Dataset Information

Patient-relevant health outcomes for hemophilia care: Development of an international standard outcomes set.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Patient-relevant health outcomes for persons with hemophilia should be identified and prioritized to optimize and individualize care for persons with hemophilia. Therefore, an international group of persons with hemophilia and multidisciplinary health care providers set out to identify a globally applicable standard set of health outcomes relevant to all individuals with hemophilia.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed to identify possible health outcomes and risk adjustment variables. Persons with hemophilia and multidisciplinary health care providers were involved in an iterative nominal consensus process to select the most important health outcomes and risk adjustment variables for persons with hemophilia. Recommendations were made for outcome measurement instruments.

Results

Persons with hemophilia were defined as all men and women with an X-linked inherited bleeding disorder caused by a deficiency of coagulation factor VIII or IX with plasma activity levels <40 IU/dL. We recommend collecting the following 10 health outcomes at least annually, if applicable: (i) cure, (ii) impact of disease on life expectancy, (iii) ability to engage in normal daily activities, (iv) severe bleeding episodes, (v) number of days lost from school or work, (vi) chronic pain, (vii) disease and treatment complications, (viii) sustainability of physical functioning, (ix) social functioning, and (x) mental health. Validated clinical as well as patient-reported outcome measurement instruments were endorsed. Demographic factors, baseline clinical factors, and treatment factors were identified as risk-adjustment variables.

Conclusion

A consensus-based international set of health outcomes relevant to all persons with hemophilia, and corresponding measurement instruments, was identified for use in clinical care to facilitate harmonized longitudinal monitoring and comparison of outcomes.

SUBMITTER: van Balen EC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8117824 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMeasuring quality of care is important, however many of the quality indicators used do not focus on outcome of treatment and aspects which are valuable for patients and physicians. The project 'Care for Outcomes' aims to establish a relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer.SettingNetwork of seven large, non-university teaching hospitals in the Netherlands (Santeon).MethodsBy reviewing the literature, a list of potential outcome indicators for patients with lung cancer was composed and subsequently prioritised by expert's opinion. Three external parties, with expertise on lung cancer, clinical management and public health, evaluated and reduced the list of indicators to a working set. Finally, the resulting selection of outcome indicators was tested for feasibility and discrimination in patient data, by collecting retrospective data and performing regression and survival analyses.ParticipantsDevelopment of the indicator set in six Santeon hospitals. Retrospective cohort study in 5922 patients diagnosed with lung cancer (all types and stages).ResultsSelected outcome indicators were divided into three levels of outcome (tiers). The first tier about survival and the process of recovery include mortality, survival, positive resection margins, rethoracotomy after resection and quality of life at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months. Tier 2 concerning the sustainability of the recovery include complications after resection and toxicity after chemotherapy and/or radiation. Tier 3 about sustainability of health revealed no measurable outcomes. The retrospective data collection showed differences between hospitals and variation in case mix.ConclusionA relevant set of outcome indicators for lung cancer was systematically developed. This set has the potential to compare quality of care between hospitals and inform patients with lung cancer about outcomes. The project is ongoing in the current Santeon Value-Based Health Care programme through quality and improvement cycles.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments measure health gains, including changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Previous studies have assessed the reliability and relationship of multiple HRQoL instruments in search of the optimal instrument for feasible measurement of PROs. Although the 15D instrument was shown to have the best sensitivity and construct validity among cardiac patients, it is unknown how well it captures relevant disease-specific information scores compared to instruments included in the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) standard set. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the disease-specific PRO instruments and a generic HRQoL instrument capture disease related symptoms in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients.MethodsHealth status and HRQoL were assessed with the instruments included in the ICHOM standard set: Seattle Angina Questionnaire short-form (SAQ-7), Rose Dyspnea Scale (RDS), two-item Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), and with the 15D HRQoL instrument at baseline and 1 year from the treatment in a university hospital setting. Spearman correlation and explanatory factor analysis were used to assess the relationship of baseline scores and 1-year change in scores of 297 patients.ResultsAt baseline, the overall 15D score and SAQ-physical limitation (SAQ-PL), 15D "breathing" and SAQ-PL, as well as "breathing" and RDS showed moderately strong correlations. The factor interpreted to reflect "Breathing-related physical activity", based on high loadings of "breathing", RDS, SAQ-PL, "mobility", "vitality", and "usual activities", explained 19.2% of the total variance. Correlations between 1-year changes in scores were fair. The factor of "Breathing-related physical activity", with significant loading of RDS, SAQ-PL, "breathing, "usual activities", "vitality\", "sexual activity", "mobility", and disease-specific quality of life explained 20.5% of the total variance in 1-year change in scores. The correlation of angina frequency measured by SAQ-7 and the 15D instrument was poor.ConclusionsThe 15D detects dyspnea and depression similarly to RDS and PHQ-2 but not angina similarly to the SAQ-7. This may call for supplementing the 15D instrument with a disease-specific instrument when studying CAD patients.

