Dataset Information

How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis.

ABSTRACT: Objectives Internationally, there has been considerable debate about the role of data in supporting quality improvement in health care. Our objective was to understand how, why and in what circumstances the feedback of aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data improved patient care. Methods We conducted a realist synthesis. We identified three main programme theories underlying the use of patient-reported outcome measures as a quality improvement strategy and expressed them as nine 'if then' propositions. We identified international evidence to test these propositions through searches of electronic databases and citation tracking, and supplemented our synthesis with evidence from similar forms of performance data. We synthesized this evidence through comparing the mechanisms and impact of patient-reported outcome measures and other performance data on quality improvement in different contexts. Results Three programme theories were identified: supporting patient choice, improving accountability and enabling providers to compare their performance with others. Relevant contextual factors were extent of public disclosure, use of financial incentives, perceived credibility of the data and the practicality of the results. Available evidence suggests that patients or their agents rarely use any published performance data when selecting a provider. The perceived motivation behind public reporting is an important determinant of how providers respond. When clinicians perceived that performance indicators were not credible but were incentivized to collect them, gaming or manipulation of data occurred. Outcome data do not provide information on the cause of poor care: providers needed to integrate and interpret patient-reported outcome measures and other outcome data in the context of other data. Lack of timeliness of performance data constrains their impact. Conclusions Although there is only limited research evidence to support some widely held theories of how aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate quality improvement, several lessons emerge from interventions sharing the same programme theories to help guide the increasing use of these measures.

SUBMITTER: Greenhalgh J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5768260 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis.

Greenhalgh Joanne J Dalkin Sonia S Gibbons Elizabeth E Wright Judy J Valderas Jose Maria JM Meads David D Black Nick N

Journal of health services research & policy 20171220 1

Objectives Internationally, there has been considerable debate about the role of data in supporting quality improvement in health care. Our objective was to understand how, why and in what circumstances the feedback of aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data improved patient care. Methods We conducted a realist synthesis. We identified three main programme theories underlying the use of patient-reported outcome measures as a quality improvement strategy and expressed them as nine 'if t ...[more]

PMID: 29260592

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians' awareness of patients' problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes.ResultsPROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit.ConclusionsThis paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of routine patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to influence the care of individual patients with stroke. However, there are significant gaps in our understanding as to how PROMs influence post-stroke patient care and clinical practice. This is due to factors including the number of purported uses for PROMs and that PROMs are complex interventions, which attempt to stimulate varied actions or behaviours. Therefore, the objective of this realist synthesis is to offer theory-based explanations as to how PROMs influence post-stroke clinical practice and patient care.MethodsThis is a protocol for a realist synthesis, which involves three distinct phases: theory building (phase 1), theory testing and refinement (phase 2) and synthesis (phase 3). Phase 1 will develop initial rough programme theories (IRPTs), through literature searches (from January 2000 onwards) of MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and the grey literature. Only secondary sources will be included that contribute to the development of IRPTs. Only two IRPTs, prioritised by the stakeholder group, will be taken forward to be tested and refined during phase 2. Further novel searches will be employed in phase 2, utilising the same criteria as phase 1; however, phase 2 searches will not utilise grey literature searches, and only primary research studies that contribute to the refinement of programme theories under investigation will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen and select all returned results. The reviewers will code and annotate relevant sources, resulting in 'fragments' to be extracted and graded based on the richness of their contribution to explanation and causal insight. Further, these fragments will be organised into 'Context-Mechanism-Outcome' configurations. Phase 3 of the review will involve the synthesis of context-mechanism-outcome configurations to form middle-range theory-based explanations and developed logic models for stakeholders to understand how PROMs in post-stroke clinical practice and patient care work for whom, how and under what circumstances.DiscussionThe resulting realist synthesis will provide guidance on the implementation of PROMs within routine post-stroke clinical practice and patient care and act as a touchstone for further testing and refinement of PROMs programmes.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42020138649 .

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used by clinicians in everyday clinical practice to assess patients' perceptions of their own health and the healthcare they receive. By providing insight into how illness and interventions impact on patients' lives, they can help to bridge the gap between clinicians' expectations and what matters most to the patient. Given increasing focus on patient-centred care, the objective of this meta-synthesis was to summarise the qualitative evidence regarding patients' perspectives and experiences of the use of PROMs in clinical care.MethodsA systematic search of the following databases was undertaken in August 2020: Medline, EMBASE, EMCARE, PsychINFO, Scopus and the Cochrane Library. This review was conducted and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist for qualitative research (CASP). A meta-ethnographic approach was used for data extraction and meta-synthesis of findings (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020202506).ResultsFourteen studies from a range of countries with differing qualitative research methodologies were identified. Three themes were identified, namely 'patient preferences regarding PROMs', 'patient perceived benefits' and 'barriers to patient engagement with PROMs'. The perspectives of patients suggested they preferred PROMs that were simple and relevant to their conditions and found benefits in the way they facilitated self-reflection and effective communication with their clinicians. Patients, however, questioned the relevance of some individual questions and purpose.ConclusionPROMs can be a useful tool in the clinical setting by enabling individualisation and patient centred care. This meta-synthesis provides insights into what patients find beneficial as well as barriers to their engagement, highlighting the importance of educating patients about PROMs.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the overall effectiveness of total knee arthroplasty (TKA), a subset of patients do not experience expected improvements in pain, physical function, and quality of life as documented by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), which assess a patient's physical and emotional health and pain. It is therefore important to develop preoperative tools capable of identifying patients unlikely to improve by a clinically important margin after surgery.Questions/purposesThe purpose of this study was to determine if an association exists between preoperative PROM scores and patients' likelihood of experiencing a clinically meaningful change in function 1 year after TKA.MethodsA retrospective study design was used to evaluate preoperative and 1-year postoperative Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) and SF-12 version 2 (SF12v2) scores from 562 patients who underwent primary unilateral TKA. This cohort represented 75% of the 750 patients who underwent surgery during that time period; a total of 188 others (25%) either did not complete PROM scores at the designated times or were lost to follow-up. Minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) were calculated for each PROM using a distribution-based method and were used to define meaningful clinical improvement. MCID values for KOOS and SF12v2 physical component summary (PCS) scores were calculated to be 10 and 5, respectively. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was used to determine threshold values for preoperative KOOS and SF12v2 PCS scores and their respective predictive abilities. Threshold values defined the point after which the likelihood of clinically meaningful improvement began to diminish. Multivariate regression was used to control for the effect of preoperative mental and emotional health, patient attributes quantified by SF12v2 mental component summary (MCS) scores, on patients' likelihood of experiencing meaningful improvement in function after surgery.ResultsThreshold values for preoperative KOOS and SF12v2 PCS scores were a maximum of 58 (area under the curve [AUC], 0.76; p < 0.001) and 34 (AUC, 0.65; p < 0.001), respectively. Patients scoring above these thresholds, indicating better preoperative function, were less likely to experience a clinically meaningful improvement in function after TKA. When accounting for mental and emotional health with a multivariate analysis, the predictive ability of both KOOS and SF12v2 PCS threshold values improved (AUCs increased to 0.80 and 0.71, respectively). Better preoperative mental and emotional health, as reflected by a higher MCS score, resulted in higher threshold values for KOOS and SF12v2 PCS.ConclusionsWe identified preoperative PROM threshold values that are associated with clinically meaningful improvements in functional outcome after TKA. Patients with preoperative KOOS or SF12v2 PCS scores above the defined threshold values have a diminishing probability of experiencing clinically meaningful improvement after TKA. Patients with worse baseline mental and emotional health (as defined by SF12v2 MCS score) have a lower probability of experiencing clinically important levels of functional improvement after surgery. The results of this study are directly applicable to patient-centered informed decision-making tools and may be used to facilitate discussions with patients regarding the expected benefit after TKA.Level of evidenceLevel III, prognostic study.

Dataset Information

How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis.

Publications

How do aggregated patient-reported outcome measures data stimulate health care improvement? A realist synthesis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets