Implementing Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Cosmetic Surgery Clinics: An Exploratory Qualitative Study

IntroductionAlthough patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used in clinical practice and research, it is unclear whether these instruments cover the perspective of young people with inflammatory arthritis (IA). The aims of this study were to explore whether PROMs commonly used in IA adequately cover the perspective of young people from different European countries.MethodsA multinational qualitative study was conducted in Austria, Croatia, Italy and the Netherlands. Young people with either rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA), Still’s disease, psoriatic arthritis (PsA) or spondyloarthritis (SpA), aged 18–35 years, participated in semistructured focus group interviews. Thematic analysis was used and data saturation was defined as no new emergent concepts in at least three subsequent focus groups.ResultsFifty-three patients (21 with RA/JIA/Still’s, 17 with PsA, 15 with SpA; 72% women) participated in 12 focus groups. Participants expressed a general positive attitude towards PROMs and emphasised their importance in clinical practice. In addition, 48 lower level concepts were extracted and summarised into 6 higher level concepts describing potential issues for improvement. These included: need for lay-term information regarding the purpose of using PROMs; updates of certain outdated items and using digital technology for data acquisition. Some participants admitted their tendency to rate pain, fatigue or disease activity differently from what they actually felt for various reasons.ConclusionsDespite their general positive attitude, young people with IA suggested areas for PROM development to ensure that important concepts are included, making PROMs relevant over the entire course of a chronic disease.

Download Full-text

POS-517 IMPLEMENTING PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN ROUTINE HEMODIALYSIS CARE: A QUALITATIVE STUDY OF PATIENT AND HEALTHCARE PROVIDER PERCEPTIONS

Kidney International Reports ◽

10.1016/j.ekir.2021.03.545 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 6 (4) ◽

pp. S224-S225

Author(s):

M. Elliott ◽

S. Love ◽

B. Baragar ◽

M. Donald ◽

S.M. Kara ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Study ◽

Healthcare Provider ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Provider Perceptions ◽

Patient Reported

Download Full-text

Patient-reported outcome measures in oncology: a qualitative study of the healthcare professional’s perspective

Supportive Care in Cancer ◽

10.1007/s00520-021-06052-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Caitlin Graupner ◽

S. O. Breukink ◽

S. Mul ◽

D. Claessens ◽

A. H. M. Slok ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Study ◽

Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽

Patient Reported Outcome ◽

Barriers And Facilitators ◽

Local Context ◽

Healthcare Organisation ◽

Successful Implementation ◽

Oncological Care ◽

Patient Reported

Abstract Background In the last decades, the number of cancer survivors has increased significantly due to improved treatment and better detection of recurrence. This increased survival redirects the scope from survival towards optimising functional outcomes and improving health-related quality of life (HRQol). Functional and HRQoL outcomes can be assessed with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). However, the use of PROMs in daily oncological care is not common. This qualitative study investigates the barriers and facilitators of PROM use in an oncological setting, from the perspective of the healthcare professionals (HCPs). Methods Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted among Dutch oncological HCPs. Barriers and facilitators of PROM implementation were identified on various levels of the healthcare system (i.e. level of the patient, individual professional, medical team, and healthcare organisation). Interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were manually analysed by two independent reviewers using a thematic approach. Identified barriers and facilitators were categorised into Grol and Wensing’s framework for changing healthcare practice. Results Nineteen oncological HCPs working in academic and non-academic hospitals were interviewed. Barriers for PROM implementation were lack of good IT support, lack of knowledge on how to use PROMs, lack of time to complete and interpret PROMs, and a high administrative burden. PROM implementation can be facilitated by providing clear guidance regarding PROM interpretation, evidence that PROMs can save time, and stimulating multidisciplinary teamwork. Conclusion From a HCP point of view, adequately functioning IT technology, sufficient knowledge on PROMs, and dedicated time during the consultation are essential for successful implementation of PROMs in oncological care. Additional local context-specific factors need to be thoroughly addressed.

Download Full-text