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....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Biber, Joshua, Ose, Dominik, Reese, Jenny, Gardiner, Anna, Facelli, Julio, Spuhl, Joshua, Brodke, Darrel, Lee, Vivian S., Hess, Rachel, Weeks, Howard
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