scholarly journals Healthcare Providers’ Implementation of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in Practice: A Protocol for a Mixed Method Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela C Wolff ◽  
Andrea Dresselhuis ◽  
Samar Hejazi ◽  
Duncan Dixon ◽  
Deborah Gibson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about strategies for implementing individual-level PROMs and PREMs data by healthcare providers in their everyday practice.Methods: This mixed method systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases with limiters of English from 2009 to 2019. Study selection criteria includes implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs Implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. Discussion: Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centred approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO protocol registration number (42013005938).

scholarly journals Healthcare Providers’ Implementation of Patient-Centred Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) in Practice A Protocol for a Mixed Method Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela C Wolff ◽  
Andrea Dresselhuis ◽  
Samar Hejazi ◽  
Duncan Dixon ◽  
Deborah Gibson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Method ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background: Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about strategies for implementing individual-level PROMs and PREMs data by healthcare providers in their everyday practice.Methods: This mixed method systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases with limiters of English from 2009 to 2019. Study selection criteria includes implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. Discussion: Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centred approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42020182904

scholarly journals Healthcare provider characteristics that influence the implementation of individual-level patient-centered outcome measure (PROM) and patient-reported experience measure (PREM) data across practice settings: a protocol for a mixed methods systematic review with a narrative synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Angela C. Wolff ◽  
Andrea Dresselhuis ◽  
Samar Hejazi ◽  
Duncan Dixon ◽  
Deborah Gibson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Point Of Care ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Influential Factors ◽  
Narrative Synthesis ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Substantial literature has highlighted the importance of patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROMs and PREMs, respectively) to collect clinically relevant information to better understand and address what matters to patients. The purpose of this systematic review is to synthesize the evidence about how healthcare providers implement individual-level PROMs and PREMs data into daily practice. Methods This mixed methods systematic review protocol describes the design of our synthesis of the peer-reviewed research evidence (i.e., qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods), systematic reviews, organizational implementation projects, expert opinion, and grey literature. Keyword synonyms for “PROMs,” PREMs,” and “implementation” will be used to search eight databases (i.e., MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Embase, SPORTDiscus, Evidence-based Medicine Reviews, and ProQuest (Dissertation and Theses)) with limiters of English from 2009 onwards. Study selection criteria include implementation at the point-of-care by healthcare providers in any practice setting. Eligible studies will be critically appraised using validated tools (e.g., Joanna Briggs Institute). Guided by the review questions, data extraction and synthesis will occur simultaneously to identify biographical information and methodological characteristics as well as classify study findings related to implementation processes and strategies. As part of the narrative synthesis approach, two frameworks will be utilized: (a) Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) to identify influential factors of PROMs and PREMs implementation and (b) Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change (ERIC) to illicit strategies. Data management will be undertaken using NVivo 12TM. Discussion Data from PROMs and PREMs are critical to adopt a person-centered approach to healthcare. Findings from this review will guide subsequent phases of a larger project that includes interviews and a consensus-building forum with end users to create guidelines for implementing PROMs and PREMs at the point of care. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020182904.

scholarly journals A scoping review of registry captured indicators for evaluating quality of critical care in ICU

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Issrah Jawad ◽  
Sumayyah Rashan ◽  
Chathurani Sigera ◽  
Jorge Salluh ◽  
Arjen M. Dondorp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Health Care Quality ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Care Quality ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background Excess morbidity and mortality following critical illness is increasingly attributed to potentially avoidable complications occurring as a result of complex ICU management (Berenholtz et al., J Crit Care 17:1-2, 2002; De Vos et al., J Crit Care 22:267-74, 2007; Zimmerman J Crit Care 1:12-5, 2002). Routine measurement of quality indicators (QIs) through an Electronic Health Record (EHR) or registries are increasingly used to benchmark care and evaluate improvement interventions. However, existing indicators of quality for intensive care are derived almost exclusively from relatively narrow subsets of ICU patients from high-income healthcare systems. The aim of this scoping review is to systematically review the literature on QIs for evaluating critical care, identify QIs, map their definitions, evidence base, and describe the variances in measurement, and both the reported advantages and challenges of implementation. Method We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane libraries from the earliest available date through to January 2019. To increase the sensitivity of the search, grey literature and reference lists were reviewed. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of one or more QIs designed to evaluate care for patients in ICU captured through a registry platform or EHR adapted for quality of care surveillance. Results The search identified 4780 citations. Review of abstracts led to retrieval of 276 full-text articles, of which 123 articles were accepted. Fifty-one unique QIs in ICU were classified using the three components of health care quality proposed by the High Quality Health Systems (HQSS) framework. Adverse events including hospital acquired infections (13.7%), hospital processes (54.9%), and outcomes (31.4%) were the most common QIs identified. Patient reported outcome QIs accounted for less than 6%. Barriers to the implementation of QIs were described in 35.7% of articles and divided into operational barriers (51%) and acceptability barriers (49%). Conclusions Despite the complexity and risk associated with ICU care, there are only a small number of operational indicators used. Future selection of QIs would benefit from a stakeholder-driven approach, whereby the values of patients and communities and the priorities for actionable improvement as perceived by healthcare providers are prioritized and include greater focus on measuring discriminable processes of care.

scholarly journals Core outcome sets in cancer and their approaches to identifying and selecting patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Imogen Ramsey ◽  
Marion Eckert ◽  
Amanda D. Hutchinson ◽  
Julie Marker ◽  
Nadia Corsini
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cancer Type ◽  
Core Outcome ◽  
Core Outcome Sets ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Objectives Issues arising from a lack of outcome standardisation in health research may be addressed by the use of core outcome sets (COS), which represent agreed-upon recommendations regarding what outcomes should be measured as a minimum in studies of a health condition. This review investigated the scope, outcomes, and development methods of consensus-based COS for cancer, and their approaches and criteria for selecting instruments to assess core patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods Studies that used a consensus-driven approach to develop a COS containing PROs, for use in research with cancer populations, were sought via MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Cochrane Library, and grey literature. Results Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. Most COS (82%) were specific to a cancer type (prostate, esophageal, head and neck, pancreatic, breast, ovarian, lung, or colorectal) and not specific to an intervention or treatment (76%). Conducting a systematic review was the most common approach to identifying outcomes (88%) and administering a Delphi survey was the most common approach to prioritising outcomes (71%). The included COS contained 90 PROs, of which the most common were physical function, sexual (dys) function, pain, fatigue, and emotional function. Most studies (59%) did not address how to assess the core PROs included in a set, while 7 studies (41%) recommended specific instruments. Their approaches to instrument appraisal and selection varied. Conclusion Efforts to standardise outcome assessment via the development of COS may be undermined by a lack of recommendations on how to measure core PROs. To optimise COS usefulness and adoption, valid and reliable instruments for the assessment of core PROs should be recommended with the aid of resources designed to facilitate this process.

scholarly journals Assessment of patient-reported outcomes after polytrauma – instruments and methods: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. e050168
Author(s):  
Michaela Ritschel ◽  
Silke Kuske ◽  
Irmela Gnass ◽  
Silke Andrich ◽  
Kai Moschinski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Social Participation ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Injury Severity ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported

ObjectivesWe (1) collected instruments that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), activities of daily living (ADL) and social participation during follow-up after polytrauma, (2) described their use and (3) investigated other relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessed in the studies.DesignSystematic Review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guideline.Data sourcesMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, as well as the trials registers ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP were searched from January 2005 to April 2018.Eligibility criteriaAll original empirical research published in English or German including PROs of patients aged 18–75 years with an Injury Severity Score≥16 and/or an Abbreviated Injury Scale≥3. Studies with defined injuries or diseases (e.g. low-energy injuries) and some text types (e.g. grey literature and books) were excluded. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were excluded, but references screened for appropriate studies.Data extraction and synthesisData extraction, narrative content analysis and a critical appraisal (e.g. UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) were performed by two reviewers independently.ResultsThe search yielded 3496 hits; 54 publications were included. Predominantly, HRQoL was assessed, with Short Form-36 Health Survey applied most frequently. ADL and (social) participation were rarely assessed. The methods most used were postal surveys and single assessments of PROs, with a follow-up period of one to one and a half years. Other relevant PRO areas reported were function, mental disorders and pain.ConclusionsThere is a large variation in the assessment of PROs after polytrauma, impairing comparability of outcomes. First efforts to standardise the collection of PROs have been initiated, but require further harmonisation between central players. Additional knowledge on rarely reported PRO areas (e.g. (social) participation, social networks) may lead to their consideration in health services provision.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017060825.

