Using co-production to implement patient reported outcome measures in third sector organisations: a mixed methods study.
Implementing
Outcome assessment
Patient-reported outcomes
Third sector organisations
Journal
Journal of patient-reported outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Titre abrégé: J Patient Rep Outcomes
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101722688
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 Jul 2022
19 Jul 2022
Historique:
received:
11
02
2022
accepted:
28
06
2022
entrez:
19
7
2022
pubmed:
20
7
2022
medline:
20
7
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Third sector organisations such as charities and community groups are using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at an aggregated service level to demonstrate their impact to commissioners to generate or retain funding. Despite this motivation, organisations can struggle with implementing PROMs. Previous studies have identified facilitators including organisations using an appropriate measure, co-producing the PROMs process with staff, and investing resources to support the use of measures. However, to date no studies have applied this learning to third sector organisations to evaluate whether taking an evidence-informed implementation approach improves the use of PROMs. A Community-Based Participatory Research approach was used which involved university-based researchers supporting two third sector organisations to implement PROMs. The researchers provided evidence-informed advice and training. The organisations were responsible for implementing PROMs. The researchers evaluated implementation through a mixed methods approach including five key informant interviews, four evaluation groups and analysis of collected PROMs data (n = 313). Both third sector organisations faced considerable constraints in incorporating known facilitators and addressing barriers. The organisations involved staff in choosing an acceptable measure. However, competing priorities including external pressures to use specific PROMs, busy workloads and staff opinions created challenges to using measures. Investment of time and energy into developing an outcomes-based organisational culture was key to enable the prioritisation of PROMs. For example, discussing PROMs in supervision so that they were viewed as part of people's job roles. Organisations found that implementation took several years and was disrupted by other pressures. Whilst organisations were motivated to implement PROMs to obtain or retain funding, they faced considerable practical and ideological challenges. Consequently, some stakeholders felt that alternative methods to measuring impact could potentially be more feasible than PROMs.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Third sector organisations such as charities and community groups are using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) at an aggregated service level to demonstrate their impact to commissioners to generate or retain funding. Despite this motivation, organisations can struggle with implementing PROMs. Previous studies have identified facilitators including organisations using an appropriate measure, co-producing the PROMs process with staff, and investing resources to support the use of measures. However, to date no studies have applied this learning to third sector organisations to evaluate whether taking an evidence-informed implementation approach improves the use of PROMs.
METHODS
METHODS
A Community-Based Participatory Research approach was used which involved university-based researchers supporting two third sector organisations to implement PROMs. The researchers provided evidence-informed advice and training. The organisations were responsible for implementing PROMs. The researchers evaluated implementation through a mixed methods approach including five key informant interviews, four evaluation groups and analysis of collected PROMs data (n = 313).
RESULTS
RESULTS
Both third sector organisations faced considerable constraints in incorporating known facilitators and addressing barriers. The organisations involved staff in choosing an acceptable measure. However, competing priorities including external pressures to use specific PROMs, busy workloads and staff opinions created challenges to using measures. Investment of time and energy into developing an outcomes-based organisational culture was key to enable the prioritisation of PROMs. For example, discussing PROMs in supervision so that they were viewed as part of people's job roles. Organisations found that implementation took several years and was disrupted by other pressures.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Whilst organisations were motivated to implement PROMs to obtain or retain funding, they faced considerable practical and ideological challenges. Consequently, some stakeholders felt that alternative methods to measuring impact could potentially be more feasible than PROMs.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35852723
doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00485-4
pii: 10.1186/s41687-022-00485-4
pmc: PMC9296723
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
78Subventions
Organisme : National Institute for Health Research
ID : DRF-2016-09-007
Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Devlin N, Appleby J (2010) Getting the most out of PROMs—putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making: the King's Fund. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/Getting-the-most-out-of-PROMs-Nancy-Devlin-John-Appleby-Kings-Fund-March-2010.pdf . Accessed 15 Mar 2018
Greenhalgh J, Pawson R, Wright J, Black N, Valderas J, Meads D et al (2014) Functionality and feedback: a protocol for a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data to improve patient care. BMJ Open 4(7):e005601. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005601
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005601
pubmed: 25052175
pmcid: 4120334
Tennant R, Hiller L, Fishwick R, Platt S, Joseph S, Weich S et al (2007) The Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS): development and UK validation. Health Qual Life Outcomes 5(63):52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-5-63
