Maria B Boyce1, John P Browne1, Joanne Greenhalgh2. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland. 2. School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise qualitative studies that investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve the quality of care. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL with no time restrictions. Hand searching was also performed. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme toolkit for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis identified common themes across studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. SETTING: All healthcare settings. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals. OUTCOMES: Professionals' views of PROMs after receiving PROMs feedback about individual patients or groups of patients. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs emerged within four main themes: collecting and incorporating the data (practical), valuing the data (attitudinal), making sense of the data (methodological) and using the data to make changes to patient care (impact). CONCLUSIONS: Professionals value PROMs when they are useful for the clinical decision-making process. Practical barriers to the routine use of PROMs are prominent when the correct infrastructure is not in place before commencing data collection and when their use is disruptive to normal work routines. Technology can play a greater role in processing the information in the most efficient manner. Improvements to the interpretability of PROMs should increase their use. Attitudes to the use of PROMs may be improved by engaging professionals in the planning stage of the intervention and by ensuring a high level of transparency around the rationale for data collection. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVES: To synthesise qualitative studies that investigated the experiences of healthcare professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to improve the quality of care. DESIGN: A qualitative systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, PsycINFO and CINAHL with no time restrictions. Hand searching was also performed. Eligible studies were evaluated using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme toolkit for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis identified common themes across studies. Study characteristics were examined to explain differences in findings. SETTING: All healthcare settings. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals. OUTCOMES: Professionals' views of PROMs after receiving PROMs feedback about individual patients or groups of patients. RESULTS: Sixteen studies met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators to the use of PROMs emerged within four main themes: collecting and incorporating the data (practical), valuing the data (attitudinal), making sense of the data (methodological) and using the data to make changes to patient care (impact). CONCLUSIONS: Professionals value PROMs when they are useful for the clinical decision-making process. Practical barriers to the routine use of PROMs are prominent when the correct infrastructure is not in place before commencing data collection and when their use is disruptive to normal work routines. Technology can play a greater role in processing the information in the most efficient manner. Improvements to the interpretability of PROMs should increase their use. Attitudes to the use of PROMs may be improved by engaging professionals in the planning stage of the intervention and by ensuring a high level of transparency around the rationale for data collection. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audit and feedback; Decision making; Health services research; Performance measures; Quality improvement
Authors: C Quinten; C Kenis; L Decoster; P R Debruyne; I De Groof; C Focan; F Cornelis; V Verschaeve; C Bachmann; D Bron; S Luce; G Debugne; H Van den Bulck; J C Goeminne; A Baitar; K Geboers; B Petit; C Langenaeken; R Van Rijswijk; P Specenier; G Jerusalem; J P Praet; K Vandenborre; M Lycke; J Flamaing; K Milisen; J P Lobelle; H Wildiers Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2018-12-03 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Brian J Hafner; Susan E Spaulding; Rana Salem; Sara J Morgan; Ignacio Gaunaurd; Robert Gailey Journal: Prosthet Orthot Int Date: 2016-09-16 Impact factor: 1.895
Authors: Philip J Van Der Wees; Maria W G Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden; John Z Ayanian; Nick Black; Gert P Westert; Eric C Schneider Journal: Milbank Q Date: 2014-12 Impact factor: 4.911
Authors: Keiki Hinami; Jennifer Smith; Catherine D Deamant; Romina Kee; Diana Garcia; William E Trick Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2014-12-07 Impact factor: 4.147