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.
Implementation
Independent healthcare
Independent providers
Outcome measurement
PROMs
Patient reported outcome measures
Private healthcare
Theoretical domains framework
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:
23 Sep 2022
23 Sep 2022
Historique:
received:
04
04
2022
accepted:
14
09
2022
entrez:
22
9
2022
pubmed:
23
9
2022
medline:
23
9
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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). 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
METHODS
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36138334
doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5
pii: 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5
pmc: PMC9500124
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
101Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
Ann Oncol. 2015 Sep;26(9):1846-1858
pubmed: 25888610
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2018 Jan;23(1):57-65
pubmed: 29260592
BMJ Open. 2020 Aug 6;10(8):e030808
pubmed: 32764078
BMJ. 2013 Jan 28;346:f167
pubmed: 23358487
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Apr;99(4):483-490
pubmed: 26603445
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Sep 15;2:42
pubmed: 30294712
Int J Qual Health Care. 2021 Mar 5;34(Suppl 1):ii13–ii27
pubmed: 32159763
Implement Sci. 2017 Jun 21;12(1):77
pubmed: 28637486
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Oct 03;2:46
pubmed: 30363333
Qual Life Res. 2008 Mar;17(2):179-93
pubmed: 18175207
J Cancer Surviv. 2016 Jun;10(3):573-82
pubmed: 26644190
Fam Pract. 1996 Dec;13(6):522-5
pubmed: 9023528
Value Health. 2019 Oct;22(10):1197-1226
pubmed: 31563263
J Comp Eff Res. 2016 Aug;5(5):507-19
pubmed: 27427277
J Pediatr Psychol. 2020 Apr 1;45(3):247-265
pubmed: 31710671
Qual Life Res. 2021 Nov;30(11):3035-3047
pubmed: 32876812
Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2020 Nov;156-157:11-23
pubmed: 32980282
Palliat Med. 2014 Feb;28(2):158-75
pubmed: 23801463
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Sep;89:125-135
pubmed: 28433671
PLoS One. 2018 Dec 11;13(12):e0208797
pubmed: 30533057
Health Serv Insights. 2013 Aug 04;6:61-8
pubmed: 25114561
Implement Sci. 2009 Aug 07;4:50
pubmed: 19664226
BMJ Qual Saf. 2014 Jun;23(6):508-18
pubmed: 24505110
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2020 Oct;101(10):1796-1812
pubmed: 32416149
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:g7818
pubmed: 25670183
Implement Sci. 2011 Apr 23;6:42
pubmed: 21513547
BMJ. 2019 Jan 24;364:k5267
pubmed: 30679170
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Feb 10;20(1):102
pubmed: 32041593