Implementation Of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Research Articles

How patient-reported outcomes and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs) are implemented in healthcare professional and patient organizations? An environmental scan.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) are becoming essential parts of a learning health system, and using these measures is a promising approach for value-based healthcare. However, evidence regarding healthcare professional and patient organizations' knowledge, use and perception of PROMs and PREMs is lacking. The objectives of the study were to: 1- Describe the current knowledge and use of PROMs and PREMs by healthcare professional and patient organizations, 2- Describe the determinants of PROMs and PREMs implementation according to healthcare professional and patient organizations. We conducted an environmental scan using semi-structured interviews with representatives from healthcare professional and patient organizations. Interviews were recorded and live coded based on the Franklin framework. We used inductive and deductive thematic analysis to extract information about the main themes addressed during the interview (awareness of PROMs and PREMs, examples of implementation and use of PROMs and PREMs, tools used, vision for future implementation, barriers and facilitators to implementation and the best way to collect PROMs and PREMs data). 63% of healthcare professional organizations (n = 19) and 41% of patient organizations (n = 9) that were contacted agreed to have a representative interviewed. The representatives from both the healthcare professional and patient organizations acknowledged the importance of assessing patients' experience and outcomes. However, they considered the implementation of PROMs and PREMs tools to be scarce within their organizations, in clinical practice and in the education system. Patient organizations were worried that overuse of PROMs and PREMs could lead to depersonalization of practice. Barriers to implementing PROMs and PREMs included lack of awareness of tools, resistance to change and lack of motivation to complete or explain the questionnaire. Barriers also included factors such as lack of financial, technological and human resources and issues with integration of data and inconsistency of digital platforms. This environmental scan revealed a lack of awareness of tools by healthcare professional and patient organizations' representatives and limited implementation. Adequate training, technological integration, and demonstration of PROMs and PREMs benefits to foster broader adoption in clinical and organizational settings is dearly needed. Addressing these challenges is essential for enhancing value-based care.

Enhancing Clinicians' Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Care: Mixed Methods Study.

Despite 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. This 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. We 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. On 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. Enhancing 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.

Using Implementation Science to Evaluate the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in a Clinical Heart Failure Care Setting

BackgroundPatients with heart failure (HF) can experience a poor quality-of-life (QOL), recurring hospitalizations, and progressive disease symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) include integration of patients’ voices into clinical care, by assessing patient symptoms, function, and QOL. In 2022, PROMs were incorporated into the electronic health record system (Epic) at a large academic hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this study was to use implementation-science frameworks to systematically evaluate the uptake and integration of PROMs into clinical HF care. MethodsThe Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided this mixed-methods, 1-year, quality-improvement project. Data sources included the following: clinician use of PROMs; patient-level data on completed PROMs; and semistructured interviews with clinicians. The PROM was the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12, which captures 4 domains related to HF—symptom frequency, physical limitations, social limitations, and QOL. Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed using behaviour-change frameworks and latent content analysis. ResultsOver the course of 1 year, more patients were assigned to PROMs, a higher proportion of patients completed PROMs, and approximately 80% of patients had high scores on the questionnaire. Clinicians experience barriers—related to attention and decision processes, the environmental context, and their professional role—to integrating PROMs into practice. Suggested changes to improve PROM uptake include adding language licenses for PROM translations, reducing cognitive load for clinicians who are assigning and interpreting PROMs in the Epic system, and championing modelling of use of PROMs in practice. ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the benefit of using implementation science frameworks, to evaluate the implementation of PROMs in practice and provide actionable recommendations to health systems.

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes in a Medical Oncology Setting (the iPROMOS Study): Type II Hybrid Implementation Study.

