Electronic health record–integrated approach for collection of patient-reported outcome measures: a retrospective evaluation

• Published in: BMC health services research Vol. 21; no. 1; pp. 1 - 626
• Main Authors: Horn, Maggie E, Reinke, Emily K, Mather, Richard C, O'Donnell, Jonathan D, George, Steven Z
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London BioMed Central Ltd 30.06.2021; BioMed Central; BMC
• Subjects: Bone surgery; Clinical outcomes; Data entry; Decision making; Electronic health record; Electronic health records; Electronic records; Health services; Information management; Integrated approach; Legal medicine; Medical centers; Medical records; Methods; Multidisciplinary teams; Orthopedics; Outcome and process assessment (Health Care); Patient satisfaction; Patient-centered care; Patient-reported outcome measures; Planning; Quality of life; Response rates; Technology application; Value-based care; Web portals; United States
• ISSN: 1472-6963; 1472-6963
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-021-06626-7

Abstract Background The integration of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) into clinical care presents many challenges for health systems. PROMs provide quantitative data regarding patient-reported health status. However, the most effective model for collecting PROMs has not been established. Therefore the purpose of this study is to report the development and preliminary evaluation of the standardized collection of PROMs within a department of orthopedic surgery at a large academic health center. Methods We utilized the Users’ Guide to Integrating Patient - Reported Outcomes in Electronic Health Records by Gensheimer et al., 2018 as a framework to describe the development of PROMs collection initiative. We framed our initiative by operationalizing the three aspects of PROM collection development: Planning, Selection, and Engagement. Next, we performed a preliminary evaluation of our initiative by assessing the response rate of patients completing PROMs (no. of PROMs completed/no. of PROMs administered) across the entire department (18 clinics), ambulatory clinics only (14 clinics), and hospital-based clinics only (4 clinics). Lastly, we reported on the mean response rates for the top 5 and bottom 5 orthopaedic providers to describe the variability across providers. Results We described the development of a fully-integrated, population health based implementation strategy leveraging the existing resources of our local EHR to maximize clinical utility of PROMs and routine collection. We collected a large volume of PROMs over a 13 month period ( n  = 10,951) across 18 clinical sites, 7 clinical specialties and over 100 providers. The response rates varied across the department, ranging from 29 to 42%, depending on active status for the portal to the electronic health record (MyChart). The highest single provider mean response rate was 52%, and the lowest provider rate was 13%. Rates were similar between hospital-based (26%) and ambulatory clinics (29%). Conclusions We found that our standardized PROMs collection initiative, informed by Gensheimer et al., achieved scope and scale, but faced challenges in achieving a high response rate commensurate with existing literature. However, most studies reported a targeted recruitment strategy within a narrow clinical population. Further research is needed to elucidate the trade-off between scalability and response rates in PROM collection initiatives.