Dataset Information

Developing outcome measures assessing wound management and patient experience: a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:To develop outcome measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. DESIGN:Mixed methods, including qualitative interviews and data extraction from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs). SETTING:Two university-teaching NHS hospitals and three district NHS hospitals in the South West and Midlands regions of England. PARTICIPANTS:Sixty-four patients and 15 healthcare professionals from abdominal general surgical specialities and obstetrics (caesarean section). METHODS:Measures were developed according to standard guidelines to identify issues relevant to patients' experiences of surgical wounds and dressings, including analysis of existing RCT outcomes and semi-structured interviews. These were written into provisional questionnaire items for a single outcome measure. Cognitive interviews with patients and healthcare professionals assessed face validity, acceptability and relevance. Findings from interviews were regularly shared with the study team who suggested amendments to modify and reword items to improve understanding before further iterative testing with patients and healthcare professionals. RESULTS:Analyses of existing RCT outcomes and interviews produced a total of 69 issues. Pretesting and iterative revision established the need for two separate measures. One measure addresses healthcare professionals' experience of wound management in two key areas: exudate and its impact, and allergic reactions to the dressing. The other measure addresses patients' experience of wounds in seven key areas: wound comfort, dressing removal, dressings to protect the wound, impact on daily activities, ease of movement, anxiety about the wound and satisfaction with dressing. Each measure took less than five?min to complete and both were understood and acceptable to patients and healthcare professionals. CONCLUSION:This in-depth study has developed two measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience. Further work to test their validity, reliability and application to other settings is now required. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:HTA - 12/200/04; Pre-results.

SUBMITTER: Elliott D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5719294 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Developing outcome measures assessing wound management and patient experience: a mixed methods study.

Elliott Daisy D

BMJ open 20171126 11

<h4>Objectives</h4>To develop outcome measures to assess practical management of primary surgical wounds and patient experience.<h4>Design</h4>Mixed methods, including qualitative interviews and data extraction from published randomised controlled trials (RCTs).<h4>Setting</h4>Two university-teaching NHS hospitals and three district NHS hospitals in the South West and Midlands regions of England.<h4>Participants</h4>Sixty-four patients and 15 healthcare professionals from abdominal general surgi ...[more]

PMID: 29180591

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo examine the acceptability and validity of two patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for adult acne, comparing them to the validated Acne-specific Quality of Life (Acne-QoL) measure.DesignMixed-methods validation study.SettingParticipants were recruited by (1) mail-out through primary care if they had ever consulted for acne and received a prescription for acne treatment within the last 6 months, (2) opportunistically in secondary care and (3) poster advertisement in community venues.Participants221 (204 quantitative and 17 qualitative) participants with acne, aged 18-50 years.Outcome measuresQuantitative sub-study participants completed Acne-QoL, Skindex-16 and Comprehensive Acne Quality of Life Scale (CompAQ) at baseline, 24 hours and 6 weeks. Qualitative sub-study participants took part in cognitive think-aloud interviews, while completing the same measures. Transcribed audio recordings were analysed using inductive thematic analysis.ResultsQuantitative analyses suggested high internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.74-0.96) and reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient values 0.88-0.97) for both questionnaires. Both scales showed floor effects on some subdomains. Skindex-16 and CompAQ showed good evidence of construct validity when compared with Acne-QoL with Spearman's correlation coefficients 0.54-0.81, and good repeatability over 24 hours.Qualitative data uncovered wide-ranging views regarding usability and acceptability. Interviewees held strong but differing views about layout, question/response wording, redundant/similar questions and guidance notes. Similarly, interviewees differed in perceptions of acceptability of the different scales, particularly on relatability of questions and emotive reactions to scales.ConclusionsAll PROMs performed well in statistical analyses. No PROM showed superior usability and acceptability in the qualitative study. Any PROM should be acceptable for further research in adult acne but researchers should consider the different domains and whether they will measure only facial or facial and trunk acne before making a selection. A new PROM or further evaluation of novel PROMs may be beneficial.

Project description:IntroductionThe impact of patient centredness (PC) in healthcare has grown over the years. However, conceptualisations of PC are heterogeneous. Existing patient-reported measures of PC have shown inconsistencies and shortcomings. This impedes the comparison of results across studies. To foster PC, it is important to know which dimensions matter most to patients and to be able to measure its current extent from the patients' perspective. This study aims (1) to assess relevance of dimensions of PC from the patients' perspective, (2) to develop and psychometrically test a core set of patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assessing PC and (3) to investigate the feasibility of implementation of this core set in routine healthcare.Methods and analysisA mixed-methods approach will be used. In phase 1, 200 patients will assess the relevance of the dimensions of PC in a Delphi study using a plain language description. In phase 2, the core set of PREMs will be developed through literature reviews, focus groups, key informant interviews and content validity ratings. The core set will be tested psychometrically in a cross-sectional study with 2000 inpatient and outpatients with different chronic conditions (ie, cancer, cardiovascular diseases, mental disorders and musculoskeletal disorders). In phase 3, the feasibility of implementation of the core set will be assessed through semistructured interviews with healthcare practitioners after piloting in routine care. Furthermore, an expert workshop will be held on how to foster implementation.Ethics and disseminationThe study will be carried out in accordance to the latest version of the Helsinki Declaration of the World Medical Association and principles of good scientific practice. The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Medical Association Hamburg, Germany (study ID: PV5724). The study results will be disseminated in scientific journals and through collaboration partners and plain language press releases.

