Functionality and feedback: a protocol for a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data to improve patient care

BMJ Open - Tập 4 Số 7 - Trang e005601 - 2014
Joanne Greenhalgh1, Ray Pawson1, Judy Wright2, Nick Black3, José M Valderas4, David Meads2, Elizabeth Gibbons5, Lianne Wood6, Charlotte Wood7, Chris Mills8, Sonia Dalkin1
1School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
2Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
3London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK
4University of Exeter Medical School, Exeter, UK
5Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
6Patient Representative, Leeds, UK.
7Northern & Yorkshire Knowledge and Intelligence Team, Public Health England, Leeds, UK
8Leeds West Clinical Commissioning Group, Leeds, UK.

Tóm tắt

IntroductionThe feedback and public reporting of PROMs data aims to improve the quality of care provided to patients. Existing systematic reviews have found it difficult to draw overall conclusions about the effectiveness of PROMs feedback. We aim to execute a realist synthesis of the evidence to understand by what means and in what circumstances the feedback of PROMs data leads to the intended service improvements.Methods and analysisRealist synthesis involves (stage 1) identifying the ideas, assumptions or ‘programme theories’ which explain how PROMs feedback is supposed to work and in what circumstances and then (stage 2) reviewing the evidence to determine the extent to which these expectations are met in practice. For stage 1, six provisional ‘functions’ of PROMs feedback have been identified to structure our review (screening, monitoring, patient involvement, demand management, quality improvement and patient choice). For each function, we will identify the different programme theories that underlie these different goals and develop a logical map of the respective implementation processes. In stage 2, we will identify studies that will provide empirical tests of each component of the programme theories to evaluate the circumstances in which the potential obstacles can be overcome and whether and how the unintended consequences of PROMs feedback arise. We will synthesise this evidence to (1) identify the implementation processes which support or constrain the successful collation, interpretation and utilisation of PROMs data; (2) identify the implementation processes through which the unintended consequences of PROMs data arise and those where they can be avoided.Ethics and disseminationThe study will not require NHS ethics approval. We have secured ethical approval for the study from the University of Leeds (LTSSP-019). We will disseminate the findings of the review through a briefing paper and dissemination event for National Health Service stakeholders, conferences and peer reviewed publications.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

10.1136/bmj.c186

Guyatt, 1989, Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review, CMAJ, 140, 1441

DoH . Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. London:TSO, 2010.

Trust N . Rating providers for quality: a policy worth pursuing? London: Nuffield Trust, 2013.

Haywood, 2009, Continence specialists use of quality of life information in routine practice: a national survey of practitioners, Qual Life Res, 18, 423, 10.1007/s11136-009-9459-1

10.1186/1477-7525-9-27

10.1007/s11136-011-0054-x

10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6

10.1136/bmj.322.7297.1297

10.1097/00005650-200002000-00007

10.7326/0003-4819-148-2-200801150-00006

10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.06.022

10.1136/bmj.f167

10.1186/1477-7525-10-34

Hutchings, 2014, Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons, BMC Health Serv Res, 14, 66, 10.1186/1472-6963-14-66

10.1046/j.1365-2753.1997.00003.x

10.1136/bmj.39317.641296.AD

10.1186/1472-6963-12-171

Valderas, 2012, Using health status to measure NHS performance: another step into the dark for health reform in England, BMJ Q Saf Healthc, 21, 352, 10.1136/bmjqs-2011-000184

10.2106/JBJS.F.01152

10.1001/jama.293.10.1239

10.1056/NEJM199607253350406

West, 2010, ‘Unpolished’ data to support patient choice, Health Serv J, 120, 4

10.1136/bmj.c5272

10.1258/jrsm.96.7.338

10.1007/s11136-013-0390-0

10.1258/1355819054308530

Pawson R . Evidence based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage, 2006.

10.1007/s11136-007-9295-0

Boyce, 2013, 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, 23, 508, 10.1136/bmjqs-2013-002524

Gonclaves D Valderas JM Ricci I . The use of PROMs in clinical practice. Patients and health professionals’ perspectives: a systematic review of qualitative studies. PROSPERO CRD42012003318 2012.

10.1093/intqhc/mzr072

10.1136/bmj.38636.593461.68

Pawson, 2006, Digging for nuggets: how bad research can yield good evidence, Int J Soc Res Methodol, 9, 127, 10.1080/13645570600595314

Wong, 2013, RAMESES publication standards: realist synthesis, BMC Med, 11, 21, 10.1186/1741-7015-11-21

Rycroft-Malone, 2012, Realist synthesis:illustrating the methods for implementation research, Implementation Sci, 7, 33, 10.1186/1748-5908-7-33

10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00650.x

10.1200/JCO.2010.32.2453

10.1002/pon.1295

Greenhalgh, 2013, How do doctors refer to patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) in oncology consultations, Qual Life Res, 22, 939, 10.1007/s11136-012-0218-3

10.1191/026921600669288537

10.1377/hlthaff.22.2.84

10.1258/1355819052801877

10.1016/j.ahj.2005.10.026

10.1056/NEJMsa064964

10.1007/BF02602744

10.1007/BF02600303

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

BMJ Open

Tập 4 Số 7

e005601

Thông tin tác giả