Skip to main content

Table 6 Results of expert interviews related to the component Net benefits 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
System-specific considerations
 + Health systems overall become more reliant on health information which encourages the collection of high quality information such as in the NHS PROMs Programme
 + The programme highlights a positive shift in health care toward integrating patient-reported information and objective measures
 + Benefit case studies are produced to stimulate the implementation of the results from the programme into practice
Efforts are needed in the future to inform various stakeholder groups about the availability of the data and how it could be used to inform their practices.
For future analyses, examining not only variations between hospitals but also between clinical teams was recommended
The next phase of the NHS PROMs Programme should be an extension to long-term conditions, mental health and emergency admissions. Long-term conditions and mental health are challenging since they involve various interventions potentially across settings. Emergency care is challenging since one needs to find consensus on what are you actually measuring: improve state or restore state the state in which a patient was in a week earlier.
Collecting information on other constructs, such as catastrophizing, is something to be considered potentially for the future. Catastrophizing is one example of a construct which is a fixed personality trait which can be highly influential on the outcome, yet does not change due to the surgery
Adding new concepts and themes is not appropriate for large-scale application since it implies more burden on respondents, but should be considered on the level of research
Registries serve as the foundation for developing guidelines e.g. on reducing infections
Data is used by responsible people for resource allocation to examine their resource use in comparison to other counties and act upon these findings
  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