scholarly journals Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (9) ◽  
pp. 2687-2697
Author(s):  
San Keller ◽  
Sydney Dy ◽  
Renee Wilson ◽  
Vadim Dukhanin ◽  
Claire Snyder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Care Performance

scholarly journals Patient-reported Outcome Measures – A Call for More Narrative Evidence

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110496
Author(s):  
Keith Meadows
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Health Status ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Quantitative Approach ◽  
Mixed Methods Approach ◽  
Patient Reported

This article puts forward the need to reconsider the current underlying quantitative approach underpinning the application of patient reported outcomes, to a mixed methods approach through the tandem use of patients’ narrative that enables informants in addition to their scores to express the reality of the ways in which their lives are physically and mentally impacted by their health status.

scholarly journals The Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Used with Low Back Pain and the Attitude of Primary Healthcare Practitioners in Saudi Arabia toward Them

Medicina ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 57 (8) ◽  
pp. 812
Author(s):  
Ahmed Alhowimel ◽  
Faris Alodaibi ◽  
Mazyad Alotaibi ◽  
Dalyah Alamam ◽  
Julie Fritz
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Saudi Arabia ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Physical Therapists ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Knowledge And Beliefs ◽  
Patient Reported

Background and objectives: The use of appropriate outcome measures can help guide multidimensional low back pain (LBP) management, elucidate the efficacy/effectiveness of interventions, and inform clinicians when selected targets have been achieved and this can be used for educational or research purposes. Aim: This study aimed to explore and describe the use, attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs regarding patient-reported outcome measures used by healthcare practitioners practising in Saudi Arabia who are frequently involved in the healthcare of individuals with LBP. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional design was undertaken using a web-based survey. An electronic invitation to participate was sent to primary care physicians and physical therapists practising in Saudi Arabia. The survey included three sections: demographic data, a list of the most commonly used patient-reported outcome measures with LBP patients, and statements regarding attitudes, knowledge, and beliefs about outcome measures. Results: A total of 156 practitioners participated: 45 primary care physicians and 111 physical therapists. The numeric pain rating and visual analogue scales were the outcome measures most frequently reported as being often used by both primary care physicians and physical therapists. The majority of participants reported often using 1–2 patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). While most participants indicated that they were confident at selecting the most appropriate PROM, fewer were familiar with the concept of the minimally important clinical difference. A lack of Arabic versions of PROMs was reported as a barrier to using them to assess pain. Conclusions: This study shows that, although primary care physicians and physical therapists in Saudi Arabia frequently use patient-reported outcome measures in their clinical management of patients with LBP, there is a noticeable gap in the knowledge and use of the multidimensional outcome measures for LBP management among the participants. This highlights a need for professional training on the use of standardised outcome measures related to LBP.

scholarly journals The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey

BMJ Open ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. e003968 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Peters ◽  
Helen Crocker ◽  
Crispin Jenkinson ◽  
Helen Doll ◽  
Ray Fitzpatrick
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Long Term Conditions ◽  
Patient Reported

scholarly journals Integrating Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into routine nurse-led primary care for patients with multimorbidity: a feasibility and acceptability study

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian Porter ◽  
Antoinette Davey ◽  
Jaheeda Gangannagaripalli ◽  
Jonathan Evans ◽  
Charlotte Bramwell ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Interviews ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Primary Care Practices ◽  
High Degree

Abstract Background The use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) in clinical practice has the potential to promote patient-centred care and improve patients’ quality of life. Individualized PROMs may be particularly helpful in identifying, prioritizing and monitoring health problems of patients with multimorbidity. We aimed to develop an intervention centred around PROMs feedback as part of Primary Care annual reviews for patients with multimorbidity and evaluate its feasibility and acceptability. Methods We developed a nurse-oriented intervention including (a) training of nurses on PROMs; (b) administration to patients with multimorbidity of individualized and standardized PROMS; and (c) feedback to both patients and nurses of PROMs scores and interpretation guidance. We then tailored the intervention to patients with two or more highly prevalent conditions (asthma, COPD, diabetes, heart failure, depression, and hip/knee osteoarthritis) and designed a non-controlled feasibility and acceptability evaluation in a convenience sample of primary care practices (5). PROMs were administered and scores fed back immediately ahead of scheduled annual reviews with nurses. Patients and nurses rated the acceptability of the intervention using with a brief survey including optional free comments. Thematic analysis of qualitative interviews with a sample of participating patients (10) and nurses (4) and of survey free comments was conducted for further in-depth evaluation of acceptability. Feasibility was estimated based on rates of participation and completion. Results Out of 68 recruited patients (mean age 70; 47% female), 68 completed the PROMs (100%), received feedback (100%) and confirmed nurse awareness of their scores (100%). Most patients (83%) “agreed”/”strongly agreed” that the PROMs feedback had been useful, a view supported by nurses in 89% of reviews. Thematic analysis of rich qualitative data on PROMS administration, feedback and role in annual reviews indicated that both patients and nurses perceived the intervention as acceptable and promising, emphasizing its comprehensiveness and patient-centredness. Conclusions We have developed and tested an intervention focusing on routine PROM assessment of patients with multimorbidity in Primary Care. Preliminary findings support its feasibility and a high degree of acceptability from both patients and nurses. The next step is to conduct a full-scale trial for evaluating the effectiveness of the proposed intervention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document