TY - JOUR
T1 - How to make PROMs work
T2 - qualitative insights from leaders at United States hospitals with successful PROMs programs
AU - Hyland, Colby J.
AU - Mou, Danny
AU - Virji, Azan Z.
AU - Sokas, Claire M.
AU - Bokhour, Barbara
AU - Pusic, Andrea L.
AU - Mjåset, Christer
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
PY - 2023/8
Y1 - 2023/8
N2 - Purpose: Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Results: According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success. Conclusion: Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.
AB - Purpose: Elucidate facilitators, barriers, and key lessons learned regarding the implementation of system-wide clinical patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) programs among United States (US) healthcare leaders. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 35 US healthcare leaders, including chief-level executives, data directors, PROM directors, and department chairs involved in PROM implementation across seven diverse healthcare systems from February to June 2020. Transcripts were coded, evaluated for qualitative themes, and categorized according to the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). Results: According to US hospital leaders with experience in existing clinical PROM programs, there are facilitators and barriers to implementation success in each CFIR domain. Allowing clinicians to select PROM measures and ensuring a user-friendly data platform (intervention); adapting data collection to patient home environments (outer setting); informing clinicians of the multi-faceted use of PROM data for research, clinical care, and business (inner setting); implementing PROM education earlier into clinician training (characteristics of individuals); and establishing specialty-agnostic PROM implementation teams (process) were among key facilitators to implementation success. Conclusion: Leaders of geographically and clinically diverse PROM programs in the US identify common themes that facilitate successful implementation. Drivers of success depend on factors within and outside the clinical environment. These findings may serve to guide both establishing new PROM programs and refining existing PROM programs.
KW - Clinical PROM program
KW - Implementation
KW - Patient-reported outcome measures
KW - Patient-reported outcomes
KW - PROMs
KW - PROs
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85150024867&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1007/s11136-023-03388-z
DO - 10.1007/s11136-023-03388-z
M3 - Article
C2 - 36928649
AN - SCOPUS:85150024867
SN - 0962-9343
VL - 32
SP - 2259
EP - 2269
JO - Quality of Life Research
JF - Quality of Life Research
IS - 8
ER -