A landscape assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measures in research, quality improvement and clinical care across a healthcare organisation
BMC Health Services Research volume 23, Article number: 94 (2023)
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) can be used by healthcare organisations to inform improvements in service delivery. However, routine collection of PROMs is difficult to achieve across an entire healthcare organisation. An understanding of the use of PROMs within an organisation can provide valuable insights on the purpose, scope and practical considerations of PROMs collection, which can inform implementation of PROMs.
We used multiple research methods to assess the use of PROMs in research projects, data registries and clinical care across a healthcare organisation from January 2014 to April 2021. The methods included an audit of ethics applications approved by the organisation’s human research ethics committee and registries which the health organisation had contributed data to; a literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on research projects conducted at the organisation; and a survey of health professionals use of PROMs in research projects, data registries and clinical care. The scope of PROMs was determined by classifying PROMs as either ‘specific’ to a particular disease and/or condition, or as a ‘generic’ measure with further classification based on the health domains they measured, using the World Health Organization International Classification Framework. Practical considerations included mode and timing of PROMs administration. Data were described using frequency and proportion.
PROMs were used by 22% of research projects (n = 144/666), 68% of data registries (n = 13/19), and 76% of clinical specialties in their clinical care (n = 16/21). Disease specific PROMs were most commonly used: 83% of research projects (n = 130/144), 69% of clinical registries (n = 9/13), and 75% of clinical specialties (n = 12/16). Greater than 80% of research projects, clinical registries and clinical specialties measured health domains relating to both body impairments and participation in daily life activities. The most commonly used generic PROM was the EQ-5D (research projects n = 56/144, 39%; data registries n = 5/13, 38%; clinical specialties n = 4/16, 25%). PROMs used in clinical care were mostly paper-based (n = 47/55, 85%).
We have elicited information on the use of PROMs to inform a health organisation wide implementation strategy. Future work will determine clinician and patient acceptability of the EQ-5D, and co-design a system for the collection of PROMs.
With rising healthcare costs, there is mounting pressure on healthcare organisations to provide services that produce outcomes that are meaningful to patients at the lowest possible cost . Value-based healthcare is a healthcare delivery model in which providers are incentivised to maximise patient relevant outcomes relative to the amount or type of care provided [1, 2], with the aims of improving population health, enhancing patient satisfaction, and reducing costs [2, 3]. At the core of value-based healthcare is the dependence on reliably measuring outcomes that capture what matters to patients .
Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are self-reported measures of a person’s health status or health related quality of life . PROMs can be classified as generic or specific to a disease or health condition [5,6,7]. They also measure different aspects of health, including functional impairments, symptoms and limitations in execution of activities and/or participating in life situations . PROMs are used in: clinical care to support provider-patient decisions; quality improvement to evaluate healthcare provider performance and guide initiatives to improve healthcare; and research to measure population health and evaluate the effectiveness and cost utility of healthcare innovations/interventions [3, 4, 9, 10].
For PROMs to be effectively used in value-based healthcare, they need to be routinely collected; ensuring that adequate data is captured (i.e. high PROM completion rates) to provide an accurate and unbiased indication of healthcare performance [4, 11]. However, large scale routine collection of PROMs across an entire health organisation or population is difficult [11, 12]. As a consequence, routine collection of PROMs to date has been limited to individual clinics , specific clinical specialties or discreet conditions [14,15,16]. Barriers to routine collection include responder burden for patients, health professionals’ perception that PROMs lack clinical utility, the time and resources required to collect PROMs from an organisational perspective, and limited ability to share PROM data between services and clinical specialties [11, 17]. Also, a challenge to the implementation of routine collection of PROMs across a health organisation is the variety of services and clinical specialties within the organisation, which all have different needs and preferences. To overcome these barriers it is recommended that an evidence-based systematic approach, taking into account the needs of multiple stakeholders, is used when implementing routine collection of PROMs .
To date, there has been significant variability in implementation approaches in the routine collection of PROMs across health services (i.e. implementation at multiple hospitals or community centres). Most approaches have involved engagement of exclusively clinicians [18, 19], exclusively patients , or both clinicians and patients during a trial period of PROMs collection (i.e. feasibility trial) [17, 21, 22]. Methods of engagement have included training , surveys , qualitative focus groups/workshops [20, 21], and quality improvement processes . However, there are few examples of engagement of stakeholders during the pre-implementation phase (i.e. planning) when deciding which PROM(s) to collect and how to collect them. Where stakeholders have been engaged in the pre-implementation phase, engagement has predominantly been with clinicians and has lacked the detail in reporting that is required for replication [19, 20, 22]. Engagement during pre-implementation has typically aimed to establish what PROMs have historically been used by clinicians via survey rather than objective measures of use [19, 22]. Despite variability in approach to implementation, outcomes have consistently shown poor PROM completion rates at follow up [17, 20, 23,24,25], and variability between health services [17, 19, 20, 23, 24]. Hence, there is a need for further research to establish how best to plan the implementation of routine collection of PROMs across health services to maximise uptake.
Across a healthcare organisation it is likely that the health services and clinicians working within these services would have had experience using PROMs. Therefore, an essential precursor to large scale implementation of PROMs collection is to understand the existing context from a range of perspectives, considering the different reasons for collection (e.g. clinical care, quality improvement or research). [11, 26, 27] Knowledge of the historical and current use of PROMs within a healthcare organisation can provide valuable insights on the purpose, scope and practical considerations of PROM use. Understanding the diversity in PROM use across an entire healthcare organisation, spanning multiple clinical services and specialties, has the potential to provide critical information to guide selection and implementation of PROM(s), whilst maximising value from the perspective of multiple stakeholders.
The aim of this study was to develop and apply a landscape assessment to better understand the current use of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation. In doing so we aimed to describe: (1) the scope of PROMs used across the organisation; (2) the purpose for which the PROMs were being collected; (3) how the scope of PROMs use differed based on purpose and clinical specialties; and (4) the method of collection, including mode, timing and time taken.
PROMs are predominantly used in three main contexts: outcomes-based research, quality improvement and clinical practice.  Therefore, to assess the use of PROMs across the health organisation we used several study designs to address each of these purposes (Fig. 1). First, to assess the use of PROMs for research we conducted: (i) an audit of ethics applications approved by the organisation’s human research ethics committee, (ii) a literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on projects conducted at the organisation, and (iii) a survey of health professionals use of PROMs in research projects. Second, to assess the use of PROMs for quality improvement, we conducted: (i) an audit of registries which the health organisation had contributed data to, and (ii) a survey of health professionals use of PROMs in clinical registries. Third, to assess the use of PROMs for clinical care, we conducted a survey of health professionals use of PROMs in clinical care. We assessed the use of PROMs in research, quality improvement and clinical care over a seven-year period from January 2014 to April 2021. Approval for this study was obtained from the Peninsula Health Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/73731/PH-2021).
This study is part of a broader body of work undertaken in the establishment of the National Centre for Healthy Ageing Health Research Data Platform, a collaboration between Monash University and Peninsula Health in Victoria, Australia. The Platform curates high quality data from hospital, government and community-based healthcare systems across a geographic region to support research, clinical care, evidence-based healthcare improvement and research for high priority areas of health, related to ageing. Central to the Data Platform is the implementation and integration of a system for routine collection of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation with a view to expanding collection to the entire region.
Peninsula Health is a publicly funded healthcare organisation that services over 300,000 people living in the Shire of Mornington Peninsula.  It provides hospital and community-based healthcare services across a range of different specialties, including emergency care, intensive care, aged care, obstetrics and gynecology, oncology, and mental health. The health organisation consists of four hospitals, including one tertiary hospital, and more than 10 community healthcare sites.
Overarching methodological framework
Recommended steps for planning implementation of routine collection of PROMs include determining: (1) the purpose of collecting the PROM; (2) the scope (e.g. generic vs. specific, what aspects of health it measures) of the PROM; (3) the practical considerations (e.g. mode of administration, timing of administration); (4) the patient and clinician acceptability of the PROM; and (5) the measurement properties of the PROM [12, 26, 27]. To address these steps we propose a program of work consisting of four studies (Fig. 2), of which this is the first. In this first study we have sought to gain a contextual understanding of the use of PROMs across the healthcare organisation to establish the purpose, scope and practical considerations of routine PROMs collection. The second and third studies will involve gaining the perspectives of patients and clinicians of the acceptability of PROMs identified during the landscape assessment, and feasibility of routine collection of these items. The PROMs selected for implementation across the organisation will need to demonstrate clinician and patient acceptability, feasibility of routine collection, and validity and reliability in measuring health status in a broad range of populations and settings. The fourth study will engage with patients to co-design a system for collection and use of PROMs across the healthcare organisation.
Part 1 – Research
An audit of ethics applications, approved by the organisation’s human research ethics committee between January 2014 and April 2021, was conducted to identify research projects using established PROMs and the PROMs used in each project. A report was generated by the office for research containing all eligible project applications and related documents (i.e. all project applications that were approved by the committee during the designated time period). Projects with PROM documents attached to their application as outcome measures were considered to have included PROMs. Where a project did not have a PROM document attached to their application, a de-identified version of the ethics application was reviewed by the research team to determine whether the project used a PROM as an outcome measure.
(ii) Literature review
A literature review of peer-reviewed journal articles reporting on projects conducted at the organisation was conducted to complement the audit of approved projects. Pubmed, Embase (Ovid), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature [CINAHL] (EbscoHost) and PsychINFO (Ovid) databases were searched from January 2015 to April 2021. The search was performed from 2015 as it was not expected a project that commenced in 2014 would publish in the same year. Search terms used included the names of Peninsula Health hospitals and community health centres (Additional file 1). Articles were screened to determine if the projects they report on 1) were conducted at Peninsula Health and 2) administered a PROM (i.e. inclusion criteria). Two researchers independently screened articles by title and abstract. Articles that were not definitely excluded on title and abstract were retrieved for detailed examination. Two researchers independently screened full text articles with discussion ensuing to reach a consensus on whether the project met inclusion criteria.
Responses from the clinician survey in Part 3 were used to validate the results obtained from the ethics audit and literature review.
Part 2 – Quality improvement
An audit of registries for which the health organisation contributed data was conducted to identify registries that collected PROMs and the individual PROMs collected in each registry. A report of all registries with ethical approval for routine data collection was obtained from the health organisation’s office for research. Data items collected for each registry were obtained by the research team from registry websites and audited for PROMs.
Responses from the clinician survey in Part 3 were used to validate the registry audit results.
Part 3 – Clinical care
A survey of health professionals use of PROMs in their clinical care was conducted to identify the clinical specialties that use PROMs, and the actual PROMs used. They were also asked to provide information on mode (e.g. web-based, paper-based, telephone) and timing of PROMs collection. An invitation to participate in the study, including a link to the electronic survey, was emailed to managers/program directors of all clinical specialty areas within the health organisation, who then forwarded the email to the senior health professional(s) working under their remit. Senior health professionals included medical, nursing and allied health professionals. A reminder email was sent two weeks following the initial invitation. All participants provided informed consent prior to completing the survey. Please refer to Additional file 2 for survey questions.
Purpose of collecting PROMs
The reason for collecting each PROM was categorised into the three common purposes for use in healthcare: research; quality improvement; and clinical care [3, 4, 9, 10]. We further categorised PROMs used for research based on whether they were used as an endpoint in the study or as an exploratory outcome; and PROMs use for clinical care based on whether they were used to inform patient-provider decisions at the individual patient-level or to inform care at the service-level.
Scope of PROMs
To define the scope of PROMs in this study, we categorised PROMs into generic and specific groupings . Generic PROMs included those that measured aspects of health status which are common to most patients, allowing comparison between patients with a wide variety of conditions. [5,6,7] Specific PROMs included both disease and condition specific PROMs, which measured aspects of health status of a particular disease or patient group/condition [6, 7].
PROMs were also grouped by the aspect of health they measured, as defined by The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) . PROMs were categorised as measuring only ‘body structure and function’, only ‘activities and participation’, or both ‘body structure and function’ and ‘activities and participation’ . ‘Body function and structure’ refers to the physiological functions of body systems and anatomical parts of the body (e.g. organs, limbs); ‘activities’ refers to the execution of tasks or actions (e.g. walking); and ‘participation’ refers to involvement in a life situation (e.g. paid or voluntary work) . Our approach to combining the ‘activities’ and ‘participation’ concepts is consistent with ICF user guidelines .
The scope of each PROM was independently determined by two researchers. Disagreement between researchers was resolved by discussion until consensus was reached, or by consulting a third project team member.
