Patient-reported Outcome Measures Feedback Research Articles

Patients’ perspectives on the benefits of feedback on patient-reported outcome measures in a web-based personalized decision report for hip and knee osteoarthritis

BackgroundApplications of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for individual patient management are expanding with the support of digital tools. Providing PROM-based information to patients can potentially improve care experiences and outcomes through informing and activating patients. This study explored patients’ perspectives on the benefits of receiving feedback on PROMs in the context of a web-based personalized decision report to guide care for their hip or knee osteoarthritis.MethodsThis qualitative descriptive interview study was nested in a pragmatic clinical trial of a personalized report, which includes descriptive PROM scores and predicted postoperative PROM scores. Patients completed a semi-structured interview within 6 weeks of an office visit with an orthopaedic surgeon. Only patients who reported receiving the report and reviewing it with the surgeon and/or a health educator were included. Data were iteratively analyzed using a combination of deductive and inductive coding strategies.ResultsTwenty-five patients aged 49–82 years (60% female, 72% surgical treatment decision) participated and described three primary benefits of the PROM feedback within the report: 1. Gaining Information About My Health Status, including data teaching new information, confirming what was known, or providing a frame of reference; 2. Fostering Communication Between Patient and Surgeon, encompassing use of the data to set expectations, ask and answer questions, and facilitate shared understanding; and 3. Increasing My Confidence and Trust, relating to the treatment outcomes, treatment decision, and surgeon.ConclusionsPatients identified actual and hypothetical benefits of receiving feedback on PROM scores in the context of a web-based decision report, including advantages for those who had already made a treatment decision before seeing the surgeon. Findings provide insight into patients’ perspectives on how digital PROM data can promote patient-centered care. Results should be considered in the context of the homogeneous sample and complex trial. While participants perceived value in this personalized report, questions remain regarding best practices in patient-facing data presentation and engagement.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03102580. Registered on 5 April 2017.

Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine nurse-led primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility and acceptability study

BackgroundThe use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in clinical practice has the potential to promote patient-centred care and improve patients’ quality of life. Individualized PROMs may be particularly helpful in identifying, prioritizing and monitoring health problems of patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to develop an intervention centred around PROMs feedback as part of Primary Care annual reviews for patients with multimorbidity and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability.MethodsWe developed a nurse-oriented intervention including (a) training of nurses on PROMs; (b) administration to patients with multimorbidity of individualized and standardized PROMS; and (c) feedback to both patients and nurses of PROMs scores and interpretation guidance. We then tailored the intervention to patients with two or more highly prevalent conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, depression, and hip/knee osteoarthritis) and designed a non-controlled feasibility and acceptability evaluation in a convenience sample of primary care practices (5). PROMs were administered and scores fed back immediately ahead of scheduled annual reviews with nurses. Patients and nurses rated the acceptability of the intervention using with a brief survey including optional free comments. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with a sample of participating patients (10) and nurses (4) and of survey free comments was conducted for further in-depth evaluation of acceptability. Feasibility was estimated based on rates of participation and completion.ResultsOut of 68 recruited patients (mean age 70; 47% female), 68 completed the PROMs (100%), received feedback (100%) and confirmed nurse awareness of their scores (100%). Most patients (83%) “agreed”/”strongly agreed” that the PROMs feedback had been useful, a view supported by nurses in 89% of reviews. Thematic analysis of rich qualitative data on PROMS administration, feedback and role in annual reviews indicated that both patients and nurses perceived the intervention as acceptable and promising, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and patient-centredness.ConclusionsWe have developed and tested an intervention focusing on routine PROM assessment of patients with multimorbidity in Primary Care. Preliminary findings support its feasibility and a high degree of acceptability from both patients and nurses. The next step is to conduct a full-scale trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.

Feedback to Patients About Patient-reported Outcomes Does Not Improve Empowerment or Satisfaction.

Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are helpful to define whether an intervention has improved a patient's status in ways the patient feels are important, they may also serve an empowering educational role; specifically, sharing a patient's scores might help the patient understand his or her progress during treatment. However, whether sharing PROM scores in this way improves the sense of empowerment or satisfaction with the process of care has not been well explored. Also, less is known whether specific demographic factors or coping strategies are associated with empowerment. We asked the following: (1) Does giving patients feedback on their PROM scores improve a patient's sense of empowerment or satisfaction? (2) Do demographic factors, duration of disability, or self-efficacy correlate with patient empowerment? In this prospective cohort study, we assigned patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip sequentially such that the first 70 patients did not receive the intervention and the next 72 did. Patients enrolled in the control cohort were managed according to standard care, whereas patients enrolled in the intervention cohort completed web-based questionnaires measuring their physical function and pain. After filling out the questionnaires, a printout with the scores was given to the patients providing feedback about their physical function and pain. The primary outcome measure was patient empowerment, as measured by the Patient Activation Measure. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction, as measured by an 11-point Likert scale and Patient Doctor Relation Questionnaire. Independent variables were demographic factors and coping, measured by the Pain Self-efficacy Questionnaire. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed to determine the influence of the feedback. Although no minimum clinically important differences have been defined for the patient empowerment or satisfaction scales, we believe that differences smaller than 10% are unlikely to be clinically important, even if they are statistically significant. Although the group that received PROM feedback had higher scores for empowerment than the group that did not, the effect size was small and likely not to have been clinically important (2.8 ± 0.85 versus 3.1 ± 0.811; mean difference -0.31; 95% confidence interval, 2.8-3.1; p = 0.037). With the numbers available, there were no differences between the group given PROM feedback and the group that did not receive such feedback in terms of satisfaction scores (8.6 ± 1.4 versus 8.8 ± 1.2; mean difference -0.19; p = 0.39). After controlling for demographic factors such as level of education and duration of complaint, we found that the group that received PROM feedback and who had a higher level of self-efficacy had higher scores for empowerment than the group that did not, although the effect size was small. PROM feedback did not have a clinically important impact on empowerment or satisfaction. This might indicate that counseling based on PROMs during a single visit may be ineffective. The most important positive finding is that more effective coping strategies are associated with greater patient empowerment. Level II, therapeutic study.

Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care

BackgroundThe feedback of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data is intended to support the care of individual patients and to act as a quality improvement (QI) strategy.ObjectivesTo (1) identify the ideas and assumptions underlying how individual and aggregated PROMs data are intended to improve patient care, and (2) review the evidence to examine the circumstances in which and processes through which PROMs feedback improves patient care.DesignTwo separate but related realist syntheses: (1) feedback of aggregate PROMs and performance data to improve patient care, and (2) feedback of individual PROMs data to improve patient care.InterventionsAggregate – feedback and public reporting of PROMs, patient experience data and performance data to hospital providers and primary care organisations. Individual – feedback of PROMs in oncology, palliative care and the care of people with mental health problems in primary and secondary care settings.Main outcome measuresAggregate – providers’ responses, attitudes and experiences of using PROMs and performance data to improve patient care. Individual – providers’ and patients’ experiences of using PROMs data to raise issues with clinicians, change clinicians’ communication practices, change patient management and improve patient well-being.Data sourcesSearches of electronic databases and forwards and backwards citation tracking.Review methodsRealist synthesis to identify, test and refine programme theories about when, how and why PROMs feedback leads to improvements in patient care.ResultsProviders were more likely to take steps to improve patient care in response to the feedback and public reporting of aggregate PROMs and performance data if they perceived that these data were credible, were aimed at improving patient care, and were timely and provided a clear indication of the source of the problem. However, implementing substantial and sustainable improvement to patient care required system-wide approaches. In the care of individual patients, PROMs function more as a tool to support patients in raising issues with clinicians than they do in substantially changing clinicians’ communication practices with patients. Patients valued both standardised and individualised PROMs as a tool to raise issues, but thought is required as to which patients may benefit and which may not. In settings such as palliative care and psychotherapy, clinicians viewed individualised PROMs as useful to build rapport and support the therapeutic process. PROMs feedback did not substantially shift clinicians’ communication practices or focus discussion on psychosocial issues; this required a shift in clinicians’ perceptions of their remit.Strengths and limitationsThere was a paucity of research examining the feedback of aggregate PROMs data to providers, and we drew on evidence from interventions with similar programme theories (other forms of performance data) to test our theories.ConclusionsPROMs data act as ‘tin openers’ rather than ‘dials’. Providers need more support and guidance on how to collect their own internal data, how to rule out alternative explanations for their outlier status and how to explore the possible causes of their outlier status. There is also tension between PROMs as a QI strategy versus their use in the care of individual patients; PROMs that clinicians find useful in assessing patients, such as individualised measures, are not useful as indicators of service quality.Future workFuture research should (1) explore how differently performing providers have responded to aggregate PROMs feedback, and how organisations have collected PROMs data both for individual patient care and to improve service quality; and (2) explore whether or not and how incorporating PROMs into patients’ electronic records allows multiple different clinicians to receive PROMs feedback, discuss it with patients and act on the data to improve patient care.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013005938.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Using feedback from patient-reported outcome measures in mental health services: a scoping study and typology.

