Dataset Information

Using co-production to implement patient reported outcome measures in third sector organisations: a mixed methods study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Third 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.

Methods

A 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).

Results

Both 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.

Conclusions

Whilst 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.

SUBMITTER: Foster A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9296723 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in third sector organisations (TSOs) delivering health and well-being services.DesignA qualitative interview study. Participants were recruited using purposive, opportunistic and snowballing methods. Framework analysis was used.SettingTSOs including charities, community groups and not-for-profit organisations in England, UK.ParticipantsThirty interviewees including service users, TSO front-line workers and managers, commissioners of TSOs and other stakeholders such as academic researchers.ResultsTSOs primarily used PROMs because of pressures arising from the external funding context. However, organisations often struggled to implement PROMs, rarely getting the process right first time. Facilitators for implementation included having an implementation lead committed to making it work, investing resources in data management systems and support staff and taking a collaborative approach to designing the PROMs process. The latter helped to ensure an appropriate PROMs process for the specific TSO including choosing a suitable measure and planning how data would be collected, processed and used. There was a dilemma about whether TSOs should use standardised well-being measures (eg, the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale) or design their own PROM. Not all TSOs sustained the collection and reporting of PROMs over time because this required a change in organisational culture to view PROMs as beneficial for the TSO and PROMs becoming part of front-line workers' job specifications.ConclusionsTSOs are trying to use PROMs because they feel they have no choice but often struggle with implementation. Having an implementation lead, designing an appropriate process, investing resources, training staff and taking mitigating action to address potential barriers can facilitate implementation. Some of the findings are consistent with the experiences of more clinical services so appear relevant to the implementation of PROMs irrespective of the specific context.

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: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:BackgroundThe third sector is becoming a growing provider of public, social, and health services. However, there is little evidence on the effectiveness of third sector organisations (TSOs), and their capacity to implement evidence-based interventions (EBIs). Understanding implementation aspects of service delivery remains an important issue in clinical practice, but is poorly understood in the context of TSOs. This is problematic, since implementation issues are known to be critical for effective intervention outcomes.ObjectivesTo identify and synthesise existing research on what barriers and facilitators influence the implementation process of TSOs delivering EBIs.MethodsThis review is reported according to PRISMA guidelines and was pre-registered in PROSPERO. Key databases were searched using relevant terms, experts in the field were contacted, and websites were reviewed. All identified studies were double-screened, and data were extracted independently by two authors. Included studies were synthesised using thematic analysis and were quality appraised.ResultsThirty-one studies were included, most of which were conducted in North America. The thematic synthesis identified resource limitations, in particular staff and finance, to be the most reported barrier to TSOs implementing EBIs. Organisational culture, including factors such as alignment between the mission of the TSO and EBI, and support/prioritisation of the implementation process were the most reported facilitators. These findings generalise across the included studies and are robust to study quality assessment.ConclusionsWhile it is often assumed that good outcomes follow when implementing interventions that have been developed and tested according to best practice, little attention has been paid to how EBIs are best transported, contextualised, and implemented by third sector providers. This systematic review found that TSOs faced considerable challenges in implementing EBIs, which were primarily a lack of support and expertise, and unclear/insufficient guidelines on how to adapt EBIs to different populations. To address these challenges, it is important to engage with central stakeholders, such as funders, researchers, policymakers, and practitioners, to discuss how these needs can be met.Trial registrationPROSPERO: CRD42017073090 .

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:BackgroundThere is increasing interest in using Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) within organisations delivering health related services. However, organisations have had mixed success in implementing PROMs and there is little understanding about why this may be. Thus, the purpose of this study was to identify the facilitators and barriers to implementing PROMs in organisations.MethodA systematic review of reviews was undertaken. Searches were conducted of five electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, during the week of the 20th February 2017. Additional search methods included website searching and reference checking. To be included, a publication had to be a review of the literature, describe its methods and include information related to implementing PROMs. The reviews were extracted using a standardised form and assessed for their risk of bias using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews tool. The findings were synthesised using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. The protocol was registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (PROSPERO) (CRD42017057491).ResultsInitially 2047 records were identified. After assessing eligibility, six reviews were included. These reviews varied in their review type and focus. Different issues arose at distinct stages of the implementation process. Organisations needed to invest time and resources in two key stages early in the implementation process: 'designing' the processes for using PROMs within an organisation; and 'preparing' an organisation and its staff. The 'designing' stage involved organisations planning not just which PROMs to use and how to administer them, but also how the data would be used for clinical purposes. The 'preparing' stage involved getting an organisation and its staff ready to use PROMs, particularly persuading clinicians of the validity and value of PROMs, delivering training, and developing electronic systems. Having an implementation lead overseeing the process and developing the process based on feedback were also identified as facilitating implementation.ConclusionOrganisations implementing PROMs need to invest time and resources in 'designing' the PROMs strategy and 'preparing' the organisation to use PROMs. Focusing on these earlier stages may prevent problems arising when PROMs are used in practice.

Project description: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.