Feasibility, use and benefits of patient-reported outcome measures in palliative care units: a multicentre observational study

• Published in: BMC palliative care Vol. 22; no. 1; p. 6
• Main Authors: Müller, Evelyn, Mayer-Steinacker, Regine, Gencer, Deniz, Keßler, Jens, Alt-Epping, Bernd, Schönsteiner, Stefan, Jäger, Helga, Couné, Bettina, Elster, Luise, Keser, Muhammet, Rauser, Julia, Marquardt, Susanne, Becker, Gerhild
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England BioMed Central Ltd 14.01.2023; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Beliefs, opinions and attitudes; Employees; Feasibility Studies; Hospice and Palliative Care Nursing; Hospitalization; Humans; Methods; Outcome and process assessment (Health Care); Outcome assessment; Palliative care; Palliative Care - methods; Palliative medicine; Palliative treatment; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Services; Germany; Palliative care; Palliative medicine; Outcome assessment; Patient-reported outcome measures
• ISSN: 1472-684X; 1472-684X
• DOI: 10.1186/s12904-022-01123-y

Research has shown that routinely assessed, patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have positive effects in patients with advanced oncologic diseases. However, the transferability of these results to specialist palliative care is uncertain because patients are more impaired and staff doubt the feasibility and benefits. The aim of this study is to evaluate the feasibility of patient self-assessment of PROMs, their use by staff and the benefits in palliative care wards. A multicentre observational study was conducted in the context of the implementation of the Integrated Patient Outcome Scale (IPOS) in three specialist palliative care wards at university hospitals in Germany. All admitted patients who screened positive regarding their ability to complete questionnaires were asked to participate and complete the IPOS on paper weekly, with assistance if necessary. Feasibility of questionnaire completion (e.g. proportion of patients able to complete them), use (e.g. involvement of different professional groups) and benefit (e.g. unexpected information in IPOS as rated by treating physicians) were assessed. Staff members' opinion was obtained in a written, anonymous evaluation survey, patients' opinion in a short written evaluation. A total of 557 patients were screened for eligibility, 235 were assessed as able to complete the IPOS (42.2%) and 137 participated in the study (24.6%). A majority needed support in completing the IPOS; 40 staff members and 73 patients completed the evaluation. Unexpected information was marked by physicians in 95 of the 137 patient questionnaires (69.3%). The staff differed in their opinions on the question of whether this also improved treatment. A majority of 32 staff members (80.0%) were in favour of continuing the use of IPOS (4 against continuation, 4 no answer); 43 (58.9%) patients rated their overall experience of IPOS use as 'positive', 29 (39.7%) as 'neutral' and 1 (1.4%) as 'negative'. While most staff wished to continue using IPOS, it was a challenge to integrate the effort to support the completion of IPOS into daily practice. Digital implementation was not successful, despite various attempts. To explore the effects on care and patient outcomes, multicentre cluster-randomised trials could be employed. German Clinical Trials Register DRKS-ID: DRKS00016681 (24/04/2019).