Search

Purpose: Patient-report outcome measures (PROMs) have gained widespread support as a mechanism to improve healthcare quality. We aimed to map out key enablers and barriers influencing PROMs implementation strategies in routine clinical practice. Methods: An umbrella review was conducted to identify reviews exploring enablers and barriers related to the integration of PROMs in routine clinical practice from January 2000 to June 2023. Information on key enablers and barriers was extracted and summarised thematically according to the Theoretical Domains Framework. Results: 34 reviews met our criteria for inclusion. Identified reviews highlighted barriers such as limited PROMs awareness among clinicians and patients, perceived low value by clinicians and patients, PROMs that were too complex or difficult for patients to complete, poor usability of PROMs systems, delayed feedback of PROMs data, clinician concerns related to use of PROMs as a performance management tool, patient concerns regarding privacy and security, and resource constraints. Enablers encompassed phased implementation, professional training, stakeholder engagement prior to implementation, clear strategies and goals, ‘change champions’ to support PROMs implementation, systems to respond to issues raised by PROMs, and integration into patient pathways. No consensus favoured paper or electronic PROMs, yet offering both options to mitigate digital literacy bias and integrating PROMs into electronic health records emerged as important facilitators. Conclusions: The sustainable implementation of PROMs is a complex process that requires multicomponent organisational strategies covering training and guidance, necessary time and resources, roles and responsibilities, and consultation with patients and clinicians.

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.

BACKGROUND: Following a virtual standstill in the delivery of elective procedures in England, a national block contract between the NHS and the independent sector aimed to help restart surgical care. This study aims to describe subsequent changes in trends in elective care service delivery following implementation of the initial iteration of this contract. METHODS: Population-based retrospective cohort study, assessing the delivery of all publicly funded and privately funded elective care delivered in England between 1 April 2020 and 31 July 2020 compared with the same period in 2019. Discharge data from the Hospital Episode Statistics and private healthcare data from the Private Health Information Network was stratified by specialty, procedure, length of stay and patient complexity in terms of age and Charlson Comorbidity Index. RESULTS: COVID-19 significantly reduced publicly funded elective care activity, though changes were more pronounced in the independent sector (-65.1%) compared with the NHS (-52.7%), whereas reductions in privately funded elective care activity were similar in both independent sector hospitals (-74.2%) and NHS hospitals (-72.9%). Patient complexity increased in the independent sector compared with the previous year, with mixed findings in NHS hospitals. Most specialties, irrespective of sector or funding mechanisms, experienced a reduction in hospital admissions. However, some specialities, including medical oncology, clinical oncology, clinical haematology and cardiology, experienced an increase in publicly-funded elective care activity in the independent sector. CONCLUSION: Elective care delivered by the independent sector remained significantly below historic levels, although this overlooks significant variation between regions and specialities. There may be opportunities to learn from regions which achieved more significant increases in publicly funded elective care in independent sector providers as a strategy to address the growing ba