General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{3468a9f987f54104ae972d8e6943ce8f,
title = "General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care: a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study",
abstract = "BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised.METHODS: Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs' opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors' community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs.RESULTS: Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care.CONCLUSION: Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.",
keywords = "General practitioners, Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs), Primary care, Qualitative, Survey",
author = "Turner, {Grace M} and Ian Litchfield and Sam Finnikin and Aiyegbusi, {Olalekan Lee} and Melanie Calvert",
year = "2020",
month = jan,
day = "24",
doi = "10.1186/s12875-019-1077-6",
language = "English",
volume = "21",
journal = "BMC Family Practice",
issn = "1471-2296",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - General practitioners' views on use of patient reported outcome measures in primary care

T2 - a cross-sectional survey and qualitative study

AU - Turner, Grace M

AU - Litchfield, Ian

AU - Finnikin, Sam

AU - Aiyegbusi, Olalekan Lee

AU - Calvert, Melanie

PY - 2020/1/24

Y1 - 2020/1/24

N2 - BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised.METHODS: Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs' opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors' community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs.RESULTS: Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care.CONCLUSION: Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

AB - BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are increasingly used to assess impact of disease and treatment on quality of life and symptoms; however, their use in primary care is fragmented. We aimed to understand how PROMs are currently being used in primary care, the barriers and facilitators of this use and if appropriate how it might be optimised.METHODS: Cross-sectional survey and semi-structured interviews among general practitioners (GPs) in England. GPs' opinions were explored using an electronic, self-completed questionnaire disseminated to 100 GPs via an online doctors' community and semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 GPs.RESULTS: Most GPs surveyed (77/100; 77%) reported using one or more PROM, primarily to aid clinical management (n = 66) or as screening/diagnostic tools (n = 62). Qualitative interviews highlighted challenges in identifying and selecting PROMs; however, some GPs valued PROMs for shared decision making and to direct patient discussions. The interviews identified key barriers to PROM use including: time constraints; insufficient knowledge; lack of integration into clinical systems; and PROMs being mandated without consultation or explanation. Evidence of the benefit of PROMs is required to promote uptake and use of PROMs in primary care.CONCLUSION: Implementation of PROMs in primary care requires integration with clinical systems, a bottom-up approach to PROM selection and system design involving meaningful consultation with patients and primary care clinicians and training/support for use.

KW - General practitioners

KW - Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs)

KW - Primary care

KW - Qualitative

KW - Survey

U2 - 10.1186/s12875-019-1077-6

DO - 10.1186/s12875-019-1077-6

M3 - Article

C2 - 31980021

VL - 21

JO - BMC Family Practice

JF - BMC Family Practice

SN - 1471-2296

IS - 1

M1 - 14

ER -