Herdman M, Gudex C, Lloyd A, Janssen M, Kind P, Parkin D et al (2011) Development and preliminary testing of the new five-level version of EQ-5D (EQ-5D-5L). Qual Life Res 20(10):1727–1736. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9903-x
pubmed: 21479777
pmcid: 3220807
Rand S, Malley J, Towers A, Netten A, Forder J (2017) Validity and test-retest reliability of the self-completion adult social care outcomes toolkit (ASCOT-SCT4) with adults with long-term physical, sensory and mental health conditions in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 15(1):163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-017-0739-0
doi: 10.1186/s12955-017-0739-0
pubmed: 28821303
pmcid: 5562982
Aaronson N, Elliott T, Greenhalgh J, Halyard M, Hess R, Miller D, et al. (2015) User’s guide to implementing patient-reported outcomes assessment in clinical practice—version 2. International Society for Quality of Life Research, https://www.isoqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2015UsersGuide-Version2.pdf . Accessed 11 Jan 2022
NHS England and NHS Improvement (2020) Social prescribing link workers: Reference guide for primary care networks—technical annex. https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/pcn-reference-guide-for-social-prescribing-technical-annex-june-20.pdf . Accessed 11 Jan 2022
Alonso J, Bartlett S, Rose M, Aaronson N, Chaplin J, Efficace F et al (2013) The case for an international patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS®) initiative. Health Qual Life Outcomes 11:210. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-210
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-11-210
pubmed: 24359143
pmcid: 3879205
Foster A, O’Cathain A, Harris J (2020) How do third sector organisations or charities providing health and well-being services in England implement patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)? A qualitative interview study. BMJ Open 10(10):e039116. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039116
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-039116
pubmed: 33033028
pmcid: 7542936
Kyte D, Cockwell P, Lencioni M, Skrybant M, von Hildebrand M, Price G et al (2016) Reflections on the national patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme: where do we go from here? J R Soc Med 109(12):441–445. https://doi.org/10.1177/0141076816677856
doi: 10.1177/0141076816677856
pubmed: 27923896
pmcid: 5154408
Nilsen P (2015) Making sense of implementation theories, models and frameworks. Implement Sci 10:53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0
pubmed: 25895742
pmcid: 4406164
Bach-Mortensen A, Montgomery P (2019) Does sector matter for the quality of care services? A secondary analysis of social care services regulated by the Care Inspectorate in Scotland. BMJ Open 9(2):e022975. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022975
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022975
pubmed: 30772845
pmcid: 6398786
Churchill K, Warner L, Keogh E, Al SF (2021) Implementation of EQ-5D-5L as a routine outcome measure in Community Outpatient and Specialized Rehabilitation Services. J Patient Rep Outcomes 5(103):52. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00369-z
doi: 10.1186/s41687-021-00369-z
Øvretveit J, Zubkoff L, Nelson E, Frampton S, Lehmann Knudsen J, Zimlichman E (2017) Using patient-reported outcome measurement to improve patient care. Int J Qual Health Care 29(6):874–879. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzx108
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzx108
pubmed: 29025001
Stover A, Haverman L, van Oers H, Greenhalgh J, Potter C, ISOQOL PROMs/PREMs in Clinical Practice Implementation Science Work Group (2021) Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res 30(11):3015–3033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9
doi: 10.1007/s11136-020-02564-9
pubmed: 32651805
Biber J, Ose D, Reese J, Gardiner A, Facelli J, Spuhl J et al (2018) Patient reported outcomes—experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2:34. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0
doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0
pubmed: 30175316
pmcid: 6097980
Gibbons E, Fitzpatrick R (2018) An alternative approach to implementing patient-reported outcome measures. Pilot Feasibility Stud 4:96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40814-018-0289-1
doi: 10.1186/s40814-018-0289-1
pubmed: 29997903
pmcid: 6031120
Howell D, Rosberger Z, Mayer C, Faria R, Hamel M, Snider A et al (2020) Personalized symptom management: a quality improvement collaborative for implementation of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in “real-world” oncology multisite practices. J Patient Rep Outcomes 4(1):47. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00212-x
doi: 10.1186/s41687-020-00212-x
pubmed: 32556794
pmcid: 7300168
NHS (2019) The NHS long term plan. NHS. https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/ . https://www.longtermplan.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/nhs-long-term-plan-version-1.2.pdf
Crampton P, Woodward A, Dowell A (2001) The role of the third sector in providing primary care services—theoretical and policy issues. Soc Policy J N Zeal 17:1–21
Macmillan R (2010) The third sector delivering public services: An evidence review. University of Birmingham, Birmingham
Gamsu M, Southby K, South J, Newton R, Di Martino S, Bagnall A (2019) Debating what works for Community Wellbeing: Findings from two national public hearings on community wellbeing, health inequalities and local systems. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. What Works Centre for Wellbeing. https://whatworkswellbeing.org/product/public-debate-wellbeing/ . Accessed 11 Jan 2022
Harris J, Springett J, Mathews D, Weston G, Foster A (2021) Using knowledge brokering to produce community-generated evidence. Evid Policy. https://doi.org/10.1332/174426421X16190024737973
doi: 10.1332/174426421X16190024737973
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. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2:46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3
doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3
pubmed: 30363333
pmcid: 6170512
Wallerstein N, Duran B (2006) Using community-based participatory research to address health disparities. Health Promot Pract 7(3):312–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839906289376