Practical considerations of PROMs collection
The practical considerations that were included in our landscape assessment were the mode of administration, timing of administration and the time taken to administer the PROM [16, 30,31,32]. Mode was categorised as either paper-based or electronic, and face-to-face, mail, or email/link. Timing was categorised as prior to admission, on admission, daily during admission, on discharge, 1 to 6 months follow-up, > 6 months follow up, or as required. Time taken to administer PROMs was categorised as ≤ 5 min, 6–10 min, or ≥ 10 min.
All data were analysed descriptively. Data from multiple sources were combined to produce a single result for research (i.e. audit, literature review and survey), and quality improvement (i.e. audit and survey).
To assess the purpose of PROMs collection, the frequency and proportion of research projects, registries and clinical specialties using PROMs was calculated. We also calculated the frequency and proportion of research projects that used PROMs as an endpoint in the study or as an exploratory outcome; and the frequency and proportion of clinical specialties that used PROMs to inform patient-provider decisions at the individual patient-level or to inform care at the service-level.
To assess the scope of PROMs the frequency and proportion of research projects, registries and clinical specialties using each type of PROM (i.e. ‘generic’ vs. ‘specific’) and measuring each aspect of health (i.e. ‘body structure and function’ vs. ‘activities and participation’ vs. ‘all aspects’) were calculated. Sub-group analyses were conducted to determine the frequency of each generic and specific PROM used for research, registries and clinical care. Specific PROMs were stratified by clinical specialty.
To assess the practical considerations of PROMs collection the method of collection, including mode, timing and time taken to administer PROM in clinical care were described using frequency and proportion of PROMs used. Timing of PROMs collection was stratified by hospital and community-based services.
Please refer to Fig. 3 for a flow chart outlining the identification of projects, registries and clinical specialties using PROMs for research, quality improvement and clinical care, respectively. Results from the literature search can be found in Additional file 3.
Purpose and scope of PROMs
Of the 666 research projects identified 144 (22%) used PROMs. Of these, 115 (80%) used a PROM as an endpoint in a study and 29 (20%) as an exploratory outcome. In total, there were 171 PROMs used, 130 (76%) specific and 41 (24%) generic. Most projects measured both body function and activity/participation (93%) and used a specific PROM (83%), with 48% using both a generic and specific PROM (Table 1). The most frequently used generic PROM was the EQ-5D, which was used in 56 projects (60% of projects using a generic PROM). Of these, 31 projects used the five-level version (EQ-5D-5L) and 25 projects used the three-level version (EQ-5D-3L). The Patient Global Impression of Change Scale was the next most commonly used generic PROM (n = 12, 13% of projects using a generic PROM) (Fig. 4). Please refer to Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the generic and specific PROMs used for research.
Part 2—Quality improvement
Of the 19 registries identified 13 (68%) used PROMs for quality improvement. In total, there were 21 PROMs used, 11 (52%) specific and 10 (48%) generic. All registries measured both body function and activity/participation and most used a specific PROM (69%), with 23% using both generic and specific PROMs (Table 1). The most frequently used generic PROM was the EQ-5D (n = 5 registries, 71% of registries using generic PROMs) with 3 using the EQ-5D-3L and 2 using the EQ-5D-5L. The 12-Item Short Form Survey was the next most commonly used generic PROM (n = 2, 29% of registries using a generic PROM) (Fig. 5). Please refer to Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the generic and specific PROMs used for quality improvement.
Part 3—Clinical care
Survey responses were received from all 21 clinical specialties identified. Sixteen (76%) used PROMs for clinical care; all used PROMs to inform patient-provider decisions at the individual patient-level and 5 (31%) to inform care at the service-level. In total, there were 43 PROMs used, 33 (77%) specific and 10 (23%) generic. The median number of PROMs used per clinical specialty was 1 (range: 1 to 4) generic and 3 (range: 1 to 6) specific PROMs. Most clinical specialties measured both body function and activity/participation (81%) and used a specific PROM (75%) with 25% using both a generic and specific PROM (Table 1). The most frequently used generic PROM was the EQ-5D (n = 4 clinical specialties, 50% of clinical specialties using a generic PROM), with 3 clinical specialties using the EQ-5D-5L and 1 using the EQ-5D-3L. The Canadian Occupational Performance Measure was the next most commonly used generic PROM (n = 2, 25% of clinical specialties using a generic PROM) (Fig. 6). Please refer to Additional files 4 and 5 for a summary of the generic and specific PROMs used for clinical care.
