Cargando…
Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting
AIM: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have traditionally been implemented through a manual process of paper and pencil with little standardization throughout a Healthcare System. Each practice has asked patients specific questions to understand the patient’s health as it pertains to their specialty....
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6097980/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30175316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0 |
_version_ | 1783348379236958208 |
---|---|
author | Biber, Joshua Ose, Dominik Reese, Jenny Gardiner, Anna Facelli, Julio Spuhl, Joshua Brodke, Darrel Lee, Vivian S. Hess, Rachel Weeks, Howard |
author_facet | Biber, Joshua Ose, Dominik Reese, Jenny Gardiner, Anna Facelli, Julio Spuhl, Joshua Brodke, Darrel Lee, Vivian S. Hess, Rachel Weeks, Howard |
author_sort | Biber, Joshua |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIM: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have traditionally been implemented through a manual process of paper and pencil with little standardization throughout a Healthcare System. Each practice has asked patients specific questions to understand the patient’s health as it pertains to their specialty. These data were rarely shared and there has not been a comparison of patient’s health across different specialty domains. We sought to leverage interoperable electronic systems to provide a standardization of PRO assessments across sites of care. METHODS: University of Utah Health is comprised of four hospitals, 12 community clinics, over 400,000 unique annual patients, and more than 5000 providers. The enterprise wide implementation of PROs started in November of 2015. Patients can complete an assessment at home via email, or within the clinic on a tablet. Each specialty has the opportunity to add additional specialty-specific instruments. We customized the interval with which the patient answers the assessments based on specialty preference in order to minimize patient burden, while maximizing relevant data for clinicians. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified in three phases: Pre-implementation, Implementation, and Post-implementation. Each phase was further broken down into technical challenges, content inclusion and exclusion, and organizational strategy. These phases are unique and require collaboration between several groups throughout the organization with support from executive leadership. DISCUSSION: We are deploying system-wide standard and customized PRO collection with the goals of providing better patient care, improving physician-patient communication, and ultimately improving the value of the care given. Standardized assessment provides any clinician with information to quickly evaluate the overall, physical and mental health of a patient. This information is available real time to aid in patient communication for the clinician. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6097980 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-60979802018-08-30 Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting Biber, Joshua Ose, Dominik Reese, Jenny Gardiner, Anna Facelli, Julio Spuhl, Joshua Brodke, Darrel Lee, Vivian S. Hess, Rachel Weeks, Howard J Patient Rep Outcomes Short Report AIM: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have traditionally been implemented through a manual process of paper and pencil with little standardization throughout a Healthcare System. Each practice has asked patients specific questions to understand the patient’s health as it pertains to their specialty. These data were rarely shared and there has not been a comparison of patient’s health across different specialty domains. We sought to leverage interoperable electronic systems to provide a standardization of PRO assessments across sites of care. METHODS: University of Utah Health is comprised of four hospitals, 12 community clinics, over 400,000 unique annual patients, and more than 5000 providers. The enterprise wide implementation of PROs started in November of 2015. Patients can complete an assessment at home via email, or within the clinic on a tablet. Each specialty has the opportunity to add additional specialty-specific instruments. We customized the interval with which the patient answers the assessments based on specialty preference in order to minimize patient burden, while maximizing relevant data for clinicians. RESULTS: Barriers and facilitators were identified in three phases: Pre-implementation, Implementation, and Post-implementation. Each phase was further broken down into technical challenges, content inclusion and exclusion, and organizational strategy. These phases are unique and require collaboration between several groups throughout the organization with support from executive leadership. DISCUSSION: We are deploying system-wide standard and customized PRO collection with the goals of providing better patient care, improving physician-patient communication, and ultimately improving the value of the care given. Standardized assessment provides any clinician with information to quickly evaluate the overall, physical and mental health of a patient. This information is available real time to aid in patient communication for the clinician. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2018-08-17 /pmc/articles/PMC6097980/ /pubmed/30175316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0 Text en © The Author(s) 2018 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 | Short Report Biber, Joshua Ose, Dominik Reese, Jenny Gardiner, Anna Facelli, Julio Spuhl, Joshua Brodke, Darrel Lee, Vivian S. Hess, Rachel Weeks, Howard Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting |
title | Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting |
title_full | Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting |
title_fullStr | Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting |
title_full_unstemmed | Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting |
title_short | Patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a University Health Care setting |
title_sort | patient reported outcomes – experiences with implementation in a university health care setting |
topic | Short Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6097980/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30175316 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0059-0 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT biberjoshua patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT osedominik patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT reesejenny patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT gardineranna patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT facellijulio patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT spuhljoshua patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT brodkedarrel patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT leevivians patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT hessrachel patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting AT weekshoward patientreportedoutcomesexperienceswithimplementationinauniversityhealthcaresetting |