Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 3/2024

02-12-2023

Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system

Auteurs: Kim Naude, Nadine E. Andrew, Velandai Srikanth, Emily Parker, Lucy Marsh, Richard Beare, Roisin McNaney, David A. Snowdon

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 3/2024

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Limited examples exist of successful Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) implementation across an entire healthcare organisation. The aim of this study was to use a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a PROM collection system, which will inform implementation of routine collection of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation.

Methods

Co-design comprised semi-structured interviews with clinicians (n = 11) and workshops/surveys with consumers (n = 320). The interview guide with clinicians focused on their experience using PROMs, preferences for using PROMs, and facilitators/barriers to using PROMs. Co-design activities specific to consumers focused on: (1) how PROMs will be administered (mode), (2) when PROMs will be administered (timing), (3) who will assist with PROMs collection, and (4) how long a PROM will take to complete. Data were analysed using a manifest qualitative content analysis approach.

Results

Core elements identified during the co-design process included: PROMs collection should be consumer-led and administered by someone other than a clinician; collection at discharge from the healthcare organisation and at 3–6 months post discharge would be most suitable for supporting comprehensive assessment; PROMs should be administered using a variety of modes to accommodate the diversity of consumer preferences, with electronic as the default; and the time taken to complete PROMs should be no longer than 5–10 min.

