Malhotra, K; Buraimoh, O; Thornton, J; Cullen, N; Singh, D; Goldberg, AJ; (2016) Electronic capture of patient-reported and clinician-reported outcome measures in an elective orthopaedic setting: a retrospective cohort analysis. BMJ Open , 6 (6) , Article e011975. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011975.

Preview

Text BMJ Open-2016-Malhotra-.pdf - Published Version Download (1MB) | Preview

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether an entirely electronic system can be used to capture both patient-reported outcomes (electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Measures, ePROMs) as well as clinician-validated diagnostic and complexity data in an elective surgical orthopaedic outpatient setting. To examine patients' experience of this system and factors impacting their experience. Design Retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data. Setting Single centre series. Outpatient clinics at an elective foot and ankle unit in the UK. Participants All new adult patients attending elective orthopaedic outpatient clinics over a 32-month period. Interventions All patients were invited to complete ePROMs prior to attending their outpatient appointment. At their appointment, those patients who had not completed ePROMs were offered the opportunity to complete it on a tablet device with technical support. Matched diagnostic and complexity data were captured by the treating consultant during the appointment. Outcome measures Capture rates of patient-reported and clinician-reported data. All information and technology (IT) failures, language and disability barriers were captured. Patients were asked to rate their experience of using ePROMs. The scoring systems used included EQ-5D-5L, the Manchester-Oxford Foot Questionnaire (MOxFQ) and the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain score. Results Out of 2534 new patients, 2176 (85.9%) completed ePROMs, of whom 1090 (50.09%) completed ePROMs at home/work prior to their appointment. 31.5% used a mobile (smartphone/tablet) device. Clinician-reported data were captured on 2491 patients (98.3%). The mean patient experience score of using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was 8.55±1.85 out of 10 and 666 patients (30.61%) left comments. Of patients leaving comments, 214 (32.13%) felt ePROMs did not adequately capture their symptoms and these patients had significantly lower patient experience scores (p<0.001). Conclusions This study demonstrates the successful implementation of technology into a service improvement programme. Excellent capture rates of ePROMs and clinician-validated diagnostic data can be achieved within a National Health Service setting.

Download activity - last month

Export as JSONXMLCSV

Download activity - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Downloads by country - last 12 months

Export as CSVXMLJSON

Archive Staff Only

View Item