scholarly journals P18: CONVENTIONAL DUPUYTREN'S DIATHESIS FACTORS ARE NOT ASSOCIATED WITH POOR OUTCOME FOLLOWING SURGERY: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
L Geoghegan ◽  
J Man ◽  
A Jain ◽  
JN Rodrigues
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Disease Recurrence ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Dupuytren’S Disease ◽  
Dupuytren's Disease ◽  
Factors Associated ◽  
Poor Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction Dupuytren's diathesis describes an aggressive disease course with tendency for recurrence or extension following intervention. Conventional factors associated with Dupuytren's diathesis are ethnicity, family history, bilateral and ectopic disease. Disease recurrence is not the only cause of poor outcome following intervention. This systematic review aimed to identify all factors that have been investigated for a potential association with the development, progression, recurrence and outcome of treatment in Dupuytren's diathesis. Method A systematic review of MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL using a PRISMA-compliant methodology up to February 2019 was conducted. Abstract screening and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Included prognostic cohort studies were quality assessed using the Quality in Prognosis Study tool. Result The search revealed 2,661 records from which 11 full text articles reported both conventional diathesis factors and outcomes (in addition to recurrence) following intervention for Dupuytren's in 938 patients. Collectively 67% underwent fasciectomy and seven outcomes were reported: three patient reported outcome measures (DASH, quick-DASH and EQ-5D), three functional measures (grip strength, joint angle correction and range of motion) and treatment complications. Two studies used multiple univariate statistical techniques and found no significant association between diathesis factors and disease outcome. Conclusion This systematic review challenges conventional notions of Diathesis factors and provides a comprehensive appraisal of factors associated with poor outcome following intervention for Dupuytren's disease. Take-home message Conventional factors associated with recurrence in Dupuytren's disease are not associated with poor outcome following intervention.

scholarly journals Misuse of medication in adult substance misuse services: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (6) ◽  
pp. e047283
Author(s):  
Rosalind Gittins ◽  
Louise Missen ◽  
Ian Maidment
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Substance Misuse ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Opioid Analgesics ◽  
Physical And Mental Health ◽  
Qualitative Synthesis ◽  
Treatment Services ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionThere is a growing concern about the misuse of over the counter (OTC) and prescription only medication (POM) because of the impact on physical and mental health, drug interactions, overdoses and drug-related deaths. These medicines include opioid analgesics, anxiolytics such as pregabalin and diazepam and antidepressants. This protocol outlines how a systematic review will be undertaken (during June 2021), which aims to examine the literature on the pattern of OTC and POM misuse among adults who are accessing substance misuse treatment services. It will include the types of medication being taken, prevalence and demographic characteristics of people who access treatment services.Methods and analysisAn electronic search will be conducted on the Cochrane, OVID Medline, Pubmed, Scopus and Web of Science databases as well as grey literature. Two independent reviewers will conduct the initial title and abstract screenings, using predetermined criteria for inclusion and exclusion. If selected for inclusion, full-text data extraction will be conducted using a pilot-tested data extraction form. A third reviewer will resolve disagreements if consensus cannot be reached. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted for all included studies. A qualitative synthesis and summary of the data will be provided. If possible, a meta-analysis with heterogeneity calculation will be conducted; otherwise, Synthesis Without Meta-analysis will be undertaken for quantitative data. The reporting of this protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be peer reviewed, published and shared verbally, electronically and in print, with interested clinicians and policymakers.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020135216.

scholarly journals Upskilling health and care workers with augmented and virtual reality: protocol for a realist review to develop an evidence-informed programme theory

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e050033
Author(s):  
Norina Gasteiger ◽  
Sabine N van der Veer ◽  
Paul Wilson ◽  
Dawn Dowding
Keyword(s):  
Virtual Reality ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Realist Review ◽  
Relevant Information ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Programme Theory ◽  
Clinical Educators ◽  
Continued Learning ◽  
Search Quality

IntroductionAugmented reality (AR) and virtual reality (VR) are increasingly used to upskill health and care providers, including in surgical, nursing and acute care settings. Many studies have used AR/VR to deliver training, providing mixed evidence on their effectiveness and limited evidence regarding contextual factors that influence effectiveness and implementation. This review will develop, test and refine an evidence-informed programme theory on what facilitates or constrains the implementation of AR or VR programmes in health and care settings and understand how, for whom and to what extent they ‘work’.Methods and analysisThis realist review adheres to the Realist And Meta-narrative Evidence Syntheses: Evolving Standards (RAMESES) standards and will be conducted in three steps: theory elicitation, theory testing and theory refinement. First, a search will identify practitioner, academic and learning and technology adoption theories from databases (MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Education Resources Information Center, PsycINFO and Web of Science), practitioner journals, snowballing and grey literature. Information regarding contexts, mechanisms and outcomes will be extracted. A narrative synthesis will determine overlapping configurations and form an initial theory. Second, the theory will be tested using empirical evidence located from the above databases and identified from the first search. Quality will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT), and relevant information will be extracted into a coding sheet. Third, the extracted information will be compared with the initial programme theory, with differences helping to make refinements. Findings will be presented as a narrative summary, and the MMAT will determine our confidence in each configuration.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. This review will develop an evidence-informed programme theory. The results will inform and support AR/VR interventions from clinical educators, healthcare providers and software developers. Upskilling through AR/VR learning interventions may improve quality of care and promote evidence-based practice and continued learning. Findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and peer-reviewed journal articles.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document