Clinical trials have demonstrated that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can improve mortality and morbidity outcomes when used in clinical practice. This study aimed to prospectively investigate the implementation of PROMs in routine oncology. Outcomes measured included improved symptom detection, clinical response to symptom information, and health service outcomes. Two of 12 eligible clinics were randomized to implement symptom PROMs in a medical oncology outpatient department in Australia. Randomization was carried out at the clinic level. Patients in control clinics continued with usual care; those in intervention clinics completed a symptom PROM at presentation. This was a pilot study investigating symptom detection, using binary logistic models, and clinical response to PROMs investigated using multiple regression models. A total of 461 patient encounters were included, consisting of 242 encounters in the control and 222 in the intervention condition. Patients in these clinics most commonly had head and neck, lung, prostate, breast, or colorectal cancer and were seen in the clinic for surveillance and oral or systemic treatments for curative, metastatic, or palliative cancer care pathways. Compared with control encounters, the proportion of symptoms detected increased in intervention encounters (odds ratio 1.05, 95% CI 0.99-1.11; P=.08). The odds of receiving supportive care, demonstrated by nonroutine allied health review, increased in the intervention compared with control encounters (odds ratio 3.54, 95% CI 1.26-9.90; P=.02). Implementation of PROMs in routine care did not significantly improve symptom detection but increased the likelihood of nonroutine allied health reviews for supportive care. Larger studies are needed to investigate health service outcomes. Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12618000398202; https://tinyurl.com/3cxbemy4.

A protocol for the formative evaluation of the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services as part of a learning health system

BackgroundMental health conditions affect one in seven young people and research suggests that current mental health services are not meeting the needs of most children and youth. Learning health systems are an approach to enhancing services through rapid, routinized cycles of continuous learning and improvement. Patient-reported outcome measures provide a key data source for learning health systems. They have also been shown to improve outcomes for patients when integrated into routine clinical care. However, implementing these measures into health systems is a challenging process. This paper describes a protocol for a formative evaluation of the implementation of patient-reported measures in a newly operational child and adolescent mental health centre in Calgary, Canada. The purpose is to optimize the collection and use of patient-reported outcome measures. Our specific objectives are to assess the implementation progress, identify barriers and facilitators to implementation, and explore patient, caregivers and clinician experiences of using these measures in routine clinical care.MethodsThis study is a mixed-methods, formative evaluation using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Participants include patients and caregivers who have used the centre’s services, as well as leadership, clinical and support staff at the centre. Focus groups and semi-structured interviews will be conducted to assess barriers and facilitators to the implementation and sustainability of the use of patient-reported outcome measures, as well as individuals’ experiences with using these measures within clinical care. The data generated by the patient-reported measures over the first five months of the centre’s operation will be analyzed to understand implementation progress, as well as validity of the chosen measures for the centres’ population.DiscussionThe findings of this evaluation will help to identify and address the factors that are affecting the successful implementation of patient-reported measures at the centre. They will inform the co-design of strategies to improve implementation with key stakeholders, which include patients, clinical staff, and leadership at the centre. To our knowledge, this is the first study of the implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in child and adolescent mental health services and our findings can be used to enhance future implementation efforts in similar settings.

Acceptability and perceived benefits of validated pruritus assessment instruments in the dermatological office and clinic: Theperspectives of patients and physicians.

Several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have been developed for research to assess the multiple dimensions of chronic pruritus (CP). The acceptability and perceived benefits of their use in clinical practice remain unknown. To assess the acceptability and perceived benefits of validated PROMs from the perspective of patients and physicians in dermatological offices and clinics. Patients with CP due to atopic dermatitis, psoriasis, chronic prurigo or chronic urticaria were recruited at 10 dermatological offices and two dermatological clinics in Germany. Patients completed a set of validated PROMs on pruritus intensity (numerical rating scale, NRS), symptom control (itch-controlled days, ItchCD), quality of life (Dermatology Life Quality Index, DLQI; 5-pruritus life quality, 5PLQ) and general health status (EuroQol, EQ-VAS). Acceptability (relevance, difficulty of completion, length) and benefits (usefulness, feasibility) of these tools were assessed on a NRS (0-10) by patients and physicians, respectively. Data were analysed descriptively. Linear regression was used to study potential associations between age, sex, occupation, office versus clinic, change of therapy and physician-reported benefits. N = 523 patients (46% male, average age: 53.5 years) participated. Acceptability of PROMs by patients was high, indicated by low difficulty (Md = 0, IQR = 0-1 for all PROMs) and high relevance (Md = 8, IQR = 4-10 for all PROMs). Also, most patients (89-95%) rated length of the questionnaires as 'exactly right'. Physicians rated the NRS as the most beneficial instrument (feasibility: Md = 8, IQR = 6-10; usefulness: Md = 9, IQR = 7-10). Hierarchical linear regression revealed that only recruitment site (dermatological office vs. clinic) was significantly associated with usefulness and feasibility (higher ratings for clinical context; βs = 0.149-0.258, ps <0.05; except feasibility for EQ5d, β = ns). PROMs are welcomed by patients, while physicians consider instruments measuring pruritus intensity and impairment of quality of life as beneficial for the clinical routine. Widespread implementation of PROMs in daily clinical work is needed to improve care.

Age-normed patient-reported outcome measures among cancer survivors.

11122 Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are instruments used to collect health-related outcomes that are derived completely from the patient without interpretation from healthcare providers. Monitoring and subsequent intervention based on PROMs collection has demonstrated efficacy in clinical trial settings. This has resulted in implementation of PROMs in routine clinical cancer practices throughout the nation. PROMs have been normed to the general population, but establishing the norms among cancer patients is essential to understanding how PROMs can be evaluated on an individual basis in routine clinical cancer care. This study aims to characterize age-normed PROMs scores among survivors of cancer using the National Institute of Health’s Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Information System (PROMIS) depression, fatigue, pain interference, and physical function domains. Methods: Routine collection of PROMs using 4 domains (depression, fatigue, pain interference, and physical function) of PROMIS were offered to all patients with a diagnosis of cancer of any disease site at visits with an oncologic provider using computer adaptive testing. All patients ≥18 years old with a completed PROM at least 2 years since their diagnosis of cancer were eligible for inclusion in the analysis. Only completed PROMs were included in the final analysis. Generalized estimating equation models were used to assess the relationship between age and the estimated mean T-score for each PROMs domain, considering repeat measures within a single patient. Results: A total of 3,636 patients were included in this retrospective cohort study with a total of 26,173 completed PROMs among all 4 domains. Mean age at diagnosis was 61.2 years (SD=12.44), 64% (n=2324) were female, 68% (n=2,461) identified as White, and 25% (n=893) identified as Black. For fatigue, mean T-score ranged from 48.4 points (SD=9.6) among 18-29 years olds to 56.5 points (SD=10.1) among 90-99 years olds, with no significant change with age (p=0.27). For depression, mean T-score ranged from 48.9 points (SD=9.0) among 60-69 year olds to 51.1 points (SD=8.8) among 80-89 year olds with a 0.3 point/decade decrease in T-score (p=0.01). Pain interference T-scores ranged from 48.6 points (SD=10.5) among 18-29 year olds to 55.0 points (SD=9.4) among 80-89 year olds with a 0.4 point/decade average increase (p&lt;0.001). The largest differences were observed in physical function, where scores ranged from 53.5 points (SD=11.0) among 18-29 year olds to 34.3 points (SD=9.2) among 90-99 year olds. There was a 2.1 point/decade decrease in T-score (p&lt;0.001). Conclusions: Among survivors of cancer, mean PROMIS scores differed by age in the depression, pain interference, and physical function domains but not fatigue. These age-normed PROMIS T-scores, which are required to understand individualized assessments of PROMs, are essential as PROMs are integrated into routine cancer care.

P130 Developing a study protocol to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing patient reported outcome measures in the Cystic Fibrosis Registry of Ireland

P130 Developing a study protocol to assess the feasibility and acceptability of implementing patient reported outcome measures in the Cystic Fibrosis Registry of Ireland

Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures in Advanced Nursing Practice: What Are Key Considerations for Implementation and Optimized Use?