Routine evaluation of mental health services has become widespread, and the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) as clinical aids or discussion tools has been receiving increasing attention. The purpose of this scoping study was to provide a typology of the diverse ways in which studies reporting on PROM use in mental health services have utilized PROMs. Iterative scoping searches of the literature identified articles reporting on the use of PROM feedback in mental health settings, which were then categorized to develop a typology along a dimension of intensity of use of PROM feedback, ranging from no feedback to patient and clinician to clinician-patient discussion that followed a formalized structure. Of the 172 studies that were identified, 27 were grouped into five categories, ranging from studies in which there was no PROM feedback to clinician or patient to studies in which a formalized structure was available by which PROM feedback could be discussed between clinician and patient. Of the 11 studies in the category with formalized feedback, nine reported some significant effects of feedback compared with a control condition, and two reported partial significant effects. The proposed procedural typology helps explain the diversity of results from studies reporting on the effects of PROM feedback, by highlighting that PROM feedback appears to be more effective when integrated in a formalized and structured manner. Future work is required to isolate these effects from common procedural correlates, such as monitoring of the therapeutic alliance.

Surgeon's experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study.

BackgroundThe use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide healthcare professionals with peer benchmarked feedback is growing. However, there is little evidence on the opinions of professionals on the value of this information in practice. The purpose of this research is to explore surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked PROMs feedback and to examine whether this information led to changes in their practice.MethodsThis qualitative research employed a Framework approach. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with surgeons who received peer benchmarked PROMs feedback. The participants included eleven consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the Republic of Ireland.ResultsFive themes were identified: conceptual, methodological, practical, attitudinal, and impact. A typology was developed based on the attitudinal and impact themes from which three distinct groups emerged. ‘Advocates’ had positive attitudes towards PROMs and confirmed that the information promoted a self-reflective process. ‘Converts’ were uncertain about the value of PROMs, which reduced their inclination to use the data. ‘Sceptics’ had negative attitudes towards PROMs and claimed that the information had no impact on their behaviour. The conceptual, methodological and practical factors were linked to the typology.ConclusionSurgeons had mixed opinions on the value of peer benchmarked PROMs data. Many appreciated the feedback as it reassured them that their practice was similar to their peers. However, PROMs information alone was considered insufficient to help identify opportunities for quality improvements. The reasons for the observed reluctance of participants to embrace PROMs can be categorised into conceptual, methodological, and practical factors. Policy makers and researchers need to increase professionals’ awareness of the numerous purposes and benefits of using PROMs, challenge the current methods to measure performance using PROMs, and reduce the burden of data collection and information dissemination on routine practice.

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.

Impact of patient‐reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review

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.