Cargando…
Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability
BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery. METHODS: We sampled patient...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer International Publishing
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9263014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35798915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00483-6 |
_version_ | 1784742629894782976 |
---|---|
author | Brusco, Natasha K. Atkinson, Victoria Woods, Jeffrey Myles, Paul S. Hodge, Anita Jones, Cathy Lloyd, Damien Rovtar, Vincent Clifford, Amanda M. Morris, Meg E. |
author_facet | Brusco, Natasha K. Atkinson, Victoria Woods, Jeffrey Myles, Paul S. Hodge, Anita Jones, Cathy Lloyd, Damien Rovtar, Vincent Clifford, Amanda M. Morris, Meg E. |
author_sort | Brusco, Natasha K. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery. METHODS: We sampled patients with a broad range of elective surgeries from four major Australian hospitals to evaluate (1) feasibility of the technology used to implement the PROMs across geographically dispersed sites, (2) response rates for automated short message service (SMS) versus email survey delivery formats, (3) the degree of recovery at one and four weeks post-surgery as measured by the Quality of Recovery 15 Item PROM (QoR-15), and (4) patient acceptability of PROMS based on survey and focus group results. Feasibility and acceptability recommendations were then co-designed with stakeholders, based on the data. RESULTS: Over three months there were 5985 surveys responses from 20,052 surveys (30% response rate). Feasibility testing revealed minor and infrequent technical difficulties in automated email and SMS administration of PROMs prior to surgery. The response rate for the QoR-15 was 34.8% (n = 3108/8919) for SMS and 25.8% (n = 2877/11,133) for email. Mean QoR-15 scores were 122.1 (SD 25.2; n = 1021); 113.1 (SD 27.7; n = 1906) and 123.4 (SD 26.84; n = 1051) for pre-surgery and one and four weeks post-surgery, respectively. One week after surgery, 825 of the 1906 responses (43%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average), and at four weeks post-surgery, 676 of the 1051 responses (64%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average). The PROM survey was highly acceptable with 76% (n = 2830/3739) of patients rating 8/10 or above for acceptability. Fourteen patient driven recommendations were then co-developed. CONCLUSION: Administering PROMS electronically for elective surgery hospital patients was feasible, acceptable and discriminated changes in surgical recovery over time. Patient co-design and involvement provided innovative and practical solutions to implementation and new recommendations for implementation. Trial Registration and Ethical Approval ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III). Ethics approval has been obtained from La Trobe University (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20479). KEY POINTS: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) help to engage patients in understanding their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine how patients feel about completing a PROM survey before and after elective surgery, and to develop a set of recommendations on how to roll out the survey, based on patient feedback. We found that implementing an electronic PROM survey before and after elective surgery was relatively easy to do and was well accepted by patients. Consumer feedback throughout the project enabled co-design of innovative and practical solutions to PROM survey administration. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9263014 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Springer International Publishing |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-92630142022-07-09 Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability Brusco, Natasha K. Atkinson, Victoria Woods, Jeffrey Myles, Paul S. Hodge, Anita Jones, Cathy Lloyd, Damien Rovtar, Vincent Clifford, Amanda M. Morris, Meg E. J Patient Rep Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery. METHODS: We sampled patients with a broad range of elective surgeries from four major Australian hospitals to evaluate (1) feasibility of the technology used to implement the PROMs across geographically dispersed sites, (2) response rates for automated short message service (SMS) versus email survey delivery formats, (3) the degree of recovery at one and four weeks post-surgery as measured by the Quality of Recovery 15 Item PROM (QoR-15), and (4) patient acceptability of PROMS based on survey and focus group results. Feasibility and acceptability recommendations were then co-designed with stakeholders, based on the data. RESULTS: Over three months there were 5985 surveys responses from 20,052 surveys (30% response rate). Feasibility testing revealed minor and infrequent technical difficulties in automated email and SMS administration of PROMs prior to surgery. The response rate for the QoR-15 was 34.8% (n = 3108/8919) for SMS and 25.8% (n = 2877/11,133) for email. Mean QoR-15 scores were 122.1 (SD 25.2; n = 1021); 113.1 (SD 27.7; n = 1906) and 123.4 (SD 26.84; n = 1051) for pre-surgery and one and four weeks post-surgery, respectively. One week after surgery, 825 of the 1906 responses (43%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average), and at four weeks post-surgery, 676 of the 1051 responses (64%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average). The PROM survey was highly acceptable with 76% (n = 2830/3739) of patients rating 8/10 or above for acceptability. Fourteen patient driven recommendations were then co-developed. CONCLUSION: Administering PROMS electronically for elective surgery hospital patients was feasible, acceptable and discriminated changes in surgical recovery over time. Patient co-design and involvement provided innovative and practical solutions to implementation and new recommendations for implementation. Trial Registration and Ethical Approval ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III). Ethics approval has been obtained from La Trobe University (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20479). KEY POINTS: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) help to engage patients in understanding their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine how patients feel about completing a PROM survey before and after elective surgery, and to develop a set of recommendations on how to roll out the survey, based on patient feedback. We found that implementing an electronic PROM survey before and after elective surgery was relatively easy to do and was well accepted by patients. Consumer feedback throughout the project enabled co-design of innovative and practical solutions to PROM survey administration. Springer International Publishing 2022-07-07 /pmc/articles/PMC9263014/ /pubmed/35798915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00483-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2022 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 | Research Brusco, Natasha K. Atkinson, Victoria Woods, Jeffrey Myles, Paul S. Hodge, Anita Jones, Cathy Lloyd, Damien Rovtar, Vincent Clifford, Amanda M. Morris, Meg E. Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
title | Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
title_full | Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
title_fullStr | Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
title_full_unstemmed | Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
title_short | Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
title_sort | implementing proms for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability |
topic | Research |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9263014/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35798915 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-022-00483-6 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT brusconatashak implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT atkinsonvictoria implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT woodsjeffrey implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT mylespauls implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT hodgeanita implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT jonescathy implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT lloyddamien implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT rovtarvincent implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT cliffordamandam implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability AT morrismege implementingpromsforelectivesurgerypatientsfeasibilityresponseratedegreeofrecoveryandpatientacceptability |