ObjectiveTo discuss the opportunities and challenges of implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) within advanced practice nursing services in cancer care. MethodsThis discussion paper has been informed by an environmental scan of evidence from systematic reviews and primary studies evaluating the use and implementation of PROMs and PREMs. Literature from the contexts of cancer and chronic disease, including nursing and multidisciplinary supportive care literature, has been included. ResultsAdvanced practice nurses are well-positioned to evaluate and respond to PROMs and PREMs data; several studies have highlighted improved patient outcomes concerning quality of life, symptom distress, and functional status within nurse-led services. Nevertheless, the implementation of PROMs and PREMs in cancer care and nurse-led services is variable. Previous studies have highlighted implementation challenges, which can hinder comparability and generalizability of PROMs and PREMs instruments. Advanced practice nurses should consider these challenges, including ways to use standardized PROM instruments. Electronic PROMs, while efficient, may exclude individuals at risk of inequity. Complex, lengthy, and frequent administration of PROMs may also overburden people living with or after cancer, with people affected by cancer expressing preference for flexible use in some studies. Therefore, the involvement of people affected by cancer in planning for PROMs/PREMs implementation may overcome this challenge. Finally, organizational considerations in implementation should address financial investments, including initial costs for technology and training and consideration of the operationalization of PROMs within existing infrastructure for the seamless utilization of PROMs data. ConclusionDespite the potential of advanced practice nursing services to enhance patient-reported outcomes and experiences, variability in the implementation of PROMs and PREMs poses challenges. Use of validated measures, electronic or paper-based instruments, and the preferences of people affected by cancer for the use of PROMs and PREMs must be carefully considered in consultation with end users for successful implementation. Implications for PracticeIn planning for the implementation of PROMs and PREMs within nurse-led services, implementation risks may be mitigated through establishing clear guidelines for their use, investment in the development of the required infrastructure, user education, and rigorous implementation processes, including patient involvement in PROMs/PREMs selection.

Implementing strategies to improve uptake of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in gender-affirming care: a mixed-methods implementation study

ImportanceThe Practical Guide to Implementing PROMs in Gender-Affirming Care (PG-PROM-GAC) is an evidence-based resource, which was developed in response to international calls for improved patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) implementation in...

The influence of patient-reported outcome measures on healthcare delivery: A review of methodologies and applications

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) have emerged as integral tools in assessing healthcare outcomes from the patient's perspective. This comprehensive review explores the methodologies employed in the development, administration, and validation of PROMs, shedding light on their applications and influence on healthcare delivery. It examines the various modes of PROMs administration, including the burgeoning role of technology through electronic platforms and mobile applications. Challenges related to patient adherence, engagement, and disparities in technological access are discussed, offering insights into potential barriers. It meticulously outlines the multifaceted applications of PROMs in healthcare. From influencing clinical decision-making and quality of care assessments to fostering patient-centered care and contributing to health policy initiatives, PROMs have permeated diverse aspects of healthcare delivery. The review also explores the role of PROMs in shaping research endeavors, serving as essential components in health policy initiatives and advancing the understanding of patient outcomes and experiences. While emphasizing the positive impact of PROMs, the paper addresses challenges and considerations associated with their use, including standardization issues, interpretation challenges, and technology-related barriers. The future directions and opportunities section examines potential advancements in personalized medicine, the integration of technology, and the empowerment of patients through increased involvement in their healthcare journey. Ethical considerations surrounding privacy, confidentiality, and informed consent in PROMs implementation are also scrutinized. This review consolidates current knowledge on PROMs methodologies and applications, offering a comprehensive understanding of their influence on healthcare delivery. The paper emphasizes the need for ongoing research, standardization efforts, and the ethical use of PROMs as they continue to shape a patient-centric and personalized approach to healthcare.

Patient-reported outcome measures in value-based healthcare: A multiple methods study to assess patient-centredness

ObjectivesValue-based healthcare (VBHC) involves the use of standardised outcome measures, including patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This study aimed to assess to what extent discussion of PROMs is associated with patient- and person-centredness. MethodsThis study used a separate sample pre-/post-test design and multiple methods (observations, questionnaires, and interviews) in a VBHC care pathway for patients with a vestibular schwannoma, to assess to what extent the implementation of PROMs is associated with a difference in patient- and person-centredness. ResultsA total of 139 patients with a vestibular schwannoma and their four treating physicians were included in the study. No significant differences were found in observed patient-centredness (Mpre=6.71 ± 2.42 vs. Mpost=6.93 ± 2.01; P = 0.60) or patient-reported patient-centredness (Mpre=1.73 vs. Mpost=1.68; P = 0.63) and person-centredness after PROM implementation (Mpre=11.81 vs. Mpost=13.42; P = 0.34). We observed more discussion of patient-reported outcomes. However, a majority of patients did not expect PRO discussion in consultations. ConclusionsThe implementation of standardised PROMs in a VBHC care pathway was associated with more discussion on patient-reported outcomes in clinical consultations. Overall, the implementation of PROMs was not observed or perceived as leading to more patient-centred consultations. Practice implicationsPhysicians should assess whether the discussion of PROMs add value collaboratively with patients.

