Literature DB >> 28433675

Montreal Accord on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) use series - Paper 8: patient-reported outcomes in electronic health records can inform clinical and policy decisions.

Sara Ahmed1, Patrick Ware2, William Gardner3, James Witter4, Clifton O Bingham5, Dahlia Kairy6, Susan J Bartlett7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Given that the goal of health care systems is to improve and maintain the health of the populations they serve, the indicators of performance must include outcomes that are meaningful to patients. The growth of health technologies provides an unprecedented opportunity to integrate the patient voice into clinical care by linking electronic health records (EHRs) to patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection. However, PRO data must be relevant, meaningful, and actionable for those who will have to invest the time and effort to collect it.
OBJECTIVE: In this study, we highlight opportunities to integrate PRO data collection into EHRs. We consider how stakeholder perspectives should influence the selection of PROs and ways to enhance engagement in and commitment to PRO implementation. We propose a research and policy agenda to address unanswered questions and facilitate the widespread adoption of PRO data collection into EHRs. DISCUSSION: Building a learning health care system that gathers PRO data in ways that can inform individual patient care, quality improvement, and comparative effectiveness research has the potential to accelerate the application of new evidence and knowledge to patient care.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Electronic health records; Patient engagement; Patient-reported outcome measure; Personal health record; Quality improvement; Technology

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28433675     DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.04.011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol        ISSN: 0895-4356            Impact factor:   6.437


  7 in total

1.  Grooming a CAT: customizing CAT administration rules to increase response efficiency in specific research and clinical settings.

Authors:  Michael A Kallen; Karon F Cook; Dagmar Amtmann; Elizabeth Knowlton; Richard C Gershon
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-05-05       Impact factor: 4.147

2.  Exploiting routine data for international benchmarking of quality in mental health care.

Authors:  Kristian Wahlbeck
Journal:  World Psychiatry       Date:  2018-02       Impact factor: 49.548

Review 3.  Examining perspectives on the adoption and use of computer-based patient-reported outcomes among clinicians and health professionals: a Q methodology study.

Authors:  Shirley V Burton; Annette L Valenta; Justin Starren; Joanna Abraham; Therese Nelson; Karl Kochendorfer; Ashley Hughes; Bhrandon Harris; Andrew Boyd
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-01-29       Impact factor: 4.497

4.  Raising the profile of pilot and feasibility studies in relation to the development, evaluation and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures.

Authors:  Georgina Jones
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2017-06-17

5.  Five levels of performance and two subscales identified in the computer-vision symptom scale (CVSS17) by Rasch, factor, and discriminant analysis.

Authors:  Mariano González-Pérez; Rosario Susi; Ana Barrio; Beatriz Antona
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-08-28       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 6.  Describing the current state of post-rehabilitation health system surveillance in Ontario - an invited review.

Authors:  Chip P Rowan; Brian C F Chan; Susan B Jaglal; B Catharine Craven
Journal:  J Spinal Cord Med       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 1.985

7.  Collection and use of EQ-5D for follow-up, decision-making, and quality improvement in health care - the case of the Swedish National Quality Registries.

Authors:  Olivia Ernstsson; Mathieu F Janssen; Emelie Heintz
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2020-09-16
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.