Skip to main content

Table 4 Results of expert interviews related to the component Human of the HIS Evaluation Framework

From: Improving quality of care through patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): expert interviews using the NHS PROMs Programme and the Swedish quality registers for knee and hip arthroplasty as examples

NHS PROMs Programme Swedish Quality Registries: SHPR and SKAR
  + Established infrastructure for developing and disseminating annual reports
+ Annual registry meeting with key stakeholders i) to gain feedback on and finalize annual report, and ii) to discuss potential future directions of the registry, beneficial further analyses etc.
+ Clinicians provide feedback at the annual registry meeting on whether they understand what is presented in the reports accurately and how they would interpret the figures
 - Central efforts to provide data at the level of individual hospitals, surgical teams and surgeons are lacking
 - Led by economists with the aim to save costs rather than to improve quality
 - Reports allow to understand where hospital stands relative to anyone else but not to identify deficiencies in care
 - Lack of resources, incl. Funding, for analysing, disseminating (e.g. user-friendly outputs) and implementing data (e.g. support local staff to understand reports) – most resources went into data collection
Most reports provide data at level of commissioning groups or NHS trusts
Stakeholder engagement
  + Main forum to engage with stakeholders is annual registry meeting which is attended by one clinician representative of each hospital
Need for tailoring information to and training for respective stakeholder group to ensure best possible uptake
PROMs data has potential to respond to questions that matter to patients such as What will the outcome be for me? or What are my changes to get better?
Limited investment to promote information to General Practitioners who would be well suited to use PROMs data for shared decision making and referral behaviour
Need to get surgeons engaged to examine their practices and outcomes
Programme provides database for research, however, bureaucracy becomes increasingly difficult and time consuming for accessing the data
Other stakeholders mentioned include economists, commissioners, researchers, NHS England, etc.
  1. Supporting factors are indicated with a “+”, hindering factors with a “-”, and neutral statements related to the system, including considerations for the future with a “”. For the two Swedish registries, it is explicitly stated if a statement was only provided for one registry. No inferences can be made that this does or does not apply to the other registry since no information on the topic was given by the experts of the other registry