Pablo F Recinos1,2, Cheryl J Dunphy3, Nicolas Thompson1, Jesse Schuschu1, John L Urchek3, Irene L Katzan4,5. 1. Cleveland Clinic, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. 2. Cleveland Clinic, Rose Ella Burkhardt Brain Tumor and Neuro-Oncology Center, Neurological Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. 3. Cleveland Clinic, Clinical Systems Office, Cleveland, OH, USA. 4. Cleveland Clinic, Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Neurological Institute, Cleveland, OH, USA. katzani@ccf.org. 5. Cleveland Clinic, Clinical Systems Office, Cleveland, OH, USA. katzani@ccf.org.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Systematic collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during ambulatory clinic visits can enhance communication between patient and provider, and provide the ability to evaluate outcomes of care. Little is known about patient satisfaction of PROM data collection in routine clinical care. To evaluate patient reaction to the routine collection of PROMs in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Before all ambulatory clinic visits at our neurological institute, patients electronically complete health status questionnaires. We administered an 8-question patient satisfaction survey to a sample of patients seen across the institute after their clinical visit. RESULTS: Of 343 patients approached, 323 agreed to participate. The majority responded that the questionnaire system was easy to use, was an appropriate length, and benefited their care overall (strongly agree or agree = 92.3%, 87.6%, and 77.3%, respectively). Provider review of the PROMs with the patient during the clinic visit was associated with significantly higher positive responses to all questions, even those regarding logistical aspects of the collection process. There were significant age and race differences in response to perceived benefit: those in the Black/other race category had a markedly lower probability of viewing the process favorably with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic collection of PROMs via an electronic questionnaire appears to be well accepted by patients. A minority of patients did not feel the questionnaire content applied to their appointment or that the system was a beneficial feature of the clinical practice. The provider can significantly improve the patient's perception of PROM collection and the patient-physician encounter by reviewing the questionnaire results with the patient.
INTRODUCTION: Systematic collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) during ambulatory clinic visits can enhance communication between patient and provider, and provide the ability to evaluate outcomes of care. Little is known about patient satisfaction of PROM data collection in routine clinical care. To evaluate patient reaction to the routine collection of PROMs in the ambulatory setting. METHODS: Before all ambulatory clinic visits at our neurological institute, patients electronically complete health status questionnaires. We administered an 8-question patient satisfaction survey to a sample of patients seen across the institute after their clinical visit. RESULTS: Of 343 patients approached, 323 agreed to participate. The majority responded that the questionnaire system was easy to use, was an appropriate length, and benefited their care overall (strongly agree or agree = 92.3%, 87.6%, and 77.3%, respectively). Provider review of the PROMs with the patient during the clinic visit was associated with significantly higher positive responses to all questions, even those regarding logistical aspects of the collection process. There were significant age and race differences in response to perceived benefit: those in the Black/other race category had a markedly lower probability of viewing the process favorably with increasing age. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic collection of PROMs via an electronic questionnaire appears to be well accepted by patients. A minority of patients did not feel the questionnaire content applied to their appointment or that the system was a beneficial feature of the clinical practice. The provider can significantly improve the patient's perception of PROM collection and the patient-physician encounter by reviewing the questionnaire results with the patient.
Authors: Heike Jacobi; Sophie Tezenas du Montcel; Peter Bauer; Paola Giunti; Arron Cook; Robyn Labrum; Michael H Parkinson; Alexandra Durr; Alexis Brice; Perrine Charles; Cecilia Marelli; Caterina Mariotti; Lorenzo Nanetti; Lidia Sarro; Maria Rakowicz; Anna Sulek; Anna Sobanska; Tanja Schmitz-Hübsch; Ludger Schöls; Holger Hengel; Laszlo Baliko; Bela Melegh; Alessandro Filla; Antonella Antenora; Jon Infante; José Berciano; Bart P van de Warrenburg; Dagmar Timmann; Sandra Szymanski; Sylvia Boesch; Wolfgang Nachbauer; Jun-Suk Kang; Massimo Pandolfo; Jörg B Schulz; Audrey Tanguy Melac; Alhassane Diallo; Thomas Klockgether Journal: J Neurol Date: 2018-06-29 Impact factor: 4.849
Authors: Mirelle Lagendijk; Elizabeth Mittendorf; Tari A King; Christopher Gibbons; Andrea Pusic; Laura S Dominici Journal: Oncologist Date: 2019-12-17
Authors: Silvia Schiavolin; Arianna Mariniello; Morgan Broggi; Francesco DiMeco; Paolo Ferroli; Matilde Leonardi Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 3.359
Authors: Brittany R Lapin; Ryan Honomichl; Nicolas Thompson; Susannah Rose; Abby Abelson; Chad Deal; Irene L Katzan Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2020-11-10 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: I N Sierevelt; R Zwiers; W Schats; D Haverkamp; C B Terwee; P A Nolte; G M M J Kerkhoffs Journal: Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc Date: 2017-10-12 Impact factor: 4.342
Authors: Christopher R Newey; Nicolas R Thompson; Pravin George; Vineet Punia; Stephen Hantus; Brittany Lapin; Joao Gomes; Irene Katzan Journal: Neurohospitalist Date: 2020-03-01