Implementation Of Patient-reported Outcome Measures Research Articles

Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review

To assess the impact of providing healthcare professionals with feedback on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This is a systematic review including controlled studies investigating the effectiveness of PROMs feedback, specifically examining the impact at a group-level and a patient-level. Only one study provided feedback at a group-level as a measure of professional performance, which found no intervention effect. At a patient-level, sixteen studies were identified and only one study found an overall significant difference in the PROM score. However, an additional six studies found a significant result favouring the intervention group for a particular subgroup or domain. The studies which demonstrated the greatest impact primarily used PROMs as a management tool in an outpatient setting on a specialised patient population. In contrast, there was weak evidence supporting with the use of PROMs as a screening tool. The studies which found a positive effect had a lower quality score on average. The effectiveness of PROMs feedback seems to be related to the function of the PROM. However, the evidence regarding the impact of PROMs feedback on patient outcomes is weak, and methodological issues with studies are frequent. The use of PROMs as a performance measure is not well investigated. Future research should focus on the appropriate application of PROMs by testing specific hypothesis related to cause and effect. Qualitative research is required to provide a deeper understanding of the practical issues surrounding the implementation of PROMs and the methodological issues associated with the effective use of the information.

Recommendations for Incorporating Patient-Reported Outcomes Into Clinical Comparative Effectiveness Research in Adult Oncology

Examining the patient's subjective experience in prospective clinical comparative effectiveness research (CER) of oncology treatments or process interventions is essential for informing decision making. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are the standard tools for directly eliciting the patient experience. There are currently no widely accepted standards for developing or implementing PRO measures in CER. Recommendations for the design and implementation of PRO measures in CER were developed via a standardized process including multistakeholder interviews, a technical working group, and public comments. Key recommendations are to include assessment of patient-reported symptoms as well as health-related quality of life in all prospective clinical CER studies in adult oncology; to identify symptoms relevant to a particular study population and context based on literature review and/or qualitative and quantitative methods; to assure that PRO measures used are valid, reliable, and sensitive in a comparable population (measures particularly recommended include EORTC QLQ-C30, FACT, MDASI, PRO-CTCAE, and PROMIS); to collect PRO data electronically whenever possible; to employ methods that minimize missing patient reports and include a plan for analyzing and reporting missing PRO data; to report the proportion of responders and cumulative distribution of responses in addition to mean changes in scores; and to publish results of PRO analyses simultaneously with other clinical outcomes. Twelve core symptoms are recommended for consideration in studies in advanced or metastatic cancers. Adherence to methodologic standards for the selection, implementation, and analysis/reporting of PRO measures will lead to an understanding of the patient experience that informs better decisions by patients, providers, regulators, and payers.

Let's All Go to the PROM: The Case for Routine Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Canadian Healthcare

Overall life expectancy in Canada is among the highest in the world and research evidence suggests that the healthcare system is part of the reason for this. However, patient waits, low international rankings and continued expenditure growth all provide a buttress against complacency. There can be little doubt that improvement can and must happen. Improvement depends on information, and more specifically information about outcomes of care. Without sound analysis of what works in the real world when applied to real patients, we have not done our jobs as stewards of the healthcare system. Current outcomes information in Canada is limited and tends to focus on measures of failure (e.g., hospital readmissions) rather than measures of success (e.g., improvement in functioning). Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) must become part of regular data collection in the healthcare system. The importance of this is even more pronounced given that healthcare is now dominated by chronic conditions that need to be managed over long periods of time. We offer three recommendations for action: that we begin immediately to collect PROMs in elective surgery; that we start small-scale and coordinated experiments on the implementation of PROMs in care for chronic conditions; and that we convene a pan-Canadian working group to help coordinate and organize these activities. We recognize the challenges these issues raise, but our contention is that there are even greater challenges in continuing on as we are.

Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care - users' cry for help

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) plays an increasingly important role in palliative care. A variety of measures exists and is used in clinical care, audit and research. However, little is known about professionals' views using these measures. The aim of this study is to describe the use and experiences of palliative care professionals with outcome measures.MethodsA web-based online survey was conducted in Europe and Africa. Professionals working in clinical care, audit and research in palliative care were invited to the survey via national palliative care associations and various databases. Invitation e-mails were sent with a link to the questionnaire.ResultsOverall participation rate 42% (663/1592), overall completion rate 59% (392/663). The majority of respondents were female (63.4%), mean age 46 years (SD 9). 68.1% respondents from Europe and 73.3% from Africa had experiences with outcome measures in palliative care. Non-users reported time constraints, burden, lack of training and guidance as main reasons. In clinical care/audit, assessment of patients' situation, monitoring changes and evaluation of services were main reasons for use. Choice of OMs for research was influenced by validity of the instrument in palliative care and comparability with international literature. Main problems were related to patient characteristics, staff, and outcome measures. Participants expressed the need for more guidance and training in the use of PROMs.ConclusionsProfessionals need more support for the use and implementation of PROMs in clinical practice and research through training and guidance in order to improve patient care.

Potentials for HOLISM in Pharmacy

From the standpoint of the healthcare provider, multiple contributors to a patients' clinical presentation, difficulty with translating research trials into one's practice, conflicting clinical practice guidelines, and an ever-increasing volume of literature compounds the difficulty for clinicians to determine best care, which addresses the biological, psychological and sociological health domains. If clinicians are adopting a patient centred model of care – routine use of validated patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) which elicit patients' views of their symptoms, their functional status, their health-related quality of life (HRQoL), all of which encompass several domains – are paramount. This commentary advocates for the use of PROMs on a wider scale than is currently described in the literature. Background information on PROMs is provided along with suggesting important questions to ask as a clinician when implementing these in practice. The current commentary addresses these questions and describes the implementation of PROMs using published case studies that describe osteopathy management for a variety of conditions.