Project description:New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met ≥ 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.

Project description:BackgroundThird 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.MethodsA 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).ResultsBoth 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.ConclusionsWhilst 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.

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:There is a growing interest among healthcare providers (HCPs) to use Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in clinical care. PROMs can help improve patient-care provider communication and may be used to inform the need for interdisciplinary care for Low Back Pain (LBP). However, PROM implementation to support clinical decision-making is complex and requires knowledge translation (KT) interventions that will overcome barriers to using PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical settings. OBJECTIVES:to 1) identify potential barriers and enablers to using PROMs in primary care LBP clinical practice from the perspective of healthcare team members, and 2) develop a theory-based tailored KT intervention to facilitate the use of PROMs in interdisciplinary clinical practice. METHODS:We invited 25 HCPs working in an interdisciplinary team to complete a self-administered survey designed based on the Theoretical Domain Framework (TDF) to identify the barriers and enablers to using PROM scores in LBP clinical practice. The questionnaire consisted of 30 questions rated on a 5-point Likert scale (quantitative) and included open-ended questions (qualitative). Quantitative and qualitative data were analysed to estimate the frequency of barriers and enablers. Findings were then reviewed by a panel of four KT experts who mapped behaviour change techniques to barriers identified that informed the design of a KT intervention. RESULTS:Eighteen HCPs responded to the survey. Factors identified as likely to restrict the use of PROM scores included knowledge, skills, social/professional role and identity, goals, decision processes, beliefs about consequences, environmental context and resources, behavioural regulation, and social influence. A multi-component evidence-based KT intervention was proposed by the panel of experts to address these barriers: a training workshop; educational materials; and use of PROM score reports to HCPs that were all delivered by an opinion leader. CONCLUSION:The routine use of PROMs in clinical practice may optimize the quality of LBP care and improve patients' outcomes. The proposed multi-component KT intervention is expected to be an effective strategy to increase HCPs' ability to integrate PROMs into clinical decision-making and to engage patients in their care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Measures that reflect patients' assessment of their health are of increasing importance as outcome measures in randomised controlled trials. The methodological approach used in the pre-validation development of new instruments (item generation, item reduction and question formatting) should be robust and transparent. The totality of the content of existing PRO instruments for a specific condition provides a valuable resource (pool of items) that can be utilised to develop new instruments. Such 'top down' approaches are common, but the explicit pre-validation methods are often poorly reported. This paper presents a systematic and generalisable 5-step pre-validation PRO instrument methodology. METHODS:The method is illustrated using the example of the Aberdeen Glaucoma Questionnaire (AGQ). The five steps are: 1) Generation of a pool of items; 2) Item de-duplication (three phases); 3) Item reduction (two phases); 4) Assessment of the remaining items' content coverage against a pre-existing theoretical framework appropriate to the objectives of the instrument and the target population (e.g. ICF); and 5) qualitative exploration of the target populations' views of the new instrument and the items it contains. RESULTS:The AGQ 'item pool' contained 725 items. Three de-duplication phases resulted in reduction of 91, 225 and 48 items respectively. The item reduction phases discarded 70 items and 208 items respectively. The draft AGQ contained 83 items with good content coverage. The qualitative exploration ('think aloud' study) resulted in removal of a further 15 items and refinement to the wording of others. The resultant draft AGQ contained 68 items. CONCLUSIONS:This study presents a novel methodology for developing a PRO instrument, based on three sources: literature reporting what is important to patient; theoretically coherent framework; and patients' experience of completing the instrument. By systematically accounting for all items dropped after the item generation phase, our method ensures that the AGQ is developed in a transparent, replicable manner and is fit for validation. We recommend this method to enhance the likelihood that new PRO instruments will be appropriate to the research context in which they are used, acceptable to research participants and likely to generate valid data.

Project description:Birth centres are described as settings where women with uncomplicated pregnancies can give birth in a home-like environment assisted by midwives and maternity care assistants. If complications arise or threaten, the woman is referred to a maternity unit of a hospital where an obstetrician will take over responsibility. In the last decade, a number of new birth centres have been established in the Netherlands, based on the assumption that birth centres provide better quality of care since they offer a better opportunity for more integrated care than the existing system with independent primary and secondary care providers. At present, there is no evidence for this assumption. The Dutch Birth Centre Study is designed to present evidence-based recommendations for organization and functioning of future birth centres in the Netherlands. A necessary first step in this evaluation is the development of indicators for measuring the quality of the care delivered in birth centres in the Netherlands. The aim of this study is to identify a comprehensive set of structure and process indicators to assess quality of birth centre care.We used mixed methods to develop a set of structure and process quality indicators for evaluating birth centre care. Beginning with a literature review, we developed an exhaustive list of determinants. We then used a Delphi study to narrow this list, calling on experts to rate the determinants for relevance and feasibility. A multidisciplinary expert panel of 63 experts, directly or indirectly involved with birth centre care, was invited to participate.A panel of 42 experts completed two Delphi rounds rating determinants of the quality of birth centre care based on their relevance (to the setting) and feasibility (of use). A set of 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators was identified to assess the quality of birth centre care in the Netherlands.We identified 30 determinants for structure and process quality indicators concerning birth centre care. This set will be validated during the evaluation of birth centres in the Dutch Birth Centre Study.

Dataset Information

Developing outcome measures assessing wound management and patient experience: a mixed methods study.

Publications

Developing outcome measures assessing wound management and patient experience: a mixed methods study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets