Abstract:ObjectivesTo determine whether an entirely electronic system can be used to capture both patient-reported outcomes (electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, ePROMs) as well as clinician-validated diagnostic and complexity data in an elective surgical orthopaedic outpatient setting. To examine patients' experience of this system and factors impacting their experience.DesignRetrospective analysis of prospectively collected data.SettingSingle centre series. Outpatient clinics at an elective foot and ankle un… Show more
“…As other studies have found, there is a need for organisations to invest in electronic systems [ 44 ]. However, this may not always be feasible, for example due to budget constraints or a lack of prioritisation by the organisation.…”
BackgroundThere is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations.MethodA systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491).ResultsInitially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: ‘designing’ the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and ‘preparing’ an organisation and its staff. The ‘designing’ stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The ‘preparing’ stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation.ConclusionOrganisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in ‘designing’ the PROMs strategy and ‘preparing’ the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
“…As other studies have found, there is a need for organisations to invest in electronic systems [ 44 ]. However, this may not always be feasible, for example due to budget constraints or a lack of prioritisation by the organisation.…”
BackgroundThere is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations.MethodA systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491).ResultsInitially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: ‘designing’ the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and ‘preparing’ an organisation and its staff. The ‘designing’ stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The ‘preparing’ stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation.ConclusionOrganisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in ‘designing’ the PROMs strategy and ‘preparing’ the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
“…the National Health Service England PROMs programme costs £825 000 annually [48]. Malhotra et al demonstrated electronic PROMs (ePROMs) can be successfully implemented into a service and innovative data collection methods improve the ease of administration, data capture rates and lower costs [49]. The implementation of ePROMs is now a realistic goal as the majority of patients now have access to smart-phones, tablet devices and internet access; alongside developments in electronic databases, which enable real-time collection of data.…”
Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) are useful metrics in evidence-based clinical care and translational research. Recording treatment-related symptoms and Quality of Life (QoL) can provide information in counselling patients to aid decision-making. This prospective study tested the feasibility of radiographer-led collection of multiple validated PROMS from Prostate Cancer (PCa) patients comparing High Dose Rate Brachytherapy combined with hypo-fractionated external beam radiotherapy (hEBRT) and hEBRT alone. From June to August 2017, 20 men with localised PCa (T1-T3aN0M0) consented to participate in the study. Ten patients received combination treatment (37.5 Gray/15 fractions followed by a 15 Gray implant), and ten patients received monotherapy (60 Gray/20 fractions). PROMS were collected at four time-points (1) at baseline, (2) final fraction of hEBRT, (3) 8 weeks after commencing radiotherapy and (4) 12 weeks after commencing radiotherapy. The PROMS used were EPIC-26, IPSS, IIEFF-5 and SF-12. The difference between the two groups were tested using Mann-Whitney U test and Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test. All participants completed all PROMS (100% response-rate). The Monotherapy group reported a higher incidence of bowel symptoms compared to the combination group and at Week 12, EPIC-26 bowel summary score demonstrated a statistically significant difference (p = 0.005). The prevalence of erectile dysfunction increased within both groups. Maintenance of QoL was reported throughout treatment. This small study demonstrated feasibility of radiographer-led PROMS collection by 100% completion rate. Streamlining of these tools into integrated technology applications and real time PROMS measurement has the ability to benefit patients and guide clinicians in adapting therapies based on individual need.
“…Deprivation and increased age are known to be associated with lower use of the internet, and a 2013 study finding indicated that younger, more affluent patients were more likely to use an electronic PROMs system (Ashley et al). Despite this, electronic collection of patient reported data has been carried out successfully in the UK (Malhotra et al 2016). Electronic data capture is less costly than traditional paper based methods and removes the need for data entry.…”
Patient experience teams in NHS Wales' Health Boards and Trusts are working across the country to collect patient experience feedback from members of the public who access health care services. Although this work is advanced in many areas, there is currently no way of benchmarking across organisations, reducing opportunities for shared learning. We aimed to work with patients and colleagues across Wales to agree a set of universal Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) questions. Working with patient experience teams, patient groups and Welsh Government, the NHS Wales Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs), Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) and Effectiveness Programme team has agreed a national set of PREMs questions for use across Wales. This process led on from previous work and included patient focus groups, patient experience leads and clinical input. Patients using secondary care services in Wales will be invited to complete the agreed PREMs survey along with patient outcome measures, via an electronic platform. This will provide a consistent method of data collection which will allow us to benchmark across hospitals and organisations in NHS Wales, identifying areas of good practice, as well as areas where patients report poorer experiences. This will allow local patient experience teams to target more in-depth experience gathering initiatives and carry out appropriate improvement programmes, making better use of resources. Identifying and sharing good practice will allow NHS Wales to advance patient experience, while triangulation with patient and clinical outcomes will drive the Prudent Healthcare agenda.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.