Conclusion

This study provides new information on the co-design of a healthcare organisation-wide PROM collection system. Implementing a clinician and patient informed strategy for PROMs collection, that meets their preferences across multiple domains, should address known barriers to routine collection.
Bijlagen
Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Porter, M. (2009). A strategy for health care reform - toward a value-based system. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(2), 109–112.CrossRefPubMed Porter, M. (2009). A strategy for health care reform - toward a value-based system. New England Journal of Medicine, 361(2), 109–112.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Porter, M. (2010). What is value in health care? New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477–2481.CrossRefPubMed Porter, M. (2010). What is value in health care? New England Journal of Medicine, 363(26), 2477–2481.CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Porter, M., Larsson, S., & Lee, T. (2013). The strategy that will fix health care. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 1–19. Porter, M., Larsson, S., & Lee, T. (2013). The strategy that will fix health care. Harvard Business Review, 91(10), 1–19.
4.
go back to reference Porter, M., & Teisberg, E. (2006). Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results. Harvard business press. Porter, M., & Teisberg, E. (2006). Redefining health care: creating value-based competition on results. Harvard business press.
5.
go back to reference Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C. (2014). From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Annals of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573–576.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Bodenheimer, T., & Sinsky, C. (2014). From triple to quadruple aim: Care of the patient requires care of the provider. Annals of Family Medicine, 12(6), 573–576.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E. D., Leahy, C. J., & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Churruca, K., Pomare, C., Ellis, L. A., Long, J. C., Henderson, S. B., Murphy, L. E. D., Leahy, C. J., & Braithwaite, J. (2021). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expectations, 24(4), 1015–1024.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
7.
go back to reference Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. British Medical Journal, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMed Black, N. (2013). Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. British Medical Journal, 346, f167.CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Williams, K., Sansoni, J., Darcy, M., Grootemaat, P., & Thompson, C. (2016). Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Literature Review. 2016, Australian commission on safety and quality in health care. Williams, K., Sansoni, J., Darcy, M., Grootemaat, P., & Thompson, C. (2016). Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Literature Review. 2016, Australian commission on safety and quality in health care.
11.
go back to reference Cancer, C.P.A. (2017). Effective, efficient, evolving: enhancing cancer control in Canada., CPAC: Toronto. Cancer, C.P.A. (2017). Effective, efficient, evolving: enhancing cancer control in Canada., CPAC: Toronto.
13.
go back to reference Peters, M., Crocker, H., Jenkinson, C., & Doll, H. (2014). Ray Fitzpatrick The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: A cohort survey. BMJ Open, 4, e003968.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Peters, M., Crocker, H., Jenkinson, C., & Doll, H. (2014). Ray Fitzpatrick The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: A cohort survey. BMJ Open, 4, e003968.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Gilbert, J., Howell, D., & King, S. (2012). Quality improvement in cancer symptom assessment and control: The provincial palliative care integration project (PPCIP. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 43, 663–678.CrossRefPubMed Gilbert, J., Howell, D., & King, S. (2012). Quality improvement in cancer symptom assessment and control: The provincial palliative care integration project (PPCIP. Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 43, 663–678.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Rutherford, C., Campbell, R., Tinsley, M., Speerin, R., Soars, L., & Butcher, A. (2021). Madeleine king implementing patient-reported outcome measures into clinical practice across NSW: Mixed methods evaluation of the first year. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16, 1265–1284.CrossRef Rutherford, C., Campbell, R., Tinsley, M., Speerin, R., Soars, L., & Butcher, A. (2021). Madeleine king implementing patient-reported outcome measures into clinical practice across NSW: Mixed methods evaluation of the first year. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 16, 1265–1284.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Stover, A. M., Haverman, L., van Oers, H. A., Greenhalgh, Joanne, Potter, C. M., Ahmed, S., Greenhalgh, J., Gibbons, E., Haverman, L., Manalili, K., Potter, C., Roberts, N., Santana, M., & Stover, A. M. (2021). Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Quality of Life Research, 30, 3015–33.CrossRefPubMed Stover, A. M., Haverman, L., van Oers, H. A., Greenhalgh, Joanne, Potter, C. M., Ahmed, S., Greenhalgh, J., Gibbons, E., Haverman, L., Manalili, K., Potter, C., Roberts, N., Santana, M., & Stover, A. M. (2021). Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Quality of Life Research, 30, 3015–33.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Briggs, M., Rethman, K., & Crookes, J. (2020). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in outpatient rehabilitation settings: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(10), 1796–1812.CrossRefPubMed Briggs, M., Rethman, K., & Crookes, J. (2020). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in outpatient rehabilitation settings: A systematic review of facilitators and barriers using the consolidated framework for implementation research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 101(10), 1796–1812.CrossRefPubMed
19.
20.
go back to reference Williams, K. & C. Thompson. (2018) Patient-reported outcome measures: Stakeholder interviews, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care,: Sydney. Williams, K. & C. Thompson. (2018) Patient-reported outcome measures: Stakeholder interviews, Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care,: Sydney.
21.
go back to reference Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterley, 94(2), 392–429.CrossRef Greenhalgh, T., Jackson, C., Shaw, S., & Janamian, T. (2016). Achieving research impact through co-creation in community-based health services: Literature review and case study. The Milbank Quarterley, 94(2), 392–429.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Dawda, P., & Knight, A. (2018). Experience Based Co-design: a toolkit for Australia. Prestantia Health: Canberra. Dawda, P., & Knight, A. (2018). Experience Based Co-design: a toolkit for Australia. Prestantia Health: Canberra.
23.
