Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2015 Feb;53(2):153-9.
doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000000289.

The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care

Roxanne E Jensen  1 , Nan E Rothrock, Esi M DeWitt, Brennan Spiegel, Carole A Tucker, Heidi M Crane, Christopher B Forrest, Donald L Patrick, Rob Fredericksen, Lisa M Shulman, David Cella, Paul K Crane
Affiliations
Review

The role of technical advances in the adoption and integration of patient-reported outcomes in clinical care

Roxanne E Jensen et al. Med Care. 2015 Feb.

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are gaining recognition as key measures for improving the quality of patient care in clinical care settings. Three factors have made the implementation of PROs in clinical care more feasible: increased use of modern measurement methods in PRO design and validation, rapid progression of technology (eg, touchscreen tablets, Internet accessibility, and electronic health records), and greater demand for measurement and monitoring of PROs by regulators, payers, accreditors, and professional organizations. As electronic PRO collection and reporting capabilities have improved, the challenges of collecting PRO data have changed.

Objectives: To update information on PRO adoption considerations in clinical care, highlighting electronic and technical advances with respect to measure selection, clinical workflow, data infrastructure, and outcomes reporting.

Methods: Five practical case studies across diverse health care settings and patