Brittany Lapin1, Belinda Udeh2, Jocelyn F Bautista2, Irene L Katzan2. 1. From the Departments of Quantitative Health Sciences (B.L.) and Clinical Transformation (B.U.), Epilepsy Center (J.F.B.), and Cerebrovascular Center (I.L.K.), Cleveland Clinic, OH. LapinB@ccf.org. 2. From the Departments of Quantitative Health Sciences (B.L.) and Clinical Transformation (B.U.), Epilepsy Center (J.F.B.), and Cerebrovascular Center (I.L.K.), Cleveland Clinic, OH.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the neurologic patient experience with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and identify factors associated with a positive PROMs experience. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients seen in 6 neurologic clinics who completed patient experience questions at least once between October 2015 and September 2016. Questions assessed overall satisfaction with PROMs, as well as 4 facets of the PROM experience: usefulness of questions, ease of understanding, effect on communication with provider, and effect on control of their own care. Clinic and patient characteristics were summarized across questions and predictors of response were identified using multivariable proportional odds models. RESULTS: A total of 16,157 patients answered generic and condition-specific PROMs, as well as questions on their experience with completing PROMs. The majority of patients agreed/strongly agreed questions were easy to understand (96%), useful (83%), and improved communication (78%) and control (71%). After adjustment for other factors, being younger, black, or depressed, or having lower household income, were independent predictors of high satisfaction with PROMs. Patients who indicated the system improved communication and control of care were more often male, black, and lower income. Variability in responses was shown by clinic. CONCLUSION: Given the growing importance of patient satisfaction in health care, the patient experience with PROMs is a critical component of their successful implementation and utilization. Findings from this study support the feasibility of collecting PROMs in neurologic practice and the potential as a tool to optimize patient-centered neurologic care.
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the neurologic patient experience with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and identify factors associated with a positive PROMs experience. METHODS: This retrospective study included all patients seen in 6 neurologic clinics who completed patient experience questions at least once between October 2015 and September 2016. Questions assessed overall satisfaction with PROMs, as well as 4 facets of the PROM experience: usefulness of questions, ease of understanding, effect on communication with provider, and effect on control of their own care. Clinic and patient characteristics were summarized across questions and predictors of response were identified using multivariable proportional odds models. RESULTS: A total of 16,157 patients answered generic and condition-specific PROMs, as well as questions on their experience with completing PROMs. The majority of patients agreed/strongly agreed questions were easy to understand (96%), useful (83%), and improved communication (78%) and control (71%). After adjustment for other factors, being younger, black, or depressed, or having lower household income, were independent predictors of high satisfaction with PROMs. Patients who indicated the system improved communication and control of care were more often male, black, and lower income. Variability in responses was shown by clinic. CONCLUSION: Given the growing importance of patient satisfaction in health care, the patient experience with PROMs is a critical component of their successful implementation and utilization. Findings from this study support the feasibility of collecting PROMs in neurologic practice and the potential as a tool to optimize patient-centered neurologic care.
Authors: Brandon W Smith; Sarada Sakamuri; Kara E Flavin; Michael Jensen; David A Purger; Lynda J-S Yang; Robert J Spinner; Thomas J Wilson Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2021-05-15 Impact factor: 2.216
Authors: Nicholas F Hug; Brandon W Smith; Sarada Sakamuri; Michael Jensen; David A Purger; Robert J Spinner; Thomas J Wilson Journal: Acta Neurochir (Wien) Date: 2022-01-07 Impact factor: 2.216
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
Authors: Maud M van Muilekom; Lorynn Teela; Hedy A van Oers; Johannes B van Goudoever; Martha A Grootenhuis; Lotte Haverman Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-29 Impact factor: 4.147