Health Numeracy Is Associated With a Patient's Ability to Interpret Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Data.

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were originally developed as research tools; however, there is increasing interest in using PROMs to inform clinical care. Prior work has shown the benefits of implementing PROMs at the point of care, but a patient's health numeracy (their ability to understand and work with numbers) may affect their ability to interpret PROM results. We recruited patients presenting to an outpatient orthopedic clinic. Forty-nine patients completed a survey that included demographic information, the short-form General Health Numeracy Test, and accuracy questions about four PROM displays (bar graph, table, line graph, pictograph) that indicated the same PROM results. Patients with higher health numeracy answered all display accuracy questions correctly (P=.016). Patients who preferred using the table were more likely to answer display accuracy questions incorrectly (odds ratio, 0.013, P=.024). The two most frequently preferred PROM formats were bar graphs and tables, and most patients preferred to learn about their PROM function scores via a combination of displays and verbal discussions. Patient health numeracy is associated with the ability to correctly interpret visual displays of PROMs. Implementation of PROMs at point of care currently does not account for health numeracy. Efforts to account for health numeracy when using PROMs at point of care may improve the efficacy of using PROMs to improve outcomes in orthopedic surgery. [Orthopedics. 2024;47(5):e255-e260.].

Screening for Palliative Care Need in Oncology: Validation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

ContextLeading oncology societies recommend monitoring symptoms and support needs through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), but their use for assessing specialist palliative care (SPC) need has not yet been explored. Research on SPC integration has focused on staff-assessed screening tools, which are time-consuming. ObjectivesThis study aimed to assess the diagnostic validity of the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) and NCCN Distress Thermometer (NCCN DT) in identifying need for SPC in patients with incurable cancer. MethodsIn a cross-sectional study, patients with incurable cancer (prognosis <2 years) completed PROMs. In an independent process, the palliative care consultation service (PCCS) assessed the need for SPC in each patient through multiprofessional case review, and this was used as the reference standard. ROC analyses were employed to determine diagnostic validity. ResultsOf the 208 participants, 71 (34.1 %) were classified as having SPC need by the PCCS. Aiming for a minimum sensitivity of 80%, a cut-off of ≥2 items with high/very high burden in the IPOS resulted in a 90.2% sensitivity (specificity = 50; AUC = 0.791; CI 95%= 0.724–0.858). A cut-off of ≥5 resulted in a sensitivity of 80 % for NCCN DT (specificity = 49.5 %; AUC = 0.687; CI 95% = 0.596–0.777). ConclusionPROMs are useful for identifying SPC need in cancer patients. Their implementation might facilitate timely integration of SPC. Future research should focus on an integrated assessment approach with PROMs that combines the requirements of the different specialties to save patient and staff resources.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

A Qualitative Study Exploring the Regional Feasibility of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) Data Collection for Orthopedic Trauma Patients.

Behavioral health has been shown to impact both short- and long-term health outcomes in trauma patients. Recommendations for screening for behavioral health concerns in the acute setting exist, but longitudinal data collection is infrequently performed. The Trauma Quality Improvement Program describes the importance of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), including behavioral health data. In thisqualitative feasibility study, a multidisciplinary team participated inone-hour virtual focus groups; a semi-structured interview guide was used to ascertain feedback on a proposed PROMs study design. This study utilized a qualitative methodology to reveal thematic results from the staff feedback to determine the feasibility of the proposed study design. Three virtual one-hour focus groups consisting of a combination of seven trauma program managers and orthopedic practice managers were asked questions related to the feasibility of a PROMs study design before thematic saturation was reached.Through the analysis, four themes emerged: barriers, possible improvements, representation and research design. Themes included subthemes as well. Noteworthy results included the impact of an integrated orthopedic practice and the technological options available for use. This study revealed the barriers that would exist in the implementation of PROMs for orthopedic trauma patients, which may be useful when designing data collection procedures for PROMs. The results related to barriers may assist other trauma centers or regional trauma systems in designing an optimal methodology for PROMs data. Furthermore, the American College of Surgeons might consider these results prior to any mandated implementation of PROMs for trauma centers to avoid any possible burden on staff and systems.