Use across clinical specialties
Twenty of 21 (95%) clinical specialties used PROMs for research. The median number of PROMs used per clinical specialty was 4 (range: 1 to 17) generic and 7 (range: 1 to 30) specific PROMs.
Seven of 21 (33%) clinical specialties used PROMs for quality improvement. The median number of PROMs used per clinical specialty was 2 (range: 1 to 4) generic and 2 (range: 1 to 4) specific PROMs.
A summary of the most common generic PROMs used across clinical specialties is provided in Fig. 7.
Practical considerations of PROMs collection
Of the 43 PROMs used in clinical care 25 (58%) took ≤ 5 min to administer, 11 (26%) took 6–10 min, 6 (14%) took ≥ 10 min to administer and data were missing for 1 PROM. Data on the mode and timing of collection of PROMs was provided for 55 PROMs, accounting for where an individual PROM was used across multiple clinical services (e.g. inpatients and outpatients). PROMs were mostly exclusively paper-based (n = 47, 85%), with very few exclusively electronic (n = 2, 4%) or via combination of both modes (n = 6, 11%). PROMs were administered face-to-face (n = 31, 56%), via a combination of face-to-face and phone (n = 15, 27%) or face-to face and email (n = 7, 13%). Hospital services typically administered PROMs on admission or preadmission (53%) and at 1–6 months (60%) or greater than 6 months (40%) after discharge from hospital (Fig. 8). Community services typically administered PROMs on admission (92%) and discharge (80%).
An overview of the main findings relating to the purpose, scope and practical considerations of PROM collection is provided in Table 2.
Our study demonstrates a novel assessment for better understanding the use of PROMs across an entire health organisation. Our results highlight the predominant use of specific PROMs, and that the EQ-5D questionnaires were the most commonly used generic PROMs for all purposes (i.e. research, quality improvement, and clinical care), across a range of clinical specialties. We also identified trends in the method of collection of PROMs in clinical care, revealing key differences between hospital and community services.
Both condition-specific PROMs and generic PROMs have a place in patient reported outcome measurement. Specific PROMs are argued to have greater face validity and responsiveness to change than generic PROMs, and therefore, are better suited to measuring treatment outcomes for specific clinical populations at the individual level [4, 33]. Generic PROMs allow easier comparison across clinical populations and may be better suited to measuring outcomes at an organisational or system level . As such, specific and generic PROMs can be complementary and it is recommended that they are used concurrently to measure outcomes in health systems . Our results indicate that specific and generic PROMs were rarely used together, particularly for quality improvement and clinical care, highlighting a potential gap in the use of PROMs within healthcare organisations.
In addition to measuring outcomes at the organisational level, generic PROMs may also enhance patient-centered care. Health systems are often described as ‘silos of care’ with little collaboration between health providers, both within and between organisations [34, 35]. This environment can impede adoption of patient centered care, which aims to address patient needs and preferences by giving them an active role in decisions regarding their health . This is particularly relevant for patients with multiple chronic health conditions (i.e. multimorbidity) who receive care from multiple providers [34, 37]. Because generic PROMs capture health information that is reflective of patients’ overall health status, and is not specific to the condition or clinical specialty, they have the potential to be shared between healthcare providers. As such, they have the potential to enhance communication of a person’s overall health and reduce unnecessary duplication of assessment between healthcare providers.
The EQ-5D, both three and five-level versions, were identified as generic PROMs with potential for wider implementation across the healthcare organisation. The EQ-5D measures have demonstrated validity and reliability in measuring health status in a broad range of populations and settings, with the EQ-5D-5L demonstrating a lower ceiling effect, higher discriminatory power, and greater validity than the EQ-5D-3L [38,39,40]. The EQ-5D-5L is therefore the preferred option based on psychometric properties [12, 26, 27]. The acceptability of the EQ-5D, from the perspectives of both clinicians and patients, is less clear. For some clinicians there is some concern that the EQ-5D lacks specificity and therefore, believe that it may not be applicable to their patients or practice . While patients with chronic health conditions believe that it is easy to use and measures domains that are meaningful to them, but may not measure all relevant domains such as fatigue and medication side effects [42, 43]. It may also have limited acceptability in younger patients with chronic health conditions, such as asthma . Further research is required to establish the acceptability of the EQ-5D in the full spectrum of healthcare professions and patient populations.
In addition to the psychometric properties, content and acceptability, it is important to consider the practicalities of administering the PROM to minimise responder and administrator burden and ensure adequate data is captured (i.e. high completion rate) . Our results showed that over 80% of PROMs administered at the health service took 10 min or less to complete. This may provide an indication of the current acceptable length of PROM completion within the health organisation, but would need to be confirmed through engagement with patients and clinicians. Very few PROMs were administered electronically, which indicates a possible lack of information technology structures or siloed approaches established by clinicians without organisational direction. This is a significant barrier to wider implementation of PROMs across the organisation and would need to be addressed to streamline data collection and reduce the cost and burden of collection [12, 26, 27]. We also found that hospital and community-based services had distinct patterns in timing of administration; hospital services administered PROMs on admission/pre-admission and 1–6 months post discharge from hospital, while community services administered PROMs on admission to and discharge from the service. These timings of PROM administration have the potential to coincide for patients who are attending both hospital outpatient and community-based clinics (i.e. patients referred to community rehabilitation following surgery). Therefore, if PROMs were to be implemented across an organisation the timing of administration will need to balance the needs of individual services and the need to reduce responder burden/duplication.
The findings from this study have important implications for our future program of work. First, our findings from this study (i.e. study 1) indicate that the EQ-5D may be an acceptable generic PROM and already has buy-in from the clinical specialties for the purpose of research, quality improvement and clinical care. Study 2 and 3 will explore clinicians’ and patients’ acceptability of using the EQ-5D in routine care, and whether the EQ-5D captures aspects of health that are relevant to their care. Our findings also provide useful insights on how PROMs are currently administered to patients. In study 4 we will engage with patients to codesign a PROMs collection system, and establish whether the current processes for PROMs collection meet their preferences. An important component of this will be establishing how best we can integrate and support electronic collection systems. More generally, our finding that a high proportion of clinical specialties are using mostly specific PROMs to inform their clinical care may act as a barrier to implementation of a generic PROM across the organisation. Clear messaging on the intention for a generic PROM to complement, and not replace, the use of a specific PROM will be required, as will training on how to use generic and specific PROMs in a complementary manner.
Our study demonstrates a comprehensive method, that could be adopted by other healthcare organisations, for assessing the use of PROMs across a healthcare organisation to understand the pre-implementation context for routine PROMs collection. A strength of our study is the use of established research methods, including systematic literature search, audit, and surveys. We also used pre-determined definitions and processes for establishing the scope of PROMs [5,6,7,8, 27, 29]. A limitation is that our results may not specifically reflect the use of PROMs more broadly in other healthcare organisations. While we used multiple methods to establish the use of PROMs for research and quality improvement, we were limited to use of self-report surveys to assess the use of PROMs in clinical care and may have failed to identify some PROMs used in clinical care. However, we had significant engagement with program managers and directors who assisted in the process of identifying clinical leaders, increasing the likelihood that we captured the majority of PROMs used in clinical practice.
We have presented a process for developing a comprehensive understanding of the current use of PROMs across an entire healthcare organisation. Using this approach, we have elicited critical preliminary information on the purpose, scope and practical considerations of PROMs collection; information that is important for guiding organisational wide implementation of PROMs collection. Within the context of our healthcare organisation, PROMs were mostly collected for the purpose of research, however, the majority of clinical specialties also used PROMs to inform their clinical care; while specific PROMs were more commonly used than generic PROMs, the EQ-5D was the most commonly used PROM across the organisation; and PROMs were typically paper-based and administered face-to-face. Future work will determine clinician and patient acceptability of the EQ-5D to determine its potential for implementation across the organisation, and co-design a system for the collection and use of PROMs across the healthcare organisation.
Availability of data and materials
All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
patient reported outcome measure
Porter ME. What is value in health care? New Eng J Med. 2010;363:2477–81.
NEJM Catalyst. What is value-based healthcare? 2017. https://catalyst.nejm.org/doi/full/https://doi.org/10.1056/CAT.17.0558. Accessed 12 October 2022.
Porter I, Gonçalves-Bradley D, Ricci-Cabello I, Gibbons C, Gangannagaripalli J, Fitzpatrick R, et al. Framework and guidance for implementing patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: evidence, challenges and opportunities. J Comp Eff Res. 2016;5:507–19.
Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ. 2013;346: f167.
Calvert MJ, Freemantle N. Use of health-related quality of life in prescribing research. Part 1: why evaluate health-related quality of life? J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003;28:513–21.
Williams K, Sansoni J, Morris D, Grootemaat P, Thompson C. Patient-reported outcome measures: literature review. Sydney: Australian commission for safety and quality in health care; 2016. https://www.safetyandquality.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/PROMs-Literature-Review-December-2016.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2022.
Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA, Long JC, Henderson SB, Murphy LED, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): a review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect. 2021;24:1015–24.
World Health Organization. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Geneva: WHO; 2001. http://www.who.int/classifications/icf/en/. Accessed 17 May 2022.
Van der Wees PJ, Nijhuis-Van Der Sanden MWG, Ayanian JZ, Black N, Westert GP, Schneider EC. Integrating the use of patient-reported outcomes for both clinical practice and performance measurement: views of experts from 3 countries. Milbank Q. 2014;92:754–75.
Ernstsson O, Janssen MF, Heintz E. Collection and use of EQ-5D for follow-up, decision-making, and quality improvement in health care – the case of the Swedish National Registries. J Patient-Rep Outcomes. 2020;4:78.
Gutacker N, Street A. Calls for routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures are getting louder. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2019;24(1):1–2.
Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’Cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. J Patient-Rep Outcomes. 2018;2:46.
Stover A, Haverman L, van Oers HA, Greenhalgh J, Potter CM. Using an implementation science approach to implement and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) initiatives in routine care settings. Qual Life Res. 2021;30:3015–33.
Kyte D, Cockwell P, Lencioni M, Skrybant M, von Hildebrand M, Price G, et al. Reflections on the national patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) programme: Where do we go from here? J R Soc Med. 2016;109:441–5.
Fawkes C, Carnes D. Patient reported outcomes in a large cohort of patients receiving osteopathic care in the United Kingdom. PLoS ONE. 2021;16: e0249719.
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer. The Canadian Strategy for Cancer Control: 2017–2022. Toronto: Canadian Partnership Against Cancer; 2017. https://www.partnershipagainstcancer.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/canadian-strategy-cancer-control-2017-2022-en.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2022.
Rutherford C, Campbell R, Tinsley M, Speerin R, Soars L, Butcher A, et al. Implementing patient-reported outcome measures into clinical practice across NSW: mixed methods evaluation of the first year. Appl Res Qual Life. 2021;16:1265–84.
O’Connell S, Palmer R, Withers K, Saha N, Puntoni S, Carolan-Rees G, et al. Requirements for the collection of electronic PROMS either “in clinic” or “at home” as part of the PROMs, PREMs and Effectiveness Programme (PPEP) in Wales: a feasibility study using a generic PROM tool. Pilot Feasibility Stud. 2018;4:90.
Gilbert JE, Howell D, King S, Sawka C, Hughes E, Angus H, et al. Quality improvement in cancer symptom assessment and control: the Provincial Palliative Care Integration Project (PPCIP). J Pain Symptom Manage. 2012;43:663–78.
van der Willik EM, Hemmelder MH, Bart HAJ, van Ittersum FJ, Hoogendijk-van den Akker JM, et al. Routinely measuring symptom burden and health-related quality of life in dialysis patients: first results from the Dutch registry of patient-reported outcome measures. Clin Kidney J. 2020;14:1535–44.
Brusco NK, Atkinson V, Woods J, Myles PS, Hodge A, Jones C, et al. Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022;6:73.
Horn ME, Reinke EK, Mather RC, O’Donnell JD, George SZ. Electronic health record-integrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation. BMC Health Serv Res. 2021;21:626.
Price CM, C de C Williams A, Smith BH, Bottle A. Implementation of patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) from specialist pain clinics in England and Wales: experience from a nationwide study. Eur J Pain. 2019;23:1368–1377.
Peters M, Crocker H, Jenkinson C, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R. The routine collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for long-term conditions in primary care: a cohort survey. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e003968.
Newell D, Diment E, Bolton JE. An electronic patient-reported outcome measures system in UK chiropractic practices: a feasibility study of routine collection of outcomes and costs. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2016;39:31–41.
Van der Wees PJ, Verkek EW, Verbiest MEA, Zuidgeest M, Bakker C, Braspenning J, et al. Development of a framework with tools to support the selection and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures. J Patient-Rep Outcomes. 2019;3:75.
Al Sayah F, Jin X, Johnson JA. Selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in health systems. J Patient-Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(Suppl2):99.
Peninsula Health: About us. Peninsula Health [website]. https://www.peninsulahealth.org.au/about-us. Accessed January 17, 2022.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. ICF Australian User Guide Version 1.0. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2003. https://www.aihw.gov.au/getmedia/7d1563f4-4a77-4542-985e-5754f7439c0c/icfugv1.pdf.aspx?inline=true. Accessed 17 May 2022.
Al Sayah F, Lahtinen M, Bonel GJ, Ohinmaa A, Johnson A. A multi-level approach for the use of routinely collected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) data in healthcare systems. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(Suppl 2):98.
Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J. The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23:508–18.
Meadows KA. Patient-reported outcome measures: an overview. Br J Community Nurs. 2011;16(3):146–51.
Devlin NJ. Appleby J. Getting the most out of PROMs. Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision making. London, UK: The King’s Fund; 2010. https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/Getting-the-most-out-of-PROMs-Nancy-Devlin-John-Appleby-Kings-Fund-March-2010.pdf. Accessed 17 May 2022.
Ancker JS, Witteman HO, Hafeez B, Provencher T, Van de Graaf M, Wei E. The invisible work of personal health information management among people with multiple chronic conditions: a qualitative interview study among patients and providers. J Med Internet Res. 2015;17(6): e137.
Mann L. From, “silos” to seamless healthcare: bringing hospitals and GPs back together again. Med J Aust. 2005;182:34–7.
Truglio-Londrigan M, Slyer JT, Singleton JK, Worral PS. A qualitative systematic review of internal and external influences on shared decision-making in all health care settings. JBI Database Syst Rev Implement Rep. 2014;12(5):121–94.
Benham-Hutchins M, Staggers N, Mackert M, Johnson AH, deBronkart D. “I want to know everything”: a qualitative study of perspectives from patients with chronic diseases on sharing health information during hospitalization. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17:529.
Feng Y, Devlin N, Herdman M. Assessing the health of the general populating in England:how do the three- and five-level versions of the EQ-5D compare? Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2015;13:1–16.
Agborsangaya CB, Lahtinen M, Cooke T, Johnson JA. Comparing the EQ-5D 3L and 5L: measurement properties and association with chronic conditions and multimorbidity in the general population. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014;12:74.
Janssen MF, Pickard AS, Golicki D, Gudex C, Niewada M, Scalone L, et al. Measurement properties of the EQ-5D-5L compared to the EQ-5D-3L across eight patient groups: a multi-country study. Quality Life Res. 2013;22:1717–27.
Churchill K, Warner L, Keogh E, Al SF. Implementation of EQ-5D-5L as a routine outcome measure in community outpatient and specialized rehabilitation services. Journal Patient-Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(Suppl 2):103.
Efthymiadou O, Mossman J, Kanavos P. Health related quality of life aspects not captured by EQ-5D-5L: results from an international survey of patients. Health Policy. 2019;123:159–65.
Nilsson E, Wenemark M, Bendtsen P, Kristenson M. Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients’ perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care. Qual Life Res. 2007;16:1647–54.
Whalley D, Globe G, Crawford R, Doward L, Eskinder T, Brazier J, et al. Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018;16:160.
The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the clinicians who contributed their data to this research project.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
All methods were performed in accordance with the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research. The experimental protocol was approved by the Peninsula Health Human Research Ethics Committee (LNR/73731/PH-2021) and informed consent was obtained from all subjects.
Consent for publication
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
About this article
Cite this article
Snowdon, D.A., Srikanth, V., Beare, R. et al. A landscape assessment of the use of patient reported outcome measures in research, quality improvement and clinical care across a healthcare organisation. BMC Health Serv Res 23, 94 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-023-09050-1