Integrating the Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Both Clinical Practice and Performance Measurement
Views of Experts from 3 Countries
Published in: The Milbank Quarterly, v. 92, no. 4, Dec. 2014, p. 754-775
Posted on rand.org Dec 23, 2014
POLICY POINTS: --The patient-reported outcome (PRO) is a standardized method for measuring patients' views of their health status. Our international study showed that experts in clinical practice and performance measurement supported the integrated collection of PRO data for use in both clinical care and performance measurement. --The measurement of PROs to support patient-provider decisions and the use of PRO performance measures to evaluate health care providers have developed both separately and in parallel. --The use of PROs would benefit from a shared vision by health care providers, purchasers of care, and patients regarding the aims and purposes of the various applications; and the establishment of trust among stakeholders concerning the prudent use of PRO performance measures. CONTEXT: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can play an important role in patient-centered health care by focusing on the patient's health goals guiding therapeutic decisions. When aggregated, PROs also can be used for other purposes, including comparative effectiveness research, practice improvement, assessment of the performance of clinicians and organizations, and as a metric for value-based payments. The feasibility of integrating the use of PROs for these various purposes on a wide scale has not yet been demonstrated. Our study was conducted to inform policymakers of prudent next steps for implementing PROs in clinical practice and performance measurement programs in order to maximize their impact on the quality of health care. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 58 experts and leaders from 37 organizations (response rate: 88%) in the United States, England, and the Netherlands. Respondents included clinical practitioners (n = 30), measure developers (n = 11), and leaders of performance measurement programs (n = 17). We used a qualitative content analysis to assess current strategies for applying PROs in clinical practice and performance measurement and to identify barriers to and facilitators of further implementation. FINDINGS: The use of PROs in clinical practice and for performance measurement has developed both separately and in parallel. Experts across the stakeholder spectrum support the collection of PRO data in an integrated manner that would enable using the data for these distinct purposes. We identified 2 main concerns about the feasibility for integrated use of PRO data: the complexity of establishing routine data collection and the tension among stakeholders when using PRO data for different purposes. These contrasting stakeholder views suggested varying interests among clinicians, measure developers, and purchasers of care. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection approaches that support the use of PROs in health care are underdeveloped, need better integration with clinical care, and must be tailored to the characteristics of the health care system. Enabling the sustainable use of PROs will require a shared vision of clinical professionals, purchasers, and patients, with a prudent selection of the steps in implementing PROs that will maximize their impact on the quality of health care.