Dataset Information

Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) aims to compare providers as regards the clinical need of their patients and their outcome. Simple methods of estimating recruitment rates based on aggregated data may be inaccurate. Our objectives were to: use patient-level linked data to evaluate these estimates; produce revised estimates of national and providers' recruitment rates; and explore whether or not recruitment bias exists.

Methods

Case study based on patients who were eligible to participate in the English National PROMs Programme for elective surgery (hip and knee replacement, groin hernia repair, varicose vein surgery) using data from pre-operative questionnaires and Hospital Episode Statistics. Data were linked to determine: the eligibility for including operations; eligibility of date of surgery; duplicate questionnaires; cancelled operations; correct assignment to provider. Influence of patient characteristics on recruitment rates were investigated.

Results

National recruitment rates based on aggregated data over-estimated the true rate because of the inclusion of ineligible operations (from 1.9% - 7.0% depending on operation) and operations being cancelled (1.9% - 3.6%). Estimates of national recruitment rates using inclusion criteria based on patient-level linked data were lower than those based on simple methods (eg hip replacement was 73% rather than 78%).Estimates of provider's recruitment rates based on aggregated data were also adversely affected by attributing patients to the wrong provider (2.4% - 4.9%). Use of linked data eliminated all estimates of over 100% recruitment, though providers still showed a wide range of rates.While the principal determinant of recruitment rates was the provider, some patients' socio-demographic characteristics had an influence on non-recruitment: non-white (Adjusted Odds Ratio 1.25-1.67, depending on operation); most deprived socio-economic group (OR 1.11-1.23); aged over 75 years (OR 1.28-1.79). However, there was no statistically significant association between providers' recruitment rates and patients' pre-operative clinical need.

Conclusions

Accurate recruitment rates require the use of linked data to establish consistent inclusion criteria for numerators and denominators. Non-recruitment will bias comparisons of providers' pre-operative case-mix and may bias comparisons of outcomes if unmeasured confounders are not evenly distributed between providers. It is important, therefore, to strive for high recruitment rates.

SUBMITTER: Hutchings A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3923248 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons.

Hutchings Andrew A Neuburger Jenny J van der Meulen Jan J Black Nick N

BMC health services research 20140211

<h4>Background</h4>The routine use of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) aims to compare providers as regards the clinical need of their patients and their outcome. Simple methods of estimating recruitment rates based on aggregated data may be inaccurate. Our objectives were to: use patient-level linked data to evaluate these estimates; produce revised estimates of national and providers' recruitment rates; and explore whether or not recruitment bias exists.<h4>Methods</h4>Case study base ...[more]

PMID: 24511984

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesPatient-reported outcome measures invite patients to self-report aspects of their quality of life and have been reported to enhance communication with clinicians. We aimed to examine how routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in in-center hemodialysis units influenced patient-clinician communication.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsA concurrent, longitudinal, mixed-methods approach was used. We used data from a cluster randomized controlled trial of 17 hemodialysis units in northern Alberta that introduced a patient-reported outcome measures intervention. Patient-clinician communication was assessed using a modified Communication Assessment Tool. Using interpretive description, we explored patients' and nurses' perceptions of communication pertaining to routine patient-reported outcome measure use. Through purposeful sampling, we interviewed ten patients and eight nurses and conducted six observations in the dialysis units, which were documented in field notes. We reviewed 779 patient responses to open-ended survey questions from randomized controlled trial data. Qualitative data were thematically analyzed.ResultsOverall, patient-reported outcome measure use did not substantively improve patient-clinician communication. There was a small positive change in mean total Communication Assessment Tool scores (range, 1-5) from baseline to 12 months in patient-reported outcome measure use units (0.25) but little difference from control group units that did not use patient-reported outcome measures (0.21). The qualitative findings provide in-depth insights into why patient-reported outcome measure use did not improve patient-clinician communication. The purpose of patient-reported outcome measure use was not always understood by patients and clinicians; patient-reported outcome measures were not implemented as originally intended in the trial, despite clinician training; there were challenges using patient-reported outcome measures as a means to communicate; and patient-reported outcome measure use was perceived to have limited value.ConclusionsWhile patient-reported outcome measures use did not improve patient-clinician communication, qualitative data suggest implementation challenges, including limited clarity of purpose and perceived limited value, that may have limited the effectiveness of the intervention.

