка пациентских исходов имеет ряд преимуществ как для пациентов, так и для системы здравоохранения. Рутинное использование PROMs является важным элементом персонализированной терапии, улучшает приверженность пациентов и их удовлетворенность проводимым лечением. Внедрение PROMs на национальном уровне позволяет использовать оценку для экспертизы качества медицинской помощи, отслеживать эффективность клинических бригад. Данные PROMs можно использовать при распределении бюджета, при планировании программ финансирования, для изучения того, как уровни расходов соотносятся с результатами здоровья пациентов в каждом регионе и медицинской организации. При выборе PROMs следует обращать внимание на следующее: опросник должен быть релевантным нозологии; необходимо использовать только валидизированные опросники последних версий; отдавать   предпочтение наиболее простым и удобным для пациента; использовать только то гда, когда это действительно необходимо. К основным проблемам внедрения PROMs можно отнести  такие, как отсутствие понимания роли PROMs в улучшении качества медицинской помощи и как одного из механизмов повышения эффективности системы здравоохранении; недостаток опросников, имеющих валидизированный перевод; отсутствие реально работающих механизмов привязки результатов PROMs к оплате медицинской помощи; низкая осведомленность врачей и пациентов; отсутствие времени у врача для внедрения PROMs; недостаток онлайн-сервисов и платформ. The assessment of the quality of medical care in many countries includes the assessment of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). The article defines and differentiates the concept, provides classification of PROM-questionnaires and guidelines for use in routine clinical practice and for research purposes. Measuring patient-reported outcomes bears a number of advantages for patients and the healthcare system. Routine use of PROMs is an important element of personalized therapy, improves patients’ adherence and satisfaction. The implementation of PROMs at the national level is a base of the examination of the quality of medical care and monitors the effectiveness of clinical teams. PROMs data can be used as a base of budget allocation, planning funding programs, for the study of how spending levels relate to the health outcomes of patients by exact region and healthcare provider. The choice of PROMs should be focused on rele vant disease; be the latest version of a validated questionary; be convenient for the patient. The main problems of PROMs implementation include: lack of understanding of the role of PROMs in improving the quality of medical care and as one of the mechanisms for improving the efficiency of the healthcare system; lack of questionnaires with validated translation; lack of working mechanisms for linking PROMs results to medical care payments; low awareness of clinicians and patients; lack of time at routine clinical processes to PROMs implementation; lack of online services and platforms.