Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach

被引:6
|
作者
Keller, San [1 ]
Dy, Sydney [2 ,3 ]
Wilson, Renee [2 ]
Dukhanin, Vadim [2 ]
Snyder, Claire [2 ,3 ]
Wu, Albert [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Amer Inst Res Behav & Social Sci, Chapel Hill, NC 27517 USA
[2] Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Sch Publ Hlth, Baltimore, MD USA
[3] Johns Hopkins Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA
基金
美国国家卫生研究院; 美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
primary care; patient-reported outcome measures; performance measurement; patient-centered care; PROM; PRO-PM; multiple chronic conditions; MCCs; MEASUREMENT INFORMATION-SYSTEM; QUALITY-OF-LIFE; PHYSICAL FUNCTIONING SCALE; HEALTH SURVEY SF-36; FUNCTION ITEM BANK; CHRONIC DISEASE SCALE; SELF-EFFICACY; TASK-FORCE; PAIN INTERFERENCE; CLINICAL VALIDITY;
D O I
10.1007/s11606-020-05811-4
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
New models of primary care include patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to promote patient-centered care. PROMs provide information on patient functional status and well-being, can be used to enhance care quality, and are proposed for use in assessing performance. Our objective was to identify a short list of candidate PROMs for use in primary care practice and to serve as a basis for performance measures (PMs). We used qualitative and quantitative methods to identify relevant patient-reported outcome (PRO) domains for use in performance measurement (PRO-PM) and their associated PROMs. We collected data from key informant groups: patients (n = 13; one-on-one and group interviews; concept saturation analysis), clinical thought leaders (n = 9; group discussions; thematic analysis), primary care practices representatives (n = 37; six focus groups; thematic analysis), and primary care payer representatives (n = 10; 12-question survey; frequencies of responses). We merged the key informant group information with findings from environmental literature scans. We conducted a targeted evidence review of measurement properties for candidate PROMs. We used a scoping review and key informant groups to identify PROM evaluation criteria, which were linked to the National Quality Forum measure evaluation criteria. We developed a de novo schema to score candidate PROMs against our criteria. We identified four PRO domains and 10 candidate PROMs: 3 for depressive symptoms, 2 for physical function, 3 for self-efficacy, 2 for ability to participate. Five PROMs met >= 70% of the evidence criteria for three PRO domains: PHQ-9 or PROMIS Depression (depression), PF-10 or PROMIS-PF (physical functioning), and PROMIS Self-Efficacy for Managing Treatments and Medications (self-efficacy). The PROMIS Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities met 68% of our criteria and might be considered for inclusion. Existing evidence and key informant data identified 5 candidate PROMs to use in primary care. These instruments can be used to develop PRO-PMs.
引用
收藏
页码:2687 / 2697
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures to Contribute to Primary Care Performance Measurement: a Mixed Methods Approach
    San Keller
    Sydney Dy
    Renee Wilson
    Vadim Dukhanin
    Claire Snyder
    Albert Wu
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2020, 35 : 2687 - 2697
  • [2] Patient-reported outcome II: selecting appropriate measures for musculoskeletal care
    Haywood, Kirstie L.
    MUSCULOSKELETAL CARE, 2007, 5 (02) : 72 - 90
  • [3] Selecting patient-reported outcome measures: "what" and "for whom"
    Liu, Jason B.
    Rothrock, Nan E.
    Edelen, Maria O.
    HEALTH AFFAIRS SCHOLAR, 2024, 2 (04):
  • [4] A patient-centred approach to measuring quality in kidney care: patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures
    Aiyegbusi, Olalekan L.
    Kyte, Derek
    Cockwell, Paul
    Anderson, Nicola
    Calvert, Melanie
    CURRENT OPINION IN NEPHROLOGY AND HYPERTENSION, 2017, 26 (06): : 442 - 449
  • [5] Methods for shortening patient-reported outcome measures
    Harel, Daphna
    Baron, Murray
    Hudson, M.
    Gyger, G.
    Pope, J.
    Larche, M.
    Khalidi, N.
    Masetto, A.
    Sutton, E.
    Robinson, D.
    Rodriguez-Reyna, T. S.
    Smith, D.
    Thorne, C.
    Fortin, P. R.
    Fritzler, M.
    STATISTICAL METHODS IN MEDICAL RESEARCH, 2019, 28 (10-11) : 2992 - 3011
  • [6] Selecting patient-reported outcome measures for a patient-facing technology
    Raj, Priyank
    Cho, Youmin
    Jiang, Yun
    Gong, Yang
    JAMIA OPEN, 2023, 6 (04)
  • [7] Enhancing Clinicians' Use of Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Outpatient Care:Mixed Methods Study
    van Engen, Veerle
    Bonfrer, Igna
    Ahaus, Kees
    Den Hollander-Ardon, Monique
    Peters, Ingrid
    Buljac-Samardzic, Martina
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2024, 26
  • [8] Selecting and Implementing Patient-Reported Outcome and Experience Measures to Assess Health System Performance
    Bull, Claudia
    Teede, Helena
    Watson, Diane
    Callander, Emily J.
    JAMA HEALTH FORUM, 2022, 3 (04):
  • [9] Patient-Reported Outcome Performance Measures in Oncology
    Basch, Ethan
    Snyder, Claire
    McNiff, Kristen
    Brown, Rebecca
    Maddux, Suzanne
    Smith, Mary Lou
    Atkinson, Thomas M.
    Howell, Doris
    Chiang, Anne
    Wood, William
    Levitan, Nathan
    Wu, Albert W.
    Krzyzanowska, Monika
    JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY PRACTICE, 2014, 10 (03) : 209 - 211
  • [10] Scale Linking to Enable Patient-Reported Outcome Performance Measures Assessed with Different Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
    Katzan, Irene L.
    Fan, Youran
    Griffith, Sandra D.
    Crane, Paul K.
    Thompson, Nicolas R.
    Cella, David
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2017, 20 (08) : 1143 - 1149