Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK

Michael Anderson; Emma Pitchforth; Andrew Vallance-Owen; Elias Mossialos; Paul Millner; Jon Fistein

doi:10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5

Misconceiving patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) as primarily a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool: perceptions of independent healthcare sector stakeholders in the UK

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Sep 23;6(1):101. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00511-5.

Authors

Michael Anderson¹, Emma Pitchforth², Andrew Vallance-Owen³, Elias Mossialos^{4

5}, Paul Millner⁶, Jon Fistein³

Affiliations

¹ Department of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK. M.Anderson5@lse.ac.uk.
² College of Medicine and Health, University of Exeter, Exeter, EX1 2LU, UK.
³ Private Healthcare Information Network, London, W1G0AN, UK.
⁴ Department of Health Policy, The London School of Economics and Political Science, London, WC2A 2AE, UK.
⁵ Institute of Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, London, SW7 2AZ, UK.
⁶ School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, UK.

Abstract

Background: The independent healthcare sector in the UK collects PROMs for several surgical procedures, but implementation has been challenging. We aimed to understand the enablers and barriers to PROMs implementation in the independent healthcare sector in the UK.

Method: Between January and May 2021, we remotely conducted semi-structured interviews with hospital consultants, hospital managers and other clinical staff using a topic guide developed from an implementation science framework called the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF).

Results: We interviewed 6 hospital consultants, 5 hospital managers, and 3 other clinical staff (1 nurse and 2 physiotherapists) across 8 hospitals. Common barriers included: the perception that PROMs are predominantly a reporting requirement rather than a quality improvement tool, absence of feedback mechanisms for PROMs data for clinicians, poor awareness of PROMs among healthcare professionals and the public, absence of direction or commitment from leadership, and limited support from hospital consultants. Common enablers included: regular feedback of PROMs data to clinicians, designating roles and responsibilities, formally embedding PROMs collection into patient pathways, and involvement of hospital consultants in developing strategies to improve PROMs uptake.

Conclusion: To support PROMs implementation, independent hospitals need to develop long-term organisational strategies that involve sustained leadership commitment, goals or targets, training opportunities to staff, and regular feedback of PROMs data at clinical or governance meetings. The primary purpose of PROMs needs to be reframed to independent healthcare sector stakeholders as a quality improvement tool rather than a reporting requirement.

Keywords: Implementation; Independent healthcare; Independent providers; Outcome measurement; PROMs; Patient reported outcome measures; Private healthcare; Theoretical domains framework.