Cargando…
Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice
PURPOSE: Since 2011, the evidence-based KLIK Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) portal has been implemented in clinical practice in > 20 Dutch hospitals. Patients and/or parents complete PROMs on Health Related Quality of Life, symptoms and psychosocial functioning before their outpatient co...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32468402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02522-5 |
_version_ | 1784586314707894272 |
---|---|
author | Teela, Lorynn van Muilekom, Maud M. Kooij, Lieke H. Gathier, Anouk W. van Goudoever, Johannes B. Grootenhuis, Martha A. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. |
author_facet | Teela, Lorynn van Muilekom, Maud M. Kooij, Lieke H. Gathier, Anouk W. van Goudoever, Johannes B. Grootenhuis, Martha A. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. |
author_sort | Teela, Lorynn |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Since 2011, the evidence-based KLIK Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) portal has been implemented in clinical practice in > 20 Dutch hospitals. Patients and/or parents complete PROMs on Health Related Quality of Life, symptoms and psychosocial functioning before their outpatient consultation. Answers are converted into an ePROfile and discussed by clinicians during consultation to monitor well-being over time and detect problems early. This study aims to get insight into the KLIK implementation from the clinician’s perspective. METHODS: As part of the KLIK implementation process, annual meetings were held with multidisciplinary teams to evaluate the use of KLIK. An online questionnaire was sent regarding (1) overall satisfaction, (2) feeling competent to discuss PROMs, (3) use of KLIK during the consultation, (4) influence of KLIK on the consultation, (5) usability of the KLIK PROM portal, (6) satisfaction with PROMs and feedback, and (7) support of the KLIK expert team. Open questions about (dis)advantages were included. Descriptive analyses were used. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight clinicians (response-rate 61%) from 14 hospitals in the Netherlands participated. Results show that: (1) clinicians report an overall satisfaction of median = 69/100 (visual analogue scale), (2) 85.8% feel competent discussing the ePROfile, (3) 70.3% (almost) always discuss the ePROfile, (4) 70.3% think that KLIK improves consultation, (5) 71.6% think KLIK is easy to use, (6) 80.4% are satisfied with the feedback of the overall KLIK ePROfile, (7) 71.6% experience sufficient support of the KLIK team. CONCLUSION: Participating clinicians are generally satisfied with KLIK. Improvements to the KLIK PROM portal are now realized based on the mentioned disadvantages (e.g., shorten PROM completion by use of PROMIS and integrating KLIK with Electronic Health Records). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02522-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8528749 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-85287492021-11-04 Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice Teela, Lorynn van Muilekom, Maud M. Kooij, Lieke H. Gathier, Anouk W. van Goudoever, Johannes B. Grootenhuis, Martha A. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. Qual Life Res Special Section: Feedback Tools PURPOSE: Since 2011, the evidence-based KLIK Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) portal has been implemented in clinical practice in > 20 Dutch hospitals. Patients and/or parents complete PROMs on Health Related Quality of Life, symptoms and psychosocial functioning before their outpatient consultation. Answers are converted into an ePROfile and discussed by clinicians during consultation to monitor well-being over time and detect problems early. This study aims to get insight into the KLIK implementation from the clinician’s perspective. METHODS: As part of the KLIK implementation process, annual meetings were held with multidisciplinary teams to evaluate the use of KLIK. An online questionnaire was sent regarding (1) overall satisfaction, (2) feeling competent to discuss PROMs, (3) use of KLIK during the consultation, (4) influence of KLIK on the consultation, (5) usability of the KLIK PROM portal, (6) satisfaction with PROMs and feedback, and (7) support of the KLIK expert team. Open questions about (dis)advantages were included. Descriptive analyses were used. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight clinicians (response-rate 61%) from 14 hospitals in the Netherlands participated. Results show that: (1) clinicians report an overall satisfaction of median = 69/100 (visual analogue scale), (2) 85.8% feel competent discussing the ePROfile, (3) 70.3% (almost) always discuss the ePROfile, (4) 70.3% think that KLIK improves consultation, (5) 71.6% think KLIK is easy to use, (6) 80.4% are satisfied with the feedback of the overall KLIK ePROfile, (7) 71.6% experience sufficient support of the KLIK team. CONCLUSION: Participating clinicians are generally satisfied with KLIK. Improvements to the KLIK PROM portal are now realized based on the mentioned disadvantages (e.g., shorten PROM completion by use of PROMIS and integrating KLIK with Electronic Health Records). ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s11136-020-02522-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer International Publishing 2020-05-28 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8528749/ /pubmed/32468402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02522-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Special Section: Feedback Tools Teela, Lorynn van Muilekom, Maud M. Kooij, Lieke H. Gathier, Anouk W. van Goudoever, Johannes B. Grootenhuis, Martha A. Haverman, Lotte van Oers, Hedy A. Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice |
title | Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice |
title_full | Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice |
title_fullStr | Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice |
title_full_unstemmed | Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice |
title_short | Clinicians’ perspective on the implemented KLIK PROM portal in clinical practice |
title_sort | clinicians’ perspective on the implemented klik prom portal in clinical practice |
topic | Special Section: Feedback Tools |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8528749/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32468402 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02522-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT teelalorynn cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT vanmuilekommaudm cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT kooijliekeh cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT gathieranoukw cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT vangoudoeverjohannesb cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT grootenhuismarthaa cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT havermanlotte cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice AT vanoershedya cliniciansperspectiveontheimplementedklikpromportalinclinicalpractice |