nach oben

Erschienen in:

02.12.2023

Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system

verfasst von: Kim Naude, Nadine E. Andrew, Velandai Srikanth, Emily Parker, Lucy Marsh, Richard Beare, Roisin McNaney, David A. Snowdon

Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research | Ausgabe 3/2024

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Purpose

Limited examples exist of successful Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) implementation across an entire healthcare organisation. The aim of this study was to use a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a PROM collection system, which will inform implementation of routine collection of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation.

Methods

Co-design comprised semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 11) and workshops/surveys with consumers (n = 320). The interview guide with clinicians focused on their experience using PROMs, preferences for using PROMs, and facilitators/barriers to using PROMs. Co-design activities specific to consumers focused on: (1) how PROMs will be administered (mode), (2) when PROMs will be administered (timing), (3) who will assist with PROMs collection, and (4) how long a PROM will take to complete. Data were analysed using a manifest qualitative content analysis approach.

Results

Core elements identified during the co-design process included: PROMs collection should be consumer-led and administered by someone other than a clinician; collection at discharge from the healthcare organisation and at 3–6 months post discharge would be most suitable for supporting comprehensive assessment; PROMs should be administered using a variety of modes to accommodate the diversity of consumer preferences, with electronic as the default; and the time taken to complete PROMs should be no longer than 5–10 min.

Conclusion

This study provides new information on the co-design of a healthcare organisation-wide PROM collection system. Implementing a clinician and patient informed strategy for PROMs collection, that meets their preferences across multiple domains, should address known barriers to routine collection.

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Porter, M. (2009). A strategy for health care reform - toward a value-based system. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(2), 109–112.CrossRefPubMed

Porter, M. (2010). What is value in health care? New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477–2481.CrossRefPubMed

Porter, M., Larsson, S., & Lee, T. (2013). The strategy that will fix health care. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 1–19.

Porter, M., & Teisberg, E. (2006). Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results. Harvard business press.

Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C. (2014). From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Annals of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573–576.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E. D., Leahy, C. J., & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. British Medical Journal, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMed

Williams, K., Sansoni, J., Darcy, M., Grootemaat, P., & Thompson, C. (2016). Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Literature Review. 2016, Australian commission on safety and quality in health care.

Sayah, F., Jin, X., & Johnson, J. (2021). Selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in health systems. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00374-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

10.

NHS. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). 2021 [cited 2022 10 January]; Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/proms/.

11.

Cancer, C.P.A. (2017). Effective, efficient, evolving: enhancing cancer control in Canada., CPAC: Toronto.

12.

Ernstsson, O., Janssen, M., & Heintz, E. (2020). 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. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00231-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

13.

Peters, M., Crocker, H., Jenkinson, C., & Doll, H. (2014). Ray Fitzpatrick The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: A cohort survey. BMJ Open, 4, e003968.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

14.

Gilbert, J., Howell, D., & King, S. (2012). Quality improvement in cancer symptom assessment and control: The provincial palliative care integration project (PPCIP. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 43, 663–678.CrossRefPubMed

15.

Rutherford, C., Campbell, R., Tinsley, M., Speerin, R., Soars, L., & Butcher, A. (2021). Madeleine king implementing patient-reported outcome measures into clinical practice across NSW: Mixed methods evaluation of the first year. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16, 1265–1284.CrossRef

16.

Foster, A., Croot, L., Brazier, J., Harris, J., & O’Cathain, A. (2018). The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: A systematic review of reviews. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Stover, A. M., Haverman, L., van Oers, H. A., Greenhalgh, Joanne, Potter, C. M., Ahmed, S., Greenhalgh, J., Gibbons, E., Haverman, L., Manalili, K., Potter, C., Roberts, N., Santana, M., & Stover, A. M. (2021). Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Quality of Life Research, 30, 3015–33.CrossRefPubMed

18.

Briggs, M., Rethman, K., & Crookes, J. (2020). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in outpatient rehabilitation settings: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(10), 1796–1812.CrossRefPubMed

19.

O’Connell, S., Palmer, R., Withers, K., Saha, N., Puntoni, S., & Carolan-Rees, G. (2018). Requirements for the collection of electronic PROMS either “in clinic” or “at home” as part of the PROMs, PREMs and Effectiveness Programme (PPEP) in Wales: A feasibility study using a generic PROM tool. Pilot and Feasibility Studies. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-018-0282-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Williams, K. & C. Thompson. (2018) Patient-reported outcome measures: Stakeholder interviews, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care,: Sydney.

21.

Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterley, 94(2), 392–429.CrossRef

22.

Dawda, P., & Knight, A. (2018). Experience Based Co-design: a toolkit for Australia. Prestantia Health: Canberra.

23.

Kyte, D., Anderson, N., Auti, R., Aiyegbusi, O. L., Bishop, J., Bissell, A., Brettell, E., Calvert, M., Chadburn, M., Cockwell, P., Dutton, M., Eddington, H., Forster, E., Hadley, G., Ives, N. J., Jackson, L., O’Brien, S., Price, G., Sharpe, K., … Williams, J. (2020). Development of an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePROM) system to aid the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00223-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Knowles, S. E., Ercia, A., Caskey, F., Rees, M., Farrington, K., & Van der Veer, S. N. (2021). Participatory co-design and normalisation process theory with staff and patients to implement digital ways of working into routine care: the example of electronic patient-reported outcomes in UK renal services. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06702-yCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

NSW Council of Social Services, Principles of co-design. 2017.

26.

Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18.

27.

Aitken, J., & Shackleton, D. (2014). Co-creation and co-design: Applied research methods in healthcare service design. Sage Publications.CrossRef

28.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. 2016 Census Quickstats: Mornington Peninsula 2021; Available from: https://www.abs.gov.au/census/find-census-data/quickstats/2021/214.

29.

Snowdon, D. A., Srikanth, V., Beare, R., Marsh, L., Parker, E., Naude, K., & Andrew, N. E. (2023). A landscape assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measures in research, quality improvement and clinical care across a healthcare organisation. BMC Health Services Research. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09050-1CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

30.

Andrew, N., Beare, R., & Ravipati, T. (2023). Developing a linked electronic health record derived data platform to support research into healthy ageing. International Journal of Population Data Science. https://doi.org/10.23889/ijpds.v8i1.2129CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

31.

Snowdon, D., Srikanth, V., & Beare, R. (2023). Acceptability of the routine use and collection of a generic patient reported outcome measure from the perspective of healthcare staff: A qualitative study. J Patient Rep Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00617-4CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Sayah, F. A., Lahtinen, M., Bonsel, G. J., Ohinmaa, A., & Johnson, J. A. (2021). A multi-level approach for the use of routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data in healthcare systems. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, 5, 98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

33.

Boyce, M., Browne, J., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23, 508–518.CrossRefPubMed

34.

Meadows, K. (2011). Patient-reported outcome measures: An overview. British Journal of Community Nursing, 16(3), 146–151.CrossRefPubMed

35.

The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef

36.

Hudak, P., Amadio, P., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). American Journal of Ind Med, 29, 602–608.CrossRef

37.

Snowdon, D. A., McGill, S., Altmann, C., Brooks, K., Everard, T., Le Fevre, K., & Andrew, N. E. (2022). Client and service factors associated with changes in health-related quality of life following community rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45, 512–522.CrossRefPubMed

38.

QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020) NVivo (released in March 2020).

39.

Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14.CrossRef

40.

Francis, J., Johnston, M., & Robertson, C. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25, 1229–1245.CrossRef

41.

Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 16, 98.CrossRefPubMed

42.

Brusco, N., Atkinson, V., & Woods, J. (2022). Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00483-6CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

43.

Price, C. M., de Amanda, C., Williams, C., Smith, B. H., & Bottle, A. (2018). Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) from specialist pain clinics in England and Wales: Experience from a nationwide study. European Journal of Pain, 23, 1368–1377.CrossRef

44.

Makhni, E. C., Swantek, A. J., Ziedas, A. C., Geoffrey Patterson, R., Allard, D., Day, C. S., & Betty, C. (2021). The Benefits of Capturing PROMs in the EMR. NEJM Catalyst Innovations in Care Delivery. https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.21.0134CrossRef

45.

Olalekan, L. (2020). Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems. Quality of Life Research, 29, 325–333.CrossRef

46.

Aiyegbusi, O. L., Kyte, D., Cockwell, P., Marshall, T., Dutton, M., Walmsley-Allen, N., & Auti, R. (2018). Calvert M Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 101, 120–127.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Gabbard, J., McLouth, C., & Murea, M. (2020). Rapid electronic capturing of patient-reported outcome measures in older adults with end-stage renal disease: A feasibility study. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 38(5), 432–440.CrossRefPubMed

48.

The University of Melbourne. Co-Design and Implementation Effectiveness. 2022 [cited 2022 February]; Available from: https://clinicalresearch.mdhs.unimelb.edu.au/about-us/co-design-and-implementation-effectiveness.

Titel: Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system
verfasst von: Kim Naude
Nadine E. Andrew
Velandai Srikanth
Emily Parker
Lucy Marsh
Richard Beare
Roisin McNaney
David A. Snowdon
Publikationsdatum: 02.12.2023
Verlag: Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in: Quality of Life Research / Ausgabe 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03552-5

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 3/2024

Validation of the brain injury associated visual impairment - impact questionnaire (BIVI-IQ)

A random item effects generalized partial credit model with a multiple imputation-based scoring procedure

Differences in health-related quality of life between native and foreign-born gynaecological cancer patients in Sweden: a five-year cross-sectional study

Physical and occupational therapists' perceptions of sustainability of a knowledge translation intervention to improve the use of outcome measures in inpatient rehabilitation: a qualitative study

Using parameter perturbation to facilitate transparency in measure development

Measurement equivalence of the English and French versions of the self-efficacy to manage chronic disease scale: a Scleroderma Patient-Centered Intervention Network (SPIN) study