Implementing paediatric patient-reported outcome measures in outpatient asthma clinics: a feasibility assessment study

ObjectiveImplementation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) is limited in paediatric routine clinical care. The KidsPRO programme has been codesigned to facilitate the implementation of PROMs in paediatric healthcare settings. Therefore,...

Piloting patient-reported outcome measures for evaluation of the Irish Chronic Disease Programme

Abstract Background The Irish National Integrated Care Programme for Chronic Disease (ICPCD) aims to deliver end-to-end, patient-centred care across three clinical programmes; Heart, Respiratory and Diabetes. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a means of objectively measuring changes in patients’ subjectively-perceived health status over time in response to services. As such, PROMs facilitate service monitoring and evaluation and are an important tool for the ICPCD to ensure optimal, patient-centred, value-based healthcare delivery. Methods To select the most appropriate PROMs instrument for use across ICPCD, comprehensive literature review was undertaken followed by key stakeholder consultation in winter 2022. Following consideration against a set of pre-determined criteria the EQ-5D-5L, a well-validated, reliable PROMs instrument, was selected as the most appropriate PROMs instrument for use. Study design involved pilot implementation of EQ-5D-5L in one ICPCD ambulatory care hub service followed by mixed methods evaluation of staff experience of the pilot. Results The pilot was conducted from April to June 2023 among a socio-demographically diverse sample of patients attending their first and last episode of care with the ICPCD diabetic patient education service in Galway. Following service attendance there was a significant aggregate improvement in self-reported overall health rating but no significant change in self-reported mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort or anxiety/depression. Predominant staff concerns included staff and patient burden and the need for adequate staff resourcing and information technology support. Conclusions In conjunction with key national stakeholders findings from the pilot will be used to support the development of a PROMs implementation plan at scale for adoption across all ICPCD services. Ultimately national implementation will support the ongoing delivery of high quality patient-centred care within ICPCD services. Key messages • PROMs facilitate service evaluation and are an important tool for the Irish National Integrated Care Programme for Chronic Disease (ICPCD) to ensure optimal patient-centred healthcare delivery. • This pilot will support PROMs implementation at scale across ICPCD services and ultimately reinforce the ongoing delivery of high-quality, value-based, integrated healthcare.

Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures

While the use of electronic methods to collect patient-reported outcome data in clinical trials continues to increase, it remains the case that many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have originally been developed and validated on paper. Careful consideration during the move from paper PROMs to electronic format is required to preserve the integrity of the measure and ensure a “faithful migration.” Relevant literature has long called out the importance of following migration best practices during this process; nevertheless, such best practices are distributed across multiple documents. This article consolidates and builds upon existing electronic PROM implementation best practice recommendations to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date, single point of reference. It reflects the current consensus based on the significant advances in technology capabilities and knowledge gleaned from the growing evidence base on electronic migration and implementation, to balance the need for maintaining the integrity of the measure while optimizing respondent usability. It also specifies whether the practice is rooted in evidence or expert consensus, to enable those using these best practices to make informed and considered decisions when conducting migration.

Patient‐reported outcomes in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: An insight for a healthcare system undergoing reform

AbstractPatient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are closely related to the delivery of high‐quality care and services. Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) are the tools used to measure the PROs. Despite the challenges and barriers associated with using PROs and PROMs, measuring PROs is valuable for a patient's health status and advancing evidence‐based medicine. Real‐world implementation of PROMs may especially open possibilities for healthcare systems under reform, such as Saudi Arabia. This paper highlights the concepts of PROs and PROMs. Moreover, it distinguishes between PROs and other concepts such as patient experience, quality of life, and patient satisfaction. It also explores the available literature in Saudi Arabia and the world regarding PROs and their role in improving healthcare systems. Last, this paper advocates for utilizing the national and comprehensive tools of PROMS in different levels and disciplines.