Calls for routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures are getting louder

Development of an implementation strategy for routine collection of generic patient reported outcome measures: a qualitative study in multidisciplinary community rehabilitation

PURPOSE

To explore staff perceptions of barriers and enablers towards implementing the EQ-5D-5L in community rehabilitation, and develop a theory-informed implementation approach for routine administration of generic patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) using implementation science frameworks.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted at three sites. Multidisciplinary rehabilitation staff completed individual semi-structured interviews, which were transcribed and coded against the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We identified and selected potentially effective behaviour change techniques using the Behavior Change Wheel. Hypothetical strategies were operationalised.

RESULTS

Twenty-one interviews were conducted, and four themes emerged: (1) The Impact of PROMs on patient centered-care; (2) Considerations for validity of PROMs; (3) Service-level impact of embedding PROMs; (4) Practical issues of embedding PROMs within the service. Barriers and enablers were mapped to seven of the TDF domains; relating most to clinicians' "belief about consequences", "reinforcement", and "environmental context and resources". Five hypothetical strategies were developed to overcome identified barriers and strengthen enablers. Key behaviour change techniques underpinning the strategies include: restructuring the physical environment, incentivisation, persuasion and education, enablement, and, social support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our implementation approach highlights the importance of automating processes, engaging site champions, routinely reporting, and using PROM data to inform service provision.

Development and Integration of Patient-Reported Measures into E-Health System: Pilot Feasibility Study

Patient-centered care is recognized as a key element in recent healthcare management strategies. However, the integrated collection of patient feedback capturing the entire journey of patients with complex medical conditions remains understudied. Herein, we aimed to describe the development of an instrument prototype for the collection of PROMs and PREMs that would encompass a whole patient journey at a single time point. We further describe the process of its integration into a hospital's information system (HIS) and the results of a pilot feasibility study in adult patients with kidney and hematological diseases. We developed an instrument consisting of original PREM and generic EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. E-questionnaires were handled with REDCap software (version 12.5.14) and integrated into the HIS. Patients refusing to use e-questionnaires (48%) were offered paper administration and were older (64 vs. 50 years). The overall response rate for e-questionnaires was 57.1% with a median completion time of 2.0 and 3.7 min for PROM and PREM, respectively. Psychological and social services and primary care setting (diagnosis establishment and involvement in continuous care) were identified as most problematic. The majority of PREM dimensions encompassing different levels of care significantly correlated with PROM responses. Our data indicate the feasibility and potential relevance of the proposed approach, although wider-scale studies in diverse settings are needed.

Acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic patient reported outcome measure from the perspective of healthcare staff: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a measure of self-perceived health status or health-related quality of life. They have been used to support provider-patient decisions, healthcare delivery, and value-based healthcare models. A barrier to routine collection of PROMs is the perception that PROMs lack clinical utility. As such, it is important to establish clinicians' acceptability of the PROM prior to large-scale implementation. This study explored the acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic PROM in healthcare services from the perspective of healthcare staff.

METHODS

Individual semi-structured interviews were completed from September 2020 to March 2021 with 26 staff from two multi-disciplinary community healthcare services in Melbourne, Australia. Interviews explored their experiences of using the EQ-5D-5L in their routine care. Interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analysed according to a framework approach, using inductive and deductive techniques.

RESULTS

Participants discussed the acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L with reference to four themes: practicalities of use; holistic nature; influence on client care; and influence on health service. Participants found the EQ-5D-5L quick and easy to administer, and appreciated that it measured multiple domains of health that were relevant to their clients' care. They believed the EQ-5D-5L helped to identify client problems, and inform service delivery. They also reported features that were less acceptable, including a lack of item specificity to some healthcare disciplines. Participants reported the challenge of managing conflict between their assessment of the client's health and the client's perspective of their own health, leading some to question whether the client could provide an accurate reflection of their own health.

CONCLUSIONS

The EQ-5D-5L has several features that healthcare staff viewed as acceptable for routine collection and use in healthcare. Training on the validity of the patient reported perspective and broadening the scope of PROMs collection beyond the EQ-5D-5L should be considered to facilitate large-scale implementation.

A landscape assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measures in research, quality improvement and clinical care across a healthcare organisation

BACKGROUND

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used by healthcare organisations to inform improvements in service delivery. However, routine collection of PROMs is difficult to achieve across an entire healthcare organisation. An understanding of the use of PROMs within an organisation can provide valuable insights on the purpose, scope and practical considerations of PROMs collection, which can inform implementation of PROMs.

METHODS

We used multiple research methods to assess the use of PROMs in research projects, data registries and clinical care across a healthcare organisation from January 2014 to April 2021. The methods included an audit of ethics applications approved by the organisation's human research ethics committee and registries which the health organisation had contributed data to; a literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on research projects conducted at the organisation; and a survey of health professionals use of PROMs in research projects, data registries and clinical care. The scope of PROMs was determined by classifying PROMs as either 'specific' to a particular disease and/or condition, or as a 'generic' measure with further classification based on the health domains they measured, using the World Health Organization International Classification Framework. Practical considerations included mode and timing of PROMs administration. Data were described using frequency and proportion.

RESULTS

PROMs were used by 22% of research projects (n = 144/666), 68% of data registries (n = 13/19), and 76% of clinical specialties in their clinical care (n = 16/21). Disease specific PROMs were most commonly used: 83% of research projects (n = 130/144), 69% of clinical registries (n = 9/13), and 75% of clinical specialties (n = 12/16). Greater than 80% of research projects, clinical registries and clinical specialties measured health domains relating to both body impairments and participation in daily life activities. The most commonly used generic PROM was the EQ-5D (research projects n = 56/144, 39%; data registries n = 5/13, 38%; clinical specialties n = 4/16, 25%). PROMs used in clinical care were mostly paper-based (n = 47/55, 85%).

CONCLUSIONS

We have elicited information on the use of PROMs to inform a health organisation wide implementation strategy. Future work will determine clinician and patient acceptability of the EQ-5D, and co-design a system for the collection of PROMs.

Collection and Utilization of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in a Colorectal Surgery Clinic

INTRODUCTION

The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) promises to improve patient care. However, in colorectal surgery, PROMs are uncommonly collected outside of clinical research studies and rarely used in clinical care. We designed and implemented a quality improvement project with the goals of routinely collecting PROMs and increasing the frequency that PROMs are utilized by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice.

METHODS

This mixed-methods, quality improvement project was conducted in the colorectal surgery clinic of a tertiary academic medical center. Patients were administered up to five PROMs before each appointment. PROM completion rates were measured. Additionally, we performed two educational interventions to increase utilization of our electronic health record's PROM dashboard by colorectal surgeons. Utilization rates and attitudes toward the PROM dashboard were measured.

RESULTS

Overall, patients completed 3600 of 3977 (90.9%) administered PROMs during the study period. At baseline, colorectal surgeons reviewed 6.7% of completed PROMs. After two educational interventions, this increased to 39.3% (P = 0.004). Colorectal surgeons also felt that the PROM dashboard was easier to use. Barriers to greater PROM dashboard utilization included poor user interface/user experience and a perceived lack of knowledge, time, and relevance.

CONCLUSIONS

The collection of PROMs in colorectal surgery clinics is feasible and can result in high PROM completion rates. Educational interventions can improve the utilization of PROMs by colorectal surgeons in clinical practice. Our experience collecting PROMs through this quality improvement initiative can serve as a template for other colorectal surgery clinics interested in collecting and utilizing data from PROMs.

Variability drivers of treatment costs in hospitals: A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Studies on variability drivers of treatment costs in hospitals can provide the necessary information for policymakers and healthcare providers seeking to redesign reimbursement schemes and improve the outcomes-over-cost ratio, respectively. This systematic literature review, focusing on the hospital perspective, provides an overview of studies focusing on variability in treatment cost, an outline of their study characteristics and cost drivers, and suggestions on future research methodology.

METHODS

We adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We searched PubMED/MEDLINE, Web of Science, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, Science direct, OvidSP and Cochrane library. Two investigators extracted and appraised data for citation until October 2020.

RESULTS

90 eligible articles were included. Patient, treatment and disease characteristics and, to a lesser extent, outcome and institutional characteristics were identified as significant variables explaining cost variability. In one-third of the studies, the costing method was classified as unclear due to the limited explanation provided by the authors.

CONCLUSION

Various patient, treatment and disease characteristics were identified to explain hospital cost variability. The limited transparency on how hospital costs are defined is a remarkable observation for studies wherein cost variability is the main focus. Recommendations relating to variables, costs, and statistical methods to consider when designing and conducting cost variability studies were provided.

Confronting Barriers to Improving Healthcare Performance in Canada

Is substantive transformation of healthcare delivery in canada a fool's paradise? Since this idiom refers to a state of happiness unconnected to underlying truths, it may be an apt descriptor given the many problems with the provinces' and territories' delivery of healthcare. Some of these problems cause harm, such as hospital-acquired infections, while others are simply wasteful, such as unnecessary tests or imaging. Moreover, meaningful transformation of healthcare delivery has been elusive and divisive in provinces and territories for decades (Martin et al. 2018; McIntosh et al. 2010; Ontario Ministry of Finance 2012).

Common Problems, Common Data Model Solutions: Evidence Generation for Health Technology Assessment

There is growing interest in using observational data to assess the safety, effectiveness, and cost effectiveness of medical technologies, but operational, technical, and methodological challenges limit its more widespread use. Common data models and federated data networks offer a potential solution to many of these problems. The open-source Observational and Medical Outcomes Partnerships (OMOP) common data model standardises the structure, format, and terminologies of otherwise disparate datasets, enabling the execution of common analytical code across a federated data network in which only code and aggregate results are shared. While common data models are increasingly used in regulatory decision making, relatively little attention has been given to their use in health technology assessment (HTA). We show that the common data model has the potential to facilitate access to relevant data, enable multidatabase studies to enhance statistical power and transfer results across populations and settings to meet the needs of local HTA decision makers, and validate findings. The use of open-source and standardised analytics improves transparency and reduces coding errors, thereby increasing confidence in the results. Further engagement from the HTA community is required to inform the appropriate standards for mapping data to the common data model and to design tools that can support evidence generation and decision making.