doi: 10.1177/1524839906289376
pubmed: 16760238
Israel B, Eng E, Schulz A, Parker E (2005) Methods in community-based participatory research for health. Jossey Bass, San Francisco
Israel B, Schulz A, Parker E, Becker A, Allen A, Guzman J (2003) Critical issues in developing and following community-based participatory research principles. In: Minkler M, Wallerstein N (eds) Community-based participatory research for health. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, pp 56–73
Kemmis S, McTaggert R (2000) Participatory action research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y (eds) Handbook of qualitative research, 2nd edn. Sage, Thousand Oaks, pp 567–607
Trondsen M, Sandaunet A (2009) The dual role of the action researcher. Eval Program Plann 32(1):13–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.005
doi: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2008.09.005
pubmed: 19019435
Alvesson M, Skoldberg K (2000) Reflexive methodology: new vistas for qualitative research. Sage, London
Henderson J (2015) Community anchors. What works Scotland. http://whatworksscotland.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/WWSthinkpiece-Community-Anchors-Nov151.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2020
Charity Commission (2020) Register of individual charities. Charity Commission for England and Wales. https://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/showcharity/registerofcharities/RegisterHomePage.aspx . Accessed 15 Jan 2020
NCVO (2017) Civil Society Almanac-2017. NCVO. https://ncvo-app-wagtail-mediaa721a567-uwkfinin077j.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/ncvo-uk-civil-society-almanac-2017.pdf
Sheffield City Council (Undated) Poverty in Sheffield: an assessment of need. Sheffield City Council. http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/documents/s17338/Tackling%20Poverty%20Strategy%202.pdf . Accessed 19 Nov 2019
Gonzalez J, Trickett E (2014) Collaborative measurement development as a tool in CBPR: measurement development and adaptation within the cultures of communities. Am J Community Psychol 54(1–2):112–124. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-014-9655-1
doi: 10.1007/s10464-014-9655-1
pubmed: 24748283
pmcid: 4158449
Pain R, Whitman G, Milledge D, Lune Rivers Trust (2012) Participatory action research toolkit: an introduction to using PAR as an approach to learning, research and action. Community Learning Partnership, http://communitylearningpartnership.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/PARtoolkit.pdf . Accessed 15 Mar 2017
Lee C, Mellor T, Dilworth-Anderson P, Young T, Brayne C, Lafortune L (2018) Opportunities and challenges in public and community engagement: the connected for cognitive health in later life (CHILL) project. Res Involv Engagem 4:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-018-0127-x
doi: 10.1186/s40900-018-0127-x
pubmed: 30479832
pmcid: 6245708
McKenna S, Iwasaki P, Stewart T, Main D (2011) Key informants and community members in community-based participatory research: one is not like the other. Prog Community Health Partnersh 5(4):387–397
pubmed: 22616206
Tessier S (2012) From field notes, to transcripts, to tape recordings: evolution or combination? Int J Qual Methods 11(4):446–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940691201100410
doi: 10.1177/160940691201100410
Phillippi J, Lauderdale J (2018) A Guide to field notes for qualitative research: context and conversation. Qual Health Res 28(3):381–388. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697102
doi: 10.1177/1049732317697102
pubmed: 29298584
Braun V, Clarke V, Hayfield N, Terry G (2019) Thematic analysis. In: Liamputtong P (ed) Handbook of research methods in health social sciences. Springer, Singapore, pp 843–860
doi: 10.1007/978-981-10-5251-4_103
Moran-Ellis J, Alexander V, Cronin A, Dickinson M, Fielding J, Sleney J et al (2006) Triangulation and integration: processes, claims and implications. Qual Res 6:45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794106058870
doi: 10.1177/1468794106058870
Hong Q, Gonzalez-Reyes A, Pluye P (2018) Improving the usefulness of a tool for appraising the quality of qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies, the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). J Eval Clin Pract 24(3):459–467. https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.12884
doi: 10.1111/jep.12884
pubmed: 29464873
Litchfield I, Greenfield S, Turner G, Finnikin S, Calvert M (2021) Implementing PROMs in routine clinical care: a qualitative exploration of GP perspectives. BJGP Open 5(1):135. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgpopen20X101135
doi: 10.3399/bjgpopen20X101135
Wolpert M (2014) Uses and abuses of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs): potential iatrogenic impact of PROMs implementation and how it can be mitigated. Adm Policy Ment Health 41(2):141–145. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-013-0509-1
doi: 10.1007/s10488-013-0509-1
pubmed: 23867978
Polley M, Richards R (2019) A guide to selecting Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for social prescribing. University of Westminster, London. https://www.london.gov.uk/sites/default/files/a_guide_to_selecting_outcomes_measures_in_social_prescribing_final.pdf . Accessed 15 Jan 2020
Terwee C, Crins M, Boers M, de Vet H, Roorda L (2019) Validation of two PROMIS item banks for measuring social participation in the Dutch general population. Qual Life Res 28(1):211–220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1995-0
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-1995-0
pubmed: 30203302
Thestrup Hansen S, Kjerholt M, Christensen S, Hølge-Hazelton B, Brodersen J (2019) Haematologists’ experiences implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in an outpatient clinic: a qualitative study for applied practice. J Patient Rep Outcomes 3(1):74. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-019-0166-6
doi: 10.1186/s41687-019-0166-6
pubmed: 31884569
pmcid: 6935381
Chan E, Edwards T, Haywood K, Mikles S, Louise NL (2019) Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Qual Life Res 28(3):621–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4
doi: 10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4
pubmed: 30448911