Project description:PurposeAdvanced ovarian cancer (AOC) and its treatment cause several symptoms and impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We aim to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcome (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during AOC patients' follow-up from patients' and healthcare professionals' (HCP) perspective.MethodsThe project comprised five steps: 1) a literature review, 2) a focus group with patients, 3) a nominal group with HCP, 4) two round-Delphi consultations with patients and HCP, and 5) a final meeting with HCP. Delphi questionnaire was elaborated based on literature review, focus group (n=5 patients), and nominal group (n=16 HCP). The relevance of each PRO and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of the proposed PROM were assessed (Likert scale 1=strongly agree; 9=strongly disagree). The consensus was reached when at least 75% of the panelists rated it as 'relevant', 'appropriate', or 'feasible' (score 7-9).ResultsA total of 56 HCP [51.8% Hospital Pharmacy; 41.1% Oncology; 3.6% Nursing; and 3.6% Psycho-oncology; mean time in specialty 12.5 (8.0) years] and 10 AOC patients [mean time diagnosis 5.4 (3.0) years] participated in the 1st round. All PROs achieved consensus regarding their relevance, except dry skin (58.0%). Agreement was reached for PRO-CTCAE to be used to assess fatigue (A:84.9%; F:75.8%), neuropathy (A:92.4%; F:77.3%), diarrhea (A:87.9%; F:88.7%), constipation (A:86.4%; F:75.8%), nausea (A:89.4%; F:75.8%), insomnia (A:81.8%; F:88.7%), abdominal bloating (A:82.2%; F:82.2%) and sexuality (A:78.8%; F:88.6%); EQ-5D to determine patients' HRQoL (A:87.9%; F:80.3%), pain (A:87.9%; F:75.8%) and mood (A:77.7%; F:85.5%); to assess treatment adherence the Morisky-Green (A:90.9%; F:84.9%) and the dispensing register (A:80.3%; F:80.3%) were chosen. It was agreed to note in the medical record whether the patient's treatment preferences had been considered during decision-making (A:78.8%; F:78.8%) and to use a 5-point Likert scale to assess treatment satisfaction (A:86.4%; F:86.4%). Panelists agreed (A:92.4%; F: 77.3%) to collect these PROs (1) at the time of diagnosis/relapse; (2) one month after starting treatment/change therapeutic strategy; (3) every three months during the 1st-year of treatment; and later (4) every six months until treatment completion/change.ConclusionsThe consensus reached represents the first step towards including the patient's perspective in AOC follow-up. The standardized collection of PROs in clinical practice may contribute to optimizing the follow-up of these patients and thus improving the quality of care.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:There is a lack of agreement on what constitutes successful outcomes for the process of health care transition (HCT) among adolescent and young adults with special health care needs. OBJECTIVE:To present HCT outcomes identified by a Delphi process with an interdisciplinary group of participants. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:A Delphi method involving 3 stages was deployed to refine a list of HCT outcomes. This 18-month study (from January 5, 2013, of stage 1 to July 3, 2014, of stage 3) included an initial literature search, expert interviews, and then 2 waves of a web-based survey. On this survey, 93 participants from outpatient, community-based, and primary care clinics rated the importance of the top HCT outcomes identified by the Delphi process. Analyses were performed from July 5, 2014, to December 5, 2014. EXPOSURES:Health care transition outcomes of adolescents and young adults with special health care needs. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Importance ratings of identified HCT outcomes rated on a Likert scale from 1 (not important) to 9 (very important). RESULTS:The 2 waves of surveys included 117 and 93 participants as the list of outcomes was refined. Transition outcomes were refined by the 3 waves of the Delphi process, with quality of life being the highest-rated outcome with broad agreement. The 10 final outcomes identified included individual outcomes (quality of life, understanding the characteristics of conditions and complications, knowledge of medication, self-management, adherence to medication, and understanding health insurance), health services outcomes (attending medical appointments, having a medical home, and avoidance of unnecessary hospitalization), and a social outcome (having a social network). Participants indicated that different outcomes were likely needed for individuals with cognitive disabilities. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Quality of life is an important construct relevant to HCT. Future research should identify valid measures associated with each outcome and further explore the role that quality of life plays in the HCT process. Achieving consensus is a critical step toward the development of reliable and objective comparisons of HCT outcomes across clinical conditions and care delivery locations.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Measuring and improving outcomes is a central element of value-based health care. However, selecting improvement interventions based on outcome measures is complex and tools to support the selection process are lacking. The goal was to present strategies for the systematic identification and selection of improvement interventions applied to the case of aortic valve disease and to combine various methods of process and outcome assessment into one integrated approach for quality improvement. METHODS:For this case study a concept-driven mixed-method approach was applied for the identification of improvement intervention clusters including: (1) benchmarking outcomes, (2) data exploration, (3) care delivery process analysis, and (4) monitoring of ongoing improvements. The main outcome measures were long-term survival and 30-day mortality. For the selection of an improvement intervention, the causal relations between the potential improvement interventions and outcome measures were quantified followed by a team selection based on consensus from a multidisciplinary team of professionals. RESULTS:The study resulted in a toolbox: the Intervention Selection Toolbox (IST). The toolbox comprises two phases: (a) identifying potential for improvement, and (b) selecting an effective intervention from the four clusters expected to lead to the desired improvement in outcomes. The improvements identified for the case of aortic valve disease with impact on long-term survival in the context of the studied hospital in 2015 include: anticoagulation policy, increased attention to nutritional status of patients and determining frailty of patients before the treatment decision. CONCLUSIONS:Identifying potential for improvement and carefully selecting improvement interventions based on (clinical) outcome data demands a multifaceted approach. Our toolbox integrates both care delivery process analyses and outcome analyses. The toolbox is recommended for use in hospital care for the selection of high-impact improvement interventions.