Cargando…

Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics

Patient reported measures (PRMs), including patient-reported outcomes, play a critical role in dialysis care. The usage of PRMs is extensive in dialysis clinics. While there are excellent PRMs to choose from, and their implementation as part of quality improvement and performance monitoring is exten...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Peipert, John D., Hays, Ron D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934925/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29757314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0010-9
_version_ 1783320210529320960
author Peipert, John D.
Hays, Ron D.
author_facet Peipert, John D.
Hays, Ron D.
author_sort Peipert, John D.
collection PubMed
description Patient reported measures (PRMs), including patient-reported outcomes, play a critical role in dialysis care. The usage of PRMs is extensive in dialysis clinics. While there are excellent PRMs to choose from, and their implementation as part of quality improvement and performance monitoring is extensive, there are still methodological challenges to be addressed. In this paper, we identify key methodological concerns around use of PRMs in dialysis centers in the United States and make recommendations for improving the use of PRMs in dialysis related to Selection of PRMs, Mode of Administration, and Support for PRM Use. These recommendations include: (1) Continue the use of Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item survey (KDQOL™-36) for dialysis centers’ internal quality improvement activities and the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS survey®) for public dialysis center performance monitoring, but promote efforts to modify these instruments by incorporating PROMIS general health items (KDQOL-36) and reducing the length of the ICH-CAHPS. (2) Adopt a PRM of whether dialysis patients have been informed about all dialysis and transplant options. (3) Evaluate equivalence between electronic and paper versions of PRMs prior to widespread use of electronic administration. (4) Explore reimbursement of costs of PRM administration by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and kidney organizations. (5) Continue development of provider trainings in PRM administration and interpretation. These recommendations will help dialysis care decision-makers, clinicians, and applied researchers take the next steps toward enhancing PRM use in dialysis.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5934925
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-59349252018-05-09 Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics Peipert, John D. Hays, Ron D. J Patient Rep Outcomes Commentary Patient reported measures (PRMs), including patient-reported outcomes, play a critical role in dialysis care. The usage of PRMs is extensive in dialysis clinics. While there are excellent PRMs to choose from, and their implementation as part of quality improvement and performance monitoring is extensive, there are still methodological challenges to be addressed. In this paper, we identify key methodological concerns around use of PRMs in dialysis centers in the United States and make recommendations for improving the use of PRMs in dialysis related to Selection of PRMs, Mode of Administration, and Support for PRM Use. These recommendations include: (1) Continue the use of Kidney Disease Quality of Life 36-item survey (KDQOL™-36) for dialysis centers’ internal quality improvement activities and the In-Center Hemodialysis Consumer Assessment of Health Care Providers and Systems (ICH-CAHPS survey®) for public dialysis center performance monitoring, but promote efforts to modify these instruments by incorporating PROMIS general health items (KDQOL-36) and reducing the length of the ICH-CAHPS. (2) Adopt a PRM of whether dialysis patients have been informed about all dialysis and transplant options. (3) Evaluate equivalence between electronic and paper versions of PRMs prior to widespread use of electronic administration. (4) Explore reimbursement of costs of PRM administration by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and kidney organizations. (5) Continue development of provider trainings in PRM administration and interpretation. These recommendations will help dialysis care decision-makers, clinicians, and applied researchers take the next steps toward enhancing PRM use in dialysis. Springer International Publishing 2017-11-05 /pmc/articles/PMC5934925/ /pubmed/29757314 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0010-9 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.
spellingShingle Commentary
Peipert, John D.
Hays, Ron D.
Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
title Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
title_full Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
title_fullStr Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
title_full_unstemmed Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
title_short Methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
title_sort methodological considerations in using patient reported measures in dialysis clinics
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5934925/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29757314
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-017-0010-9
work_keys_str_mv AT peipertjohnd methodologicalconsiderationsinusingpatientreportedmeasuresindialysisclinics
AT haysrond methodologicalconsiderationsinusingpatientreportedmeasuresindialysisclinics