A scoping review to explore the suitability of interactive voice response to conduct automated performance measurement of the patient’s experience in primary care

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (03) ◽  
pp. 209-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Falconi ◽  
Sharon Johnston ◽  
William Hogg
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Performance Measurement ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Interactive Voice Response ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Survey ◽  
Care Practice ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Patient’S Experience ◽  
Voice Response

IntroductionPractice-based performance measurement is fundamental for improvement and accountability in primary care. Traditional performance measurement of the patient’s experience is often too costly and cumbersome for most practices.Objective/MethodsThis scoping review explores the literature on the use of interactive voice response (IVR) telephone surveys to identify lessons for its use for collecting data on patient-reported outcome measures at the primary care practice level.ResultsThe literature suggests IVR could potentially increase the capacity to reach more representative patient samples and those traditionally most difficult to engage. There is potential for long-term cost effectiveness and significant decrease of the burden on practices involved in collecting patient survey data. Challenges such as low response rates, mode effects, high initial set-up costs and maintenance fees, are also reported and require careful attention.ConclusionThis review suggests IVR may be a feasible alternative to traditional patient data collection methods, which should be further explored.

scholarly journals Clinical Significance and Diagnostic Value of Pain Extent Extracted from Pain Drawings: A Scoping Review

Diagnostics ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 604
Author(s):  
Marco Barbero ◽  
Marcos J. Navarro-Santana ◽  
María Palacios-Ceña ◽  
Ricardo Ortega-Santiago ◽  
Corrado Cescon ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cohort Studies ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Pain Drawings ◽  
Pain Extent

The current scoping review aimed to map current literature investigating the relationship between pain extent extracted from pain drawings with clinical, psychological, and psycho-physiological patient-reported outcome measures in people with pain. Electronic databases were searched for cross-sectional cohort studies that collected pain drawings using digital technology or a pen-on-paper approach and assessed for correlations between pain extent and clinical, psychological or psycho-physical outcomes. Data were extracted by two different reviewers. The methodological quality of studies was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Mapping of the results included: 1, description of included studies; 2, summary of results; and 3, identification of gaps in the existing literature. Eleven cross-sectional cohort studies were included. The pain disorders considered were heterogeneous, ranging from musculoskeletal to neuropathic conditions, and from localized to generalized pain conditions. All studies included pain and/or pain-related disability as clinical outcomes. Psychological outcomes included depression and anxiety, kinesiophobia and catastrophism. Psycho-physical measures included pressure or thermal pain thresholds. Ten studies were considered of high methodological quality. There was heterogeneity in the associations between pain extent and patient-reported outcome measures depending on the pain condition. This scoping review found that pain extent is associated with patient-reported outcome measures more so in patients presenting with musculoskeletal pain, e.g., neck pain or osteoarthritis, rather than for those with neuropathic pain or headache.

scholarly journals Automated Screening for At-Risk Drinking in a Primary Care Office Using Interactive Voice Response*

2010 ◽  
Vol 71 (5) ◽  
pp. 734-738 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail L. Rose ◽  
Joan M. Skelly ◽  
Gary J. Badger ◽  
Charles D. Maclean ◽  
Megan P. Malgeri ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
At Risk ◽  
Interactive Voice Response ◽  
Primary Care Office ◽  
Automated Screening ◽  
Voice Response

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 use of patient-reported outcome measures in primary care: applications, benefits and challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (S2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Krista Brower ◽  
Margo Schmitt-Boshnick ◽  
Michel Haener ◽  
Shea Wilks ◽  
Allison Soprovich
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Local Population ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Full Potential ◽  
System Quality ◽  
Allied Health Professionals ◽  
Patient Reported

AbstractPROMs use in primary care has expanded from simply describing patient populations to contributing to decision-making, in response to the increasingly complex, ever-changing healthcare environment. In Alberta, primary care is organized into primary care networks (PCNs), where family physicians are grouped geographically and supported by allied health professionals. PCNs implement programs and services in response to local population health needs with frequent evaluation, often incorporating PROMs for this purpose. As PCN programs and services vary greatly across Alberta, so do their use of PROMs. An area of commonality is the use of the EQ-5D-5L instrument; 29 out of 41 PCNs are registered and licensed to use the instrument. It is often administrated by paper, pre- and post-program, and in combination with other specific measures, depending on the program or target population. Some PCNs share programming and therefore outcome measurement, but often the selection, implementation (including training and administration procedures) and evaluation/reporting of PROMs are unique to the PCN. As well, data analysis is largely dependent on the size and capacity of the PCN. Using PROMs for PCN program evaluation supports clinical understanding and complements clinical outcomes. PROMs describe the population attending a program, as well as provide an element of consistency when examining trends across multiple programs or timepoints. This contributes to inquiries and decisions around program development, components, administrative features, resource allocation and delivery. Challenges of PROMs use in primary care include the absence of cohesive data capture technology. This limits data capabilities and presents difficulties with data fidelity, storage, export, and analysis. Additionally, this real-world application lacks a control arm and presents methodological challenges for comparative research purposes. Furthermore, capturing long term patient outcomes poses administrative challenges of multiple follow ups. More research is required into best reporting mechanisms to ensure the data is used to its full potential. To overcome these challenges, leadership and clinician engagement are key. As well, determining consistent PCN PROM reporting requirements will ensure data are comparable across PCNs and contribute to provincial level evaluations, further supporting the movement towards overall health system quality improvement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document