Electronic collection of patient-reported outcomes following discharge after surgery: systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Little is known about the electronic collection and clinical feedback of patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) following surgical discharge. This systematic review summarized the evidence on the collection and uses of electronic systems to collect PROs after discharge from hospital after surgery.Method
Systematic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Cochrane Central were undertaken from database inception to July 2019 using terms for 'patient reported outcomes', 'electronic', 'surgery' and 'at home'. Primary research of all study designs was included if they used electronic systems to collect PRO data in adults after hospital discharge following surgery. Data were collected on the settings, patient groups and specialties, ePRO systems (including features and functions), PRO data collected, and integration with health records.Results
Fourteen studies were included from 9474 records, including two RCTs and six orthopaedic surgery studies. Most studies (9 of 14) used commercial ePRO systems. Six reported types of electronic device were used: tablets or other portable devices (3 studies), smartphones (2), combination of smartphones, tablets, portable devices and computers (1). Systems had limited features and functions such as real-time clinical feedback (6 studies) and messaging service for patients with care teams (3). No study described ePRO system integration with electronic health records to support clinical feedback.Conclusion
There is limited reporting of ePRO systems in the surgical literature, and ePRO systems lack integration with hospital clinical systems. Future research should describe the ePRO system and ePRO questionnaires used, and challenges encountered during the study, to support efficient upscaling of ePRO systems using tried and tested approaches.
SUBMITTER: Tsang C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8007587 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:A descriptive review was conducted to evaluate the evidence of cognitive patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) following cardiac surgery. The search of electronic databases resulted in 400 unique manuscripts. Nine studies met the criteria to be part of the final review. Results of the review suggest that there are few validated PROMs that assess cognitive function in the cardiac surgical population. Furthermore, PROMs have not been used to assess overall cognitive function following cardiac surgery within the past decade. However, one domain of cognitive function-memory-was described, with up to half of patients reporting a decline postoperatively. Perceived changes in cognitive function may impact health-related quality of life and a patient's overall view of the success of their surgery. Early identification of cognitive changes measured with PROMs may encourage earlier intervention and improve patient-centered care. In clinical practice, nurses may be in the best position to administer PROMs preoperatively and postoperatively.
| S-EPMC8205391 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRecent events in health care reform have brought national attention to integrating patient experiences and expectations into quality metrics. Few studies have comprehensively evaluated the effect of patient expectations on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after surgery. The purpose of this study is to systematically review the available literature describing the relationship between patient expectations and postoperative PROs.MethodsWe performed a search of the literature published before November 1, 2012. Articles were included in the review if (1) primary data were presented, (2) patient expectations regarding a surgical procedure were measured, (3) PROs were measured, and (4) the relationship between patient expectations and PROs was specifically examined. PROs were categorized into 5 subgroups: Satisfaction, quality of life (QOL), disability, mood disorder, and pain. We examined each study to determine the relationship between patient expectations and PROs as well as study quality.ResultsFrom the initial literature search yielding 1,708 studies, 60 articles were included. Fulfillment of expectations was associated with improved PROs among 24 studies. Positive expectations were correlated with improved PROs for 28 studies (47%), and poorer PROs for 9 studies (15%). Eighteen studies reported that fulfillment of expectations was correlated with improved patient satisfaction, and 10 studies identified that positive expectations were correlated with improved postoperative. Finally, patients with positive preoperative expectations reported less pain (8 studies) and disability (15 studies) compared with patients with negative preoperative expectations.ConclusionPatient expectations are inconsistently correlated with PROs after surgery, and there is no accepted method to capture perioperative expectations. Future efforts to rigorously measure expectations and explore their influence on postoperative outcomes can inform clinicians and policymakers seeking to integrate PROs into measures of surgical quality.
| S-EPMC4170731 | biostudies-literature
Project description:INTRODUCTION:Analysis of quality of life (QOL) outcomes is an important aspect of lymphedema treatment since this disease can substantially impact QOL in affected individuals. There are a growing number of studies reporting patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) for patients with lymphedema. The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review of outcomes and utilization of PROMs following surgical treatment of lymphedema. METHODS:A literature search of four databases was performed up to and including March, 2019. Studies included reported on QOL outcomes after physiologic procedures, defined as either lymphovenous bypass (LVB) or vascularized lymph node transplant (VLNT), to treat upper and/or lower extremity primary or secondary lymphedema. RESULTS:In total, 850 studies were screened-of which, 32 studies were included in this review. Lymphovenous bypass was the surgical intervention in 16 studies, VLNT in 11 studies, and both in 5 studies. Of the 32 total studies, 16 used validated survey tools. The most commonly used PROM was the lymph quality of life measure for limb lymphedema (LYMQOL) (12 studies). In the remaining four studies, the upper limb lymphedema 27 scale (ULL27), the short form 36 questionnaire (SF-36), the lymphedema functioning, disability and health questionnaire (Lymph-ICF), and lymphedema life impact scale (LLIS) were each used once. QOL improvement following surgical treatment was noted in all studies. CONCLUSIONS:Physiologic surgical treatment of lymphedema results in improved QOL outcomes in most patients. The use of validated PROM tools is increasing but there is no current consensus on use. Future research to evaluate the psychometric properties of PROMs in lymphedema is needed to guide the development and use of lymphedema-specific tools.
| S-EPMC7139674 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study aims to investigate the potential benefits of integrating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into routine clinical practice for patients undergoing active anticancer treatment.MethodsWe conducted a comprehensive systematic review of randomized controlled trials involving cancer patients undergoing active anticancer treatment, spanning various cancer types and stages. The review covered four electronic databases (Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and CINAHL) up to September 2022. Key inclusion criteria focused on the incorporation of PROs as a routine intervention. Bias assessment followed the Cochrane collaboration's criteria, while the synthesis of results utilized effect size measurements (Cohen's d). The study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.ResultsOut of 1549 initially screened records, 16 published randomized controlled trials encompassing 5300 patients met the inclusion criteria. The interventions involved 18 different PROs measurements, with prominent tools being EORTC QLQ-C30 (utilized in four trials) and PRO-CTCAE (utilized in four trials). Measured endpoints included overall quality of life (12 trials), physical health (11 trials), mental health (7 trials), and social health (5 trials). Overall, the study revealed a limited number of statistically significant findings, with predominantly small to moderate effect sizes associated with the interventions.ConclusionsThe findings suggest that the routine integration of PROs into clinical practice does not yield definitive advantages in terms of PROs. It is apparent that further efforts are necessary to ascertain the impact of these interventions on patient health.Systematic review registrationThe review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (ID: CRD42022365456).
| S-EPMC10597759 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough there is growing interest in applying patient-reported outcomes (PROs) toward surgical quality, the extent to which PROs vary across hospitals following surgical procedures is unknown.ObjectivesWe examined variation in PROs, specifically health-related quality of life (HRQOL), across hospitals performing bariatric surgery.Research designA retrospective cohort study.SubjectsThe Michigan Bariatric Surgery Collaborative is a statewide consortium of 39 hospitals performing laparoscopic gastric bypass, gastric banding, or sleeve gastrectomy (n=11,420 patients between 2008 and 2012).MeasuresWe examined generic and disease-specific HRQOL measured by the Health and Activities Limitations Index (HALex) and Bariatric Quality of Life index (BQL) preoperatively and at 1 year. We measured the variation in postoperative HRQOL across hospitals, and the effect of risk and reliability adjustment on hospital ranking.ResultsIn this cohort, HRQOL varied by 56% (HALex) and 37% (BQL) across hospitals. Patient factors accounted for 58% (HALex) to 71% (BQL) of the variation in HRQOL across hospitals. After risk and reliability adjustment, HRQOL varied by 18% (by HALex) and 14.5% (by BQL) across hospitals, and the proportion of patients who experienced a large improvement in HRQOL by HALex ranged from 33% to 69% and 67% to 92% by BQL. After adjusting for patient factors and reliability, these differences diminished to 55%-64% (HALex) and 79%-84% (BQL).ConclusionsPatient factors explain a large proportion of hospital-level variation in PROs following bariatric surgery, underscoring the importance of risk adjustment. However, some variation in PROs across hospitals remains unexplained, suggesting PROs may represent a viable indicator of hospital performance.
| S-EPMC9621341 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The aim of this review was to summarize literature in view of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for glaucoma and provide guidance on how outcomes are best assessed based on evidence about their content and validity. A systematic literature review was performed on papers describing the developmental process and/or psychometric properties of glaucoma or vision-specific PRO-instruments. Each of them was assessed on their adherence to a framework of quality criteria. Fifty-three articles were identified addressing 27 PRO-instruments. In all, 18 PRO's were developed for glaucoma and 9 for diverse ophthalmologic conditions. Seven instruments addressed functional status, 11 instruments quality of life and 9 instruments disease and treatment-related factors. Most of the instruments demonstrated only partially adherence to predefined quality standards. The tools for assessing functional status were of poor quality, while the Glaucoma Quality of Life Questionnaire and the Vision Quality of Life Index were well-developed QoL measures, yet only validated using classical techniques. The Rasch-scaled QoL-tools, IVI and VCM1 need to improve their item-content for glaucoma patients. The questionnaires to measure adherence should improve their validity and the Treatment Satisfaction Survey for Intra Ocular Pressure pops out as the highest quality tool for measuring topical treatment side effects. This review revealed that most PRO-instruments demonstrated poor developmental quality, more specifically a lack of conceptual framework and item generation strategies not involving the patients' perspective. Psychometric characteristics were mostly tested using classical validation techniques.
| S-EPMC3171264 | biostudies-other
Project description:This review article systematically reviews the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Vitreoretinal surgery, with the aim of recommending a preferred PROM-tool for use in clinical practice. Vitreoretinal surgery lags behind other ophthalmic subspecialties in the adoption of PROMs as a core outcome measure of success post-operatively. Current outcomes rely heavily on post-operative Best Corrected Visual Acuity (BCVA) and anatomical success on imaging modalities such as Ocular Coherence Tomography (OCT), despite the link between each of these measures and patient satisfaction being uncertain. We systematically reviewed the available literature in March 2021, in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, searching six databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, APA PsycINFO, SCOPUS and Cochrane Library. Critical appraisal of PROM-tools was facilitated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) risk of bias checklist. We identified 14 eligible original research papers that used PROMs as a primary or secondary outcome of success post-operatively in patients having undergone vitreoretinal surgery. Eight different generic and vision-related PROM-tools were identified as being used in vitreoretinal studies, none of which were vitreoretinal-disease-specific. Our review article considers whether generic-health PROMs (e.g., EQ5D) or vision-related PROMs (e.g. NEI VFQ-25) are precise or responsive enough following vitreoretinal surgery to have a meaningful impact on clinical or research practice. We also consider the importance of standardisation of clinical outcomes in vitreoretinal clinical trials.
| S-EPMC9905525 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundElectronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) are commonly used in oncology clinical practice and have shown benefits for patients and health resource use.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the isolated effect of administering ePROs to patients with cancer versus a control condition.MethodsThe PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines were followed. Randomized controlled trials evaluating ePRO interventions that aimed to improve health-related outcomes among patients with cancer were included. The primary outcome was health-related quality of life (HRQOL), and the secondary outcomes were symptoms, hospital admissions, unplanned visits, chemotherapy completion, survival, and satisfaction with care. The effect sizes of ePROs on health-related outcomes were analyzed as standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% CIs using a random effects model.ResultsThe search identified 10,965 papers, of which 19 (0.17%) from 15 studies were included. The meta-analysis showed an improvement in HRQOL at 3 months, measured by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (SMD 0.28, 95% CI -1.22 to 1.78), and at 6 months, assessed using various HRQOL measures (SMD 0.07, 95% CI -1.24 to 1.39). The results should be interpreted with caution, given the wide 95% CIs. Of the 15 studies, 9 (60%) reported a positive signal on HRQOL, with two-thirds of the studies (n=6, 67%) including tailored patient advice and two-thirds (n=6, 67%) using clinician alert systems.ConclusionsThe meta-analysis showed a potential improvement in HRQOL at 6 months and in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General scores at 3 months for studies that included tailored advice and clinician alerts, suggesting that these elements may improve ePRO effectiveness. The findings will provide guidance for future use and help health care professionals choose the most suitable ePRO features for their patients.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42020175007; https://tinyurl.com/5cwmy3j6.
| S-EPMC11325109 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundGaucher's disease (GD), a rare condition, represents the most common lysosomal storage disorder. The cardinal manifestations of GD are fatigue, hepatosplenomegaly, anemia, thrombocytopenia, bone pain, and bone infarction, thereby culminating in a marked deterioration of patients' quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) offer valuable insights into the impact of GD on patients' QoL and symptoms. This systematic review aimed to identify and analyze PROs and outcome measures in GD patients.MethodsWe systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science Core Collections, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, Wan Fang Data, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed using a mixed methods assessment tool.ResultsA total of 33 studies were identified, encompassing 24 distinct patient-reported outcome instruments, with the most frequently employed instrument being the SF-36. The study designs included eighteen cross-sectional studies, seven pre- and post-intervention investigations, three randomized controlled trials, two cohort studies, two qualitative inquiries, and one validation study. These studies explored diverse domains such as the QoL and cardinal symptoms (e.g., fatigue, pain, bleeding, cognition, social relationships, and psychological functioning) in patients with GD. Furthermore, significant attention was directed towards the appraisal of the therapeutic benefits of various interventions in patients with GD. A novel GD-specific instrument has also been developed, which has two applied versions: a 24-item variant for routine clinical monitoring and a 17-item form for use in clinical trials.ConclusionPROs have garnered increased attention and concern in the realm of GD. Despite this progress, it is noteworthy that the instruments used to measure PROs in GD are still predominantly generic instruments. While researchers have endeavored to develop and validate a disease-specific instrument, currently the use of this instrument is limited. Owing to several challenges, including the small number of patients, heterogeneity of the disease, and cross-regional discrepancies in study findings, GD poses substantial difficulties in the measurement of QoL and development of instruments. Consequently, patients with GD require more dependable measurement instruments that accurately reflect their QoL, efficacy of treatment, and facilitate healthcare decision-making.
| S-EPMC10463869 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe use of electronic patient-reported outcomes (PRO) systems is increasing in cancer clinical care settings. This review comprehensively identifies existing PRO systems and explores how systems differ in the administration of PRO assessments, the integration of information into the clinic workflow and electronic health record (EHR) systems, and the reporting of PRO information.MethodsElectronic PRO (e-PRO) systems were identified through a semistructured review of published studies, gray literature, and expert identification. System developers were contacted to provide detailed e-PRO system characteristics and clinical implementation information using a structured review form.ResultsA total of 33 unique systems implemented in cancer clinical practice were identified. Of these, 81% provided detailed information about system characteristics. Two system classifications were established: treatment-centered systems designed for patient monitoring during active cancer treatment (n = 8) and patient-centered systems following patients across treatment and survivorship periods (n = 19). There was little consensus on administration, integration, or result reporting between these system types. Patient-centered systems were more likely to provide user-friendly features such as at-home assessments, integration into larger electronic system networks (eg, EHRs), and more robust score reporting options. Well-established systems were more likely to have features that increased assessment flexibility (eg, location, automated reminders) and better clinical integration.ConclusionThe number of e-PRO systems has increased. Systems can be programmed to have numerous features that facilitate integration of PRO assessment and routine monitoring into clinical care. Important barriers to system usability and widespread adoption include assessment flexibility, clinical integration, and high-quality data collection and reporting.
| S-EPMC4094646 | biostudies-literature