Mats Lundström1, Ulf Stenevi. 1. Department of Clinical Sciences, Ophthalmology, Faculty of Medicine, Lund University, Lund, Sweden. mats.lundstrom@karlskrona.mail.telia.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze three models of how patient-reported outcome measures can be connected to clinical outcome measures in cataract surgery to identify opportunities for improvement of quality of care. METHODS: Three models were used to analyze the following questions: Is there a relationship between clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes? (1) Is there a relationship between clinical parameters and a good or poor patient-reported outcome? (2) When and why do clinical and patient-reported outcomes diverge? (3) The study material to exemplify these models consisted of follow-up data on cataract extractions collected by the Swedish National Cataract Register in 2008 to 2011. Patient-reported outcome was measured using the Catquest-9SF questionnaire. A total of 9707 pairs of questionnaires completed before and after a cataract extraction were analyzed together with clinical data. RESULTS: Factors related to any change in patient-reported outcomes after surgery were the preoperative self-assessed visual function, the preoperative visual acuity in both eyes, the postoperative visual acuity, and ocular comorbidity. Factors related to poor patient-reported outcomes after surgery were good preoperative self-assessed visual functions, poor preoperative visual acuity in the better eye, ocular comorbidity, surgical complications, and large refractive deviation. Poor near vision after surgery was the main factor noted in situations where the clinical outcome was good and the patient-reported outcome was poor. Analyses 2 and 3 were the most useful analyses to give ideas for clinical improvement work. CONCLUSIONS: The best models to give ideas for improved quality of care by using a patient questionnaire in our study were analyzing the risk factors for a poor patient-reported outcome and analyzing the factors associated with disagreement between clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to analyze three models of how patient-reported outcome measures can be connected to clinical outcome measures in cataract surgery to identify opportunities for improvement of quality of care. METHODS: Three models were used to analyze the following questions: Is there a relationship between clinical parameters and patient-reported outcomes? (1) Is there a relationship between clinical parameters and a good or poor patient-reported outcome? (2) When and why do clinical and patient-reported outcomes diverge? (3) The study material to exemplify these models consisted of follow-up data on cataract extractions collected by the Swedish National Cataract Register in 2008 to 2011. Patient-reported outcome was measured using the Catquest-9SF questionnaire. A total of 9707 pairs of questionnaires completed before and after a cataract extraction were analyzed together with clinical data. RESULTS: Factors related to any change in patient-reported outcomes after surgery were the preoperative self-assessed visual function, the preoperative visual acuity in both eyes, the postoperative visual acuity, and ocular comorbidity. Factors related to poor patient-reported outcomes after surgery were good preoperative self-assessed visual functions, poor preoperative visual acuity in the better eye, ocular comorbidity, surgical complications, and large refractive deviation. Poor near vision after surgery was the main factor noted in situations where the clinical outcome was good and the patient-reported outcome was poor. Analyses 2 and 3 were the most useful analyses to give ideas for clinical improvement work. CONCLUSIONS: The best models to give ideas for improved quality of care by using a patient questionnaire in our study were analyzing the risk factors for a poor patient-reported outcome and analyzing the factors associated with disagreement between clinical outcomes and patient-reported outcomes.
Authors: Gregory Katz; Alexandra Rouquette; François Lignereux; Thierry Mourgues; Michel Weber; Mats Lundström Journal: Eye Vis (Lond) Date: 2021-04-01