Ian Porter1, Antoinette Davey2, Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli3, Jonathan Evans2, Charlotte Bramwell2, Philip Evans2,4, Chris Gibbons5, Jose M Valderas2,6,7. 1. Health Services and Policy Research, Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter, Magdalen Campus, Smeall Building, Room JS02, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. i.porter@exeter.ac.uk. 2. Health Services and Policy Research, Exeter Collaboration for Academic Primary Care (APEx), University of Exeter, Magdalen Campus, Smeall Building, Room JS02, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK. 3. University of Strathclyde Institute of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, Glasgow, UK. 4. NIHR Clinical Research Network, England, UK. 5. Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Symptom Research, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA. 6. St Leonard's Practice, Exeter, UK. 7. NIHR PenARC, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in clinical practice has the potential to promote patient-centred care and improve patients' quality of life. Individualized PROMs may be particularly helpful in identifying, prioritizing and monitoring health problems of patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to develop an intervention centred around PROMs feedback as part of Primary Care annual reviews for patients with multimorbidity and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a nurse-oriented intervention including (a) training of nurses on PROMs; (b) administration to patients with multimorbidity of individualized and standardized PROMS; and (c) feedback to both patients and nurses of PROMs scores and interpretation guidance. We then tailored the intervention to patients with two or more highly prevalent conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, depression, and hip/knee osteoarthritis) and designed a non-controlled feasibility and acceptability evaluation in a convenience sample of primary care practices (5). PROMs were administered and scores fed back immediately ahead of scheduled annual reviews with nurses. Patients and nurses rated the acceptability of the intervention using with a brief survey including optional free comments. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with a sample of participating patients (10) and nurses (4) and of survey free comments was conducted for further in-depth evaluation of acceptability. Feasibility was estimated based on rates of participation and completion. RESULTS: Out of 68 recruited patients (mean age 70; 47% female), 68 completed the PROMs (100%), received feedback (100%) and confirmed nurse awareness of their scores (100%). Most patients (83%) "agreed"/"strongly agreed" that the PROMs feedback had been useful, a view supported by nurses in 89% of reviews. Thematic analysis of rich qualitative data on PROMS administration, feedback and role in annual reviews indicated that both patients and nurses perceived the intervention as acceptable and promising, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and patient-centredness. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and tested an intervention focusing on routine PROM assessment of patients with multimorbidity in Primary Care. Preliminary findings support its feasibility and a high degree of acceptability from both patients and nurses. The next step is to conduct a full-scale trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.
BACKGROUND: The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in clinical practice has the potential to promote patient-centred care and improve patients' quality of life. Individualized PROMs may be particularly helpful in identifying, prioritizing and monitoring health problems of patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to develop an intervention centred around PROMs feedback as part of Primary Care annual reviews for patients with multimorbidity and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability. METHODS: We developed a nurse-oriented intervention including (a) training of nurses on PROMs; (b) administration to patients with multimorbidity of individualized and standardized PROMS; and (c) feedback to both patients and nurses of PROMs scores and interpretation guidance. We then tailored the intervention to patients with two or more highly prevalent conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, depression, and hip/knee osteoarthritis) and designed a non-controlled feasibility and acceptability evaluation in a convenience sample of primary care practices (5). PROMs were administered and scores fed back immediately ahead of scheduled annual reviews with nurses. Patients and nurses rated the acceptability of the intervention using with a brief survey including optional free comments. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with a sample of participating patients (10) and nurses (4) and of survey free comments was conducted for further in-depth evaluation of acceptability. Feasibility was estimated based on rates of participation and completion. RESULTS: Out of 68 recruited patients (mean age 70; 47% female), 68 completed the PROMs (100%), received feedback (100%) and confirmed nurse awareness of their scores (100%). Most patients (83%) "agreed"/"strongly agreed" that the PROMs feedback had been useful, a view supported by nurses in 89% of reviews. Thematic analysis of rich qualitative data on PROMS administration, feedback and role in annual reviews indicated that both patients and nurses perceived the intervention as acceptable and promising, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and patient-centredness. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed and tested an intervention focusing on routine PROM assessment of patients with multimorbidity in Primary Care. Preliminary findings support its feasibility and a high degree of acceptability from both patients and nurses. The next step is to conduct a full-scale trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.
Entities:
Keywords:
Multimorbidity; Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs); Primary health care
Authors: Jose M Valderas; Barbara Starfield; Bonnie Sibbald; Chris Salisbury; Martin Roland Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2009 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: J M Valderas; A Kotzeva; M Espallargues; G Guyatt; C E Ferrans; M Y Halyard; D A Revicki; T Symonds; A Parada; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: J A Palacio-Vieira; E Villalonga-Olives; J M Valderas; M Espallargues; M Herdman; S Berra; J Alonso; L Rajmil Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2008-10-18 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: N Black; L Burke; C B Forrest; U H Ravens Sieberer; S Ahmed; J M Valderas; S J Bartlett; J Alonso Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2015-11-13 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Ian Porter; Daniela Gonçalves-Bradley; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Chris Gibbons; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Ray Fitzpatrick; Nick Black; Joanne Greenhalgh; Jose M Valderas Journal: J Comp Eff Res Date: 2016-07-18 Impact factor: 1.744
Authors: Joanne Greenhalgh; Kate Gooding; Elizabeth Gibbons; Sonia Dalkin; Judy Wright; Jose Valderas; Nick Black Journal: J Patient Rep Outcomes Date: 2018-09-15
Authors: Chris Gibbons; Ian Porter; Daniela C Gonçalves-Bradley; Stanimir Stoilov; Ignacio Ricci-Cabello; Elena Tsangaris; Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli; Antoinette Davey; Elizabeth J Gibbons; Anna Kotzeva; Jonathan Evans; Philip J van der Wees; Evangelos Kontopantelis; Joanne Greenhalgh; Peter Bower; Jordi Alonso; Jose M Valderas Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-12
Authors: Emma J Dennett; Sadia Janjua; Elizabeth Stovold; Samantha L Harrison; Melissa J McDonnell; Anne E Holland Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2021-07-26