Literature DB >> 36138334

Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK.

Michael Anderson1, Emma Pitchforth2, Andrew Vallance-Owen3, Elias Mossialos4,5, Paul Millner6, Jon Fistein3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The independent healthcare sector in the UK collects PROMs for several surgical procedures, but implementation has been challenging. We aimed to understand the enablers and barriers to PROMs implementation in the independent healthcare sector in the UK.
METHOD: Between January and May 2021, we remotely conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital consultants, hospital managers and other clinical staff using a topic guide developed from an implementation science framework called the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).
RESULTS: We interviewed 6 hospital consultants, 5 hospital managers, and 3 other clinical staff (1 nurse and 2 physiotherapists) across 8 hospitals. Common barriers included: the perception that PROMs are predominantly a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool, absence of feedback mechanisms for PROMs data for clinicians, poor awareness of PROMs among healthcare professionals and the public, absence of direction or commitment from leadership, and limited support from hospital consultants. Common enablers included: regular feedback of PROMs data to clinicians, designating roles and responsibilities, formally embedding PROMs collection into patient pathways, and involvement of hospital consultants in developing strategies to improve PROMs uptake.
CONCLUSION: To support PROMs implementation, independent hospitals need to develop long-term organisational strategies that involve sustained leadership commitment, goals or targets, training opportunities to staff, and regular feedback of PROMs data at clinical or governance meetings. The primary purpose of PROMs needs to be reframed to independent healthcare sector stakeholders as a quality improvement tool rather than a reporting requirement.
© 2022. The Author(s).

Entities:  

Keywords:  Implementation; Independent healthcare; Independent providers; Outcome measurement; PROMs; Patient reported outcome measures; Private healthcare; Theoretical domains framework

Year:  2022        PMID: 36138334     DOI: 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes        ISSN: 2509-8020


  4 in total

Review 1.  Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care clinical practice: a systematic review of facilitators and barriers.

Authors:  Bárbara Antunes; Richard Harding; Irene J Higginson
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2013-06-25       Impact factor: 4.762

2.  Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs).

Authors:  Theresa Weldring; Sheree M S Smith
Journal:  Health Serv Insights       Date:  2013-08-04

Review 3.  The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews.

Authors:  Alexis Foster; Liz Croot; John Brazier; Janet Harris; Alicia O'Cathain
Journal:  J Patient Rep Outcomes       Date:  2018-10-03

4.  Prospective application of implementation science theories and frameworks to inform use of PROMs in routine clinical care within an integrated pain network.

Authors:  Sara Ahmed; Diana Zidarov; Owis Eilayyan; Regina Visca
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2020-09-02       Impact factor: 4.147

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.