How do patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support clinician-patient communication and patient care? a realist synthesis

被引:360
作者
Greenhalgh J. [1 ]
Gooding K. [1 ,2 ]
Gibbons E. [3 ]
Dalkin S. [1 ,4 ]
Wright J. [5 ]
Valderas J. [6 ]
Black N. [7 ]
机构
[1] School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Woodhouse Lane, Leeds
[2] Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Pembroke Place, Liverpool
[3] Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, Oxford
[4] Department of Social Work, Education & Community Wellbeing, Northumbria University, H005, Coach Lane Campus East, Newcastle upon Tyne
[5] Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Worsley Building, Clarendon Way, Leeds
[6] Health Services and Policy Research, Exeter Medical School, University of Exeter, St Luke’s Campus, Heavitree Road, Exeter
[7] Health Services Research, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London
关键词
Clinician-patient communication; Feedback; Patient reported outcome measures; Realist synthesis;
D O I
10.1186/s41687-018-0061-6
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Background: In this paper, we report the findings of a realist synthesis that aimed to understand how and in what circumstances patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) support patient-clinician communication and subsequent care processes and outcomes in clinical care. We tested two overarching programme theories: (1) PROMs completion prompts a process of self-reflection and supports patients to raise issues with clinicians and (2) PROMs scores raise clinicians’ awareness of patients’ problems and prompts discussion and action. We examined how the structure of the PROM and care context shaped the ways in which PROMs support clinician-patient communication and subsequent care processes. Results: PROMs completion prompts patients to reflect on their health and gives them permission to raise issues with clinicians. However, clinicians found standardised PROMs completion during patient assessments sometimes constrained rather than supported communication. In response, clinicians adapted their use of PROMs to render them compatible with the ongoing management of patient relationships. Individualised PROMs supported dialogue by enabling the patient to tell their story. In oncology, PROMs completion outside of the consultation enabled clinicians to identify problematic symptoms when the PROM acted as a substitute rather than addition to the clinical encounter and when the PROM focused on symptoms and side effects, rather than health related quality of life (HRQoL). Patients did not always feel it was appropriate to discuss emotional, functional or HRQoL issues with doctors and doctors did not perceive this was within their remit. Conclusions: This paper makes two important contributions to the literature. First, our findings show that PROMs completion is not a neutral act of information retrieval but can change how patients think about their condition. Second, our findings reveal that the ways in which clinicians use PROMs is shaped by their relationships with patients and professional roles and boundaries. Future research should examine how PROMs completion and feedback shapes and is influenced by the process of building relationships with patients, rather than just their impact on information exchange and decision making. © The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 123 条
[1]  
Equity and Excellence: Liberating the NHS, (2010)
[2]  
Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21St Century, (2001)
[3]  
Epstein R.M., Street R.L., Patient-Centered Communication in Cancer Care: Promoting Healing and Reducing Suffering, (2007)
[4]  
McDonald A., Sherlock J., A Long and Winding Road. Improving Communication with Patients in the NHS, (2016)
[5]  
Street R.L., How clinician–patient communication contributes to health improvement: Modeling pathways from talk to outcome, Patient Education and Counseling, 92, 3, pp. 286-291, (2013)
[6]  
Nelson E.C., Eftimovska E., Lind C., Hager A., Wasson J.H., Lindblad S., Patient reported outcome measures in practice, BMJ (Online), 350, g7818, (2015)
[7]  
Sutherland H.J., Till J.E., Quality of life assessments and levels of decision making: Differentiating objectives, Quality of Life Research, 2, 4, pp. 297-303, (1993)
[8]  
Chen J., Ou L., Hollis S.J., A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting, BMC Health Services Research, 13, (2013)
[9]  
Boyce M., Browne J., Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review, Quality of Life Research, 22, 9, pp. 2265-2278, (2013)
[10]  
Knaup C., Koesters M., Schoefer D., Becker T., Puschner B., Effect of feedback of treatment outcome in specialist mental healthcare: A meta-analysis, The British Journal of Psychiatry, 195, pp. 15-22, (2009)