Project description:Background/objectivesRoutine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of health care systems is mandated in many countries and has been implemented successfully in many specialities. Ophthalmology currently lags behind. To support and inform future implementation, we investigated paediatric ophthalmic clinicians' experience of, and future training needs for, using child-appropriate vision PROMs and their views about the barriers and enablers to future routine implementation in clinical practice.MethodsWe conducted a pilot study, using an online survey to elicit the experience, attitudes, training needs and perceptions of barriers and enablers to routine PROMs use of ophthalmic health professionals in the Paediatric Ophthalmology Department at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London. A focus-group was undertaken to discuss survey results and preferences regarding presentation of PROM data. Analysis comprised descriptive statistics, presented alongside complementary qualitative data.ResultsEighteen clinicians in the department completed the survey. Twenty-seven took part in the focus group. Clinicians had limited experience of using PROMs but high confidence in the potential positive impact on communication with patients, monitoring chronic conditions and clinical decision-making. Clinicians identified operational issues (collection and analysis of data) and impact (interpretation and application of data) as the two key areas for consideration. Training and information requirements before implementation were clearly articulated, alongside the benefits of using digital/electronic data capture ahead of consultations to allow efficiency and automated analysis, and presentation in an appropriate visual format alongside clinical data to ensure meaningful use.ConclusionThe findings of this pilot study of ophthalmic clinicians working in a specialist paediatric ophthalmology department, suggest that ophthalmic clinicians recognise the potential benefits of routine PROMs use in clinical practice. Together with existing literature outside ophthalmology relating to overcoming barriers and exploiting enablers to routine implementation, findings may be applicable in planning routine PROM implementation in paediatric ophthalmology.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) may result in great impact on patients' quality of life, social relationships, and work productivity. The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in routine care could help capture disease burden to guide SLE management and optimize disease control. We aimed to explore the current situation, appropriateness, and feasibility of PROMs to monitor patients with SLE in routine care, from healthcare professionals' and patients' perspectives.MethodsA scientific committee developed a Delphi questionnaire, based on a focus group with patients and a literature review, including 22 statements concerning: 1) Use of PROMs in routine care (n = 2); 2) PROMs in SLE management (n = 13); 3) Multidisciplinary management of patients with SLE (n = 4), and 4) Aspects on patient empowerment (n = 3). Statements included in Sects. 2-4 were assessed from three perspectives: current use, appropriateness, and feasibility (with currently available resources). For each statement, panellists specified their level of agreement using a 7-point Likert scale. A consensus was reached when ≥ 70% of the panellists agreed (6,7) or disagreed (1,2) on each statement.ResultsFifty-nine healthcare professionals and 16 patients with SLE participated in the Delphi-rounds. A consensus was reached on the value of PROMs to improve SLE management (83%) and the key role of healthcare professionals (77%) and the need for a digital tool connected to the electronic medical record (85%) to promote and facilitate PROMs collection. PROMs most frequently used in clinical practice are pain (56%), patient's global assessment (44%) and fatigue (39%), all on visual analogue scales. Panellists agreed on the need to implement multidisciplinary consultation (79%), unify complementary tests (88%), incorporate pharmacists into the healthcare team (70%), and develop home medication dispensing and informed telepharmacy programmes (72%) to improve quality of care in patients with SLE. According to panellists, patient associations (82%) and nurses (80%) are critical to educate and train patients on PROMs to enhance patient empowerment.ConclusionsAlthough pain, fatigue, and global assessment were identified as the most feasible, PROMs are not widely used in routine care in Spain. The present Delphi consensus can provide a road map for their implementation being key for SLE management.

Dataset Information

Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets