Cargando…
Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis
OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an entirely electronic system can be used to capture both patient-reported outcomes (electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, ePROMs) as well as clinician-validated diagnostic and complexity data in an elective surgical orthopaedic outpatient setting. To examine...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4916591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011975 |
_version_ | 1782438855092207616 |
---|---|
author | Malhotra, Karan Buraimoh, Olatunbosun Thornton, James Cullen, Nicholas Singh, Dishan Goldberg, Andrew J |
author_facet | Malhotra, Karan Buraimoh, Olatunbosun Thornton, James Cullen, Nicholas Singh, Dishan Goldberg, Andrew J |
author_sort | Malhotra, Karan |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an entirely electronic system can be used to capture both patient-reported outcomes (electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, ePROMs) as well as clinician-validated diagnostic and complexity data in an elective surgical orthopaedic outpatient setting. To examine patients' experience of this system and factors impacting their experience. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Single centre series. Outpatient clinics at an elective foot and ankle unit in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All new adult patients attending elective orthopaedic outpatient clinics over a 32-month period. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were invited to complete ePROMs prior to attending their outpatient appointment. At their appointment, those patients who had not completed ePROMs were offered the opportunity to complete it on a tablet device with technical support. Matched diagnostic and complexity data were captured by the treating consultant during the appointment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Capture rates of patient-reported and clinician-reported data. All information and technology (IT) failures, language and disability barriers were captured. Patients were asked to rate their experience of using ePROMs. The scoring systems used included EQ-5D-5L, the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score. RESULTS: Out of 2534 new patients, 2176 (85.9%) completed ePROMs, of whom 1090 (50.09%) completed ePROMs at home/work prior to their appointment. 31.5% used a mobile (smartphone/tablet) device. Clinician-reported data were captured on 2491 patients (98.3%). The mean patient experience score of using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was 8.55±1.85 out of 10 and 666 patients (30.61%) left comments. Of patients leaving comments, 214 (32.13%) felt ePROMs did not adequately capture their symptoms and these patients had significantly lower patient experience scores (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the successful implementation of technology into a service improvement programme. Excellent capture rates of ePROMs and clinician-validated diagnostic data can be achieved within a National Health Service setting. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-4916591 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-49165912016-06-24 Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis Malhotra, Karan Buraimoh, Olatunbosun Thornton, James Cullen, Nicholas Singh, Dishan Goldberg, Andrew J BMJ Open Health Informatics OBJECTIVES: To determine whether an entirely electronic system can be used to capture both patient-reported outcomes (electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, ePROMs) as well as clinician-validated diagnostic and complexity data in an elective surgical orthopaedic outpatient setting. To examine patients' experience of this system and factors impacting their experience. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. SETTING: Single centre series. Outpatient clinics at an elective foot and ankle unit in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: All new adult patients attending elective orthopaedic outpatient clinics over a 32-month period. INTERVENTIONS: All patients were invited to complete ePROMs prior to attending their outpatient appointment. At their appointment, those patients who had not completed ePROMs were offered the opportunity to complete it on a tablet device with technical support. Matched diagnostic and complexity data were captured by the treating consultant during the appointment. OUTCOME MEASURES: Capture rates of patient-reported and clinician-reported data. All information and technology (IT) failures, language and disability barriers were captured. Patients were asked to rate their experience of using ePROMs. The scoring systems used included EQ-5D-5L, the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score. RESULTS: Out of 2534 new patients, 2176 (85.9%) completed ePROMs, of whom 1090 (50.09%) completed ePROMs at home/work prior to their appointment. 31.5% used a mobile (smartphone/tablet) device. Clinician-reported data were captured on 2491 patients (98.3%). The mean patient experience score of using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was 8.55±1.85 out of 10 and 666 patients (30.61%) left comments. Of patients leaving comments, 214 (32.13%) felt ePROMs did not adequately capture their symptoms and these patients had significantly lower patient experience scores (p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the successful implementation of technology into a service improvement programme. Excellent capture rates of ePROMs and clinician-validated diagnostic data can be achieved within a National Health Service setting. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-06-20 /pmc/articles/PMC4916591/ /pubmed/27324718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011975 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ |
spellingShingle | Health Informatics Malhotra, Karan Buraimoh, Olatunbosun Thornton, James Cullen, Nicholas Singh, Dishan Goldberg, Andrew J Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
title | Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
title_full | Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
title_fullStr | Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
title_full_unstemmed | Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
title_short | Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
title_sort | electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis |
topic | Health Informatics |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4916591/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27324718 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011975 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT malhotrakaran electroniccaptureofpatientreportedandclinicianreportedoutcomemeasuresinanelectiveorthopaedicsettingaretrospectivecohortanalysis AT buraimoholatunbosun electroniccaptureofpatientreportedandclinicianreportedoutcomemeasuresinanelectiveorthopaedicsettingaretrospectivecohortanalysis AT thorntonjames electroniccaptureofpatientreportedandclinicianreportedoutcomemeasuresinanelectiveorthopaedicsettingaretrospectivecohortanalysis AT cullennicholas electroniccaptureofpatientreportedandclinicianreportedoutcomemeasuresinanelectiveorthopaedicsettingaretrospectivecohortanalysis AT singhdishan electroniccaptureofpatientreportedandclinicianreportedoutcomemeasuresinanelectiveorthopaedicsettingaretrospectivecohortanalysis AT goldbergandrewj electroniccaptureofpatientreportedandclinicianreportedoutcomemeasuresinanelectiveorthopaedicsettingaretrospectivecohortanalysis |