Factors Associated With Increased Collection of Patient-Reported Outcomes Within a Large Health Care System.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 04 2020
01 04 2020
Historique:
entrez:
15
4
2020
pubmed:
15
4
2020
medline:
23
10
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has garnered intense interest, but dissemination of PRO programs has been limited, as have analyses of the factors associated with successful programs. To identify factors associated with improving PRO collection rates within a large health care system using a centralized PRO infrastructure. This cohort study included 205 medical and surgical clinics in the Partners Healthcare system in Massachusetts that implemented a PRO program between March 15, 2014, and December 31, 2018, using a standardized centralized infrastructure. Data were analyzed from March to April 2019. Relevant clinical characteristics were recorded for each clinic launching a PRO program. The primary outcome was the mean PRO collection rate during each clinic's most recent 6 months of collection prior to January 2019. Data were analyzed using a linear regression model with the 6-month PRO collection rate as the dependent variable and clinic characteristics as independent variables. Secondary analysis used a logistic regression model to assess clinical factors associated with successful clinics, defined as those that collected PROs at a rate greater than 50%. Between March 2014 and December 2018, 205 Partners Healthcare clinics were available for analysis, and 4 061 205 PRO measures from 745 028 encounters were collected. Among these, 103 clinics (50.2%) collected at a rate greater than 50%. Increased collection rates were associated with more than 50% of physicians in a clinic trained on PROs (change, 19.6% [95% CI, 9.9%-29.4%]; P < .001), routine administrative oversight of collection rates (change, 16.0% [95% CI, 6.6%-25.5%]; P = .001), previous collection of PROs on paper (change, 12.5% [95% CI, 4.7%-20.3%]; P = .002), presence of a clinical champion (change, 11.2% [95% CI, 2.5%-20.0%]; P = .01) and payer incentive (change, 10.5% [95% CI, 2.0%-18.9%]; P = .02). These findings suggest that training physicians on the use of PROs, administrative surveillance of collection rates, and the presence of a local clinical champion may be promising interventions for increasing PRO collection. Clinics that have previously collected PROs may have greater success in increasing collections. Payer incentive for collection was associated with improved collections, but not associated with successful programs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32286657
pii: 2764375
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.2764
pmc: PMC7156989
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e202764Références
Med Care. 2019 Mar;57(3):177-179
pubmed: 30664612
Am Heart J. 2013 Sep;166(3):589-96
pubmed: 24016511
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Dec 2;101(23):1624-32
pubmed: 19920223
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
N Engl J Med. 2017 Jan 12;376(2):105-108
pubmed: 28076708
JAMA. 2017 Jul 11;318(2):197-198
pubmed: 28586821
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Sep 21;8:104
pubmed: 20858248
Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book. 2018 May 23;38:122-134
pubmed: 30231381
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Aug 17;2:34
pubmed: 30175316