Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for goalsetting and outcome measurement in primary care physiotherapy, an explorative field study

Physiotherapy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 103 (1) ◽  
pp. 66-72 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simone A. van Dulmen ◽  
Philip J. van der Wees ◽  
J. Bart Staal ◽  
J.C.C. Braspenning ◽  
Maria W.G. Nijhuis-van der Sanden
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Field Study ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Patient Reported

Measuring psychological outcomes in paediatric settings: Making outcomes meaningful using client-defined perspectives

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 594-603
Author(s):  
Halina Flannery ◽  
Jenna Jacob
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Chronic Health Conditions ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
Psychological Outcome ◽  
Chronic Health ◽  
Patient Reported

There is a growing drive to develop and implement patient-reported outcome measures within paediatric health services, particularly for young people living with chronic health conditions; however, there is little consensus on how best to do this in meaningful ways within psychological services working alongside medical teams. This reflective commentary considers some of the challenges of collecting psychological outcome measures in paediatric services and considers alternative approaches to making outcome measurement meaningful. All measures have their limitations; however, they become meaningless if they are not used in meaningful and considered ways with young people. Client-defined outcome measurement, such as goal-based outcome measures, alongside other types of measurement, can capture outcomes of meaning to young people living with chronic health conditions, and can enable them to feed into a shared decision-making process.

scholarly journals Getting the measure of outcomes in clinical practice

2014 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glyn Lewis ◽  
Helen Killaspy
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Quality Of Services ◽  
List Type ◽  
Regression To The Mean ◽  
Process Measures ◽  
Patient Reported

SummaryIt has been argued that the routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) should be encouraged in order to improve the quality of services and even to determine payment. Clinician-rated outcome measures (CROMs), patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) and process measures also should be considered in evaluating healthcare quality. We discuss difficulties that the routine use of outcome measures might pose for psychiatric services. When outcome and experience measures are used to evaluate services they are difficult to interpret because of differences in case mix and regression to the mean. We conclude that PROMs and CROMs could be useful for monitoring the progress of individuals and that clinical audit still has an important role to play in improving the quality of services.LEARNING OBJECTIVESUnderstand the difference between process measurement and outcome measurement.Understand the limitation of using outcome measures to assess and promote quality of services.Understand the difficulties in assessing the psychometric properties and validity of outcome measures.

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.

scholarly journals Outcome measurement in trauma surgery with a fracture database and clinical and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs)

2021 ◽  
Vol 108 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Bilici ◽  
M Morgenstern ◽  
C Frank ◽  
N Alispahic ◽  
A Müller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Role Model ◽  
Query Language ◽  
Outcome Measurement ◽  
Trauma Surgery ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Usa

Abstract Objective Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) gain growing attention. The Food and Drug Administration suggested in 2009 to have PROMs for every new treatment and technology. The use of PROMs was further promoted by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in the USA. Recommendations from other national and international organizations include the OECD's Project of Patient-Reported Indicator Surveys (PaRIS) and the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). Our development and initiation of a Fracture Database started early in 2018. We orientated our database on the role model of the Swedish Fracture Registry. Methods REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) is a web interface for a SQL (Structured Query Language)-Database. We used it to program the Fracture Registry. We collect data about demographics, diagnosis, treatment, adverse events, clinical outcomes, and PROMs. The PROMS are recorded with the Software 'Heartbeat ONE' vs. 6.15.4. Inclusion criteria are all patients with fractures of the upper and lower extremity, including the pelvis and multiple injuries, treated surgically. Excluded are all patients with fractures of the hand as monotrauma and non-surgical treatment. We established questionnaire sets for each anatomical region. Every hospitalized patient is screened for inclusion criteria to get the baseline PROMs. Follow-up PROMs are collected at 3-months and 12-months in our outpatient clinic. Results In five months of collecting PROMs, we have evaluated 599 patients, 521 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. 329 (63%) questionnaire sets were completed. The mean time for answering the questions was 11-20 minutes. The input rate of 63% for PROMs accounts for the start of the process, with 22 (4%) patients being dismissed before answering the questionnaires. 93 (18%) patients denied participation. 52 (10%) patients were not able to participate (dementia, delirium). Other causes for missing data were language barriers (n = 28; 5%), medical reasons like polytraumatized patients (n = 4; 0.8%), and deceased patients (n = 15; 2.9%). Conclusion Most Orthopaedic Trauma centers publish data about PROMs from surgically treated patients. Starting in the first quarter of 2021, we will include non-surgically treated patients. We have optimized the process of including patients. Our aim is a response rate of more than 80% within this year to get representing data.

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
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document