Ethan Basch1, John Spertus2, R Adams Dudley3, Albert Wu4, Cynthia Chuahan5, Perry Cohen6, Mary Lou Smith7, Nick Black8, Amaris Crawford9, Keri Christensen9, Kathleen Blake9, Christine Goertz10. 1. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA. Electronic address: ebasch@med.unc.edu. 2. University of Missouri, Kansas City, MO, USA. 3. University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA. 4. Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA. 5. Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN (Patient Representative), USA. 6. Parkinson Pipeline Project, Washington, DC (Patient Representative), USA. 7. Research Advocacy Network, Plano, TX (Patient Representative), USA. 8. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, England. 9. American Medical Association, Chicago, IL, USA. 10. Palmer College of Chiropractic, Davenport, IA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To recommend methods for assessing quality of care via patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) of symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. METHODS: A Technical Expert Panel was assembled by the American Medical Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. An environmental scan and structured literature review were conducted to identify quality programs that integrate PRO-PMs. Key methodological considerations in the design, implementation, and analysis of these PRO-PM data were systematically identified. Recommended methods for addressing each identified consideration were developed on the basis of published patient-reported outcome (PRO) standards and refined through public comment. Literature review focused on programs using PROs to assess performance and on PRO guidance documents. RESULTS: Thirteen PRO programs and 10 guidance documents were identified. Nine best practices were developed, including the following: provide a rationale for measuring the outcome and for using a PRO-PM; describe the context of use; select a measure that is meaningful to patients with adequate psychometric properties; provide evidence of the measure's sensitivity to differences in care; address missing data and risk adjustment; and provide a framework for implementation, interpretation, dissemination, and continuous refinement. CONCLUSION: Methods for integrating PROs into performance measurement are available.
OBJECTIVE: To recommend methods for assessing quality of care via patient-reported outcome-based performance measures (PRO-PMs) of symptoms, functional status, and quality of life. METHODS: A Technical Expert Panel was assembled by the American Medical Association-convened Physician Consortium for Performance Improvement. An environmental scan and structured literature review were conducted to identify quality programs that integrate PRO-PMs. Key methodological considerations in the design, implementation, and analysis of these PRO-PM data were systematically identified. Recommended methods for addressing each identified consideration were developed on the basis of published patient-reported outcome (PRO) standards and refined through public comment. Literature review focused on programs using PROs to assess performance and on PRO guidance documents. RESULTS: Thirteen PRO programs and 10 guidance documents were identified. Nine best practices were developed, including the following: provide a rationale for measuring the outcome and for using a PRO-PM; describe the context of use; select a measure that is meaningful to patients with adequate psychometric properties; provide evidence of the measure's sensitivity to differences in care; address missing data and risk adjustment; and provide a framework for implementation, interpretation, dissemination, and continuous refinement. CONCLUSION: Methods for integrating PROs into performance measurement are available.
Authors: Anne P Ehlers; Sara Khor; Amy M Cizik; Jean-Christophe A Leveque; Neal S Shonnard; Rod J Oskouian; David R Flum; Danielle C Lavallee Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-10 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Angela M Stover; Benjamin Y Urick; Allison M Deal; Randall Teal; Maihan B Vu; Jessica Carda-Auten; Jennifer Jansen; Arlene E Chung; Antonia V Bennett; Anne Chiang; Charles Cleeland; Yehuda Deutsch; Edmund Tai; Dylan Zylla; Loretta A Williams; Collette Pitzen; Claire Snyder; Bryce Reeve; Tenbroeck Smith; Kristen McNiff; David Cella; Michael N Neuss; Robert Miller; Thomas M Atkinson; Patricia A Spears; Mary Lou Smith; Cindy Geoghegan; Ethan M Basch Journal: JCO Oncol Pract Date: 2020-02-19
Authors: Eliza M Park; Xianming Tan; Elise M Stephenson; Allison M Deal; Justin M Yopp; Donald L Rosenstein; Teresa Edwards; Mi-Kyung Song Journal: J Pain Symptom Manage Date: 2017-09-23 Impact factor: 3.612
Authors: Margaret Bevans; Areej El-Jawahri; D Kathryn Tierney; Lori Wiener; William A Wood; Flora Hoodin; Erin E Kent; Paul B Jacobsen; Stephanie J Lee; Matthew M Hsieh; Ellen M Denzen; Karen L Syrjala Journal: Biol Blood Marrow Transplant Date: 2016-09-19 Impact factor: 5.742