go back to reference Kyte, D., Anderson, N., Auti, R., Aiyegbusi, O. L., Bishop, J., Bissell, A., Brettell, E., Calvert, M., Chadburn, M., Cockwell, P., Dutton, M., Eddington, H., Forster, E., Hadley, G., Ives, N. J., Jackson, L., O’Brien, S., Price, G., Sharpe, K., … Williams, J. (2020). Development of an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePROM) system to aid the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-020-00223-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Kyte, D., Anderson, N., Auti, R., Aiyegbusi, O. L., Bishop, J., Bissell, A., Brettell, E., Calvert, M., Chadburn, M., Cockwell, P., Dutton, M., Eddington, H., Forster, E., Hadley, G., Ives, N. J., Jackson, L., O’Brien, S., Price, G., Sharpe, K., … Williams, J. (2020). Development of an electronic patient reported outcome measure (ePROM) system to aid the management of patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s41687-020-00223-8CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference NSW Council of Social Services, Principles of co-design. 2017. NSW Council of Social Services, Principles of co-design. 2017.
26.
go back to reference Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18. Sanders, E., & Stappers, P. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. International Journal of Cocreation in Design and the Arts, 4(1), 5–18.
27.
go back to reference Aitken, J., & Shackleton, D. (2014). Co-creation and co-design: Applied research methods in healthcare service design. Sage Publications.CrossRef Aitken, J., & Shackleton, D. (2014). Co-creation and co-design: Applied research methods in healthcare service design. Sage Publications.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Sayah, F. A., Lahtinen, M., Bonsel, G. J., Ohinmaa, A., & Johnson, J. A. (2021). A multi-level approach for the use of routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data in healthcare systems. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, 5, 98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sayah, F. A., Lahtinen, M., Bonsel, G. J., Ohinmaa, A., & Johnson, J. A. (2021). A multi-level approach for the use of routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data in healthcare systems. Journal of Patient Reported Outcomes, 5, 98.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
33.
go back to reference Boyce, M., Browne, J., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23, 508–518.CrossRefPubMed Boyce, M., Browne, J., & Greenhalgh, J. (2014). The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: A systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Quality and Safety, 23, 508–518.CrossRefPubMed
34.
go back to reference Meadows, K. (2011). Patient-reported outcome measures: An overview. British Journal of Community Nursing, 16(3), 146–151.CrossRefPubMed Meadows, K. (2011). Patient-reported outcome measures: An overview. British Journal of Community Nursing, 16(3), 146–151.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef The EuroQol Group. (1990). EuroQol-a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy, 16(3), 199–208.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Hudak, P., Amadio, P., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). American Journal of Ind Med, 29, 602–608.CrossRef Hudak, P., Amadio, P., & Bombardier, C. (1996). Development of an upper extremity outcome measure: The DASH (disabilities of the arm, shoulder and hand). American Journal of Ind Med, 29, 602–608.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Snowdon, D. A., McGill, S., Altmann, C., Brooks, K., Everard, T., Le Fevre, K., & Andrew, N. E. (2022). Client and service factors associated with changes in health-related quality of life following community rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45, 512–522.CrossRefPubMed Snowdon, D. A., McGill, S., Altmann, C., Brooks, K., Everard, T., Le Fevre, K., & Andrew, N. E. (2022). Client and service factors associated with changes in health-related quality of life following community rehabilitation. Disability and Rehabilitation, 45, 512–522.CrossRefPubMed
38.
go back to reference QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020) NVivo (released in March 2020). QSR International Pty Ltd. (2020) NVivo (released in March 2020).
39.
go back to reference Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14.CrossRef Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8–14.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Francis, J., Johnston, M., & Robertson, C. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25, 1229–1245.CrossRef Francis, J., Johnston, M., & Robertson, C. (2010). What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychology & Health, 25, 1229–1245.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 16, 98.CrossRefPubMed Heale, R., & Forbes, D. (2013). Understanding triangulation in research. Evidence-Based Nursing, 16, 98.CrossRefPubMed
43.
go back to reference Price, C. M., de Amanda, C., Williams, C., Smith, B. H., & Bottle, A. (2018). Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) from specialist pain clinics in England and Wales: Experience from a nationwide study. European Journal of Pain, 23, 1368–1377.CrossRef Price, C. M., de Amanda, C., Williams, C., Smith, B. H., & Bottle, A. (2018). Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) from specialist pain clinics in England and Wales: Experience from a nationwide study. European Journal of Pain, 23, 1368–1377.CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Olalekan, L. (2020). Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems. Quality of Life Research, 29, 325–333.CrossRef Olalekan, L. (2020). Key methodological considerations for usability testing of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems. Quality of Life Research, 29, 325–333.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Aiyegbusi, O. L., Kyte, D., Cockwell, P., Marshall, T., Dutton, M., Walmsley-Allen, N., & Auti, R. (2018). Calvert M Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 101, 120–127.CrossRefPubMed Aiyegbusi, O. L., Kyte, D., Cockwell, P., Marshall, T., Dutton, M., Walmsley-Allen, N., & Auti, R. (2018). Calvert M Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome measure (ePROM) system for patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. Computers in Biology and Medicine, 101, 120–127.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference Gabbard, J., McLouth, C., & Murea, M. (2020). Rapid electronic capturing of patient-reported outcome measures in older adults with end-stage renal disease: A feasibility study. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 38(5), 432–440.CrossRefPubMed Gabbard, J., McLouth, C., & Murea, M. (2020). Rapid electronic capturing of patient-reported outcome measures in older adults with end-stage renal disease: A feasibility study. American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Medicine, 38(5), 432–440.CrossRefPubMed
Metagegevens
Titel
Using a multi-stakeholder co-design process to develop a health service organisation-wide patient reported outcome measure collection system
Auteurs
Kim Naude
Nadine E. Andrew
Velandai Srikanth
Emily Parker
Lucy Marsh
Richard Beare
Roisin McNaney
David A. Snowdon
Publicatiedatum
02-12-2023
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 3/2024
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03552-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2024

Quality of Life Research 3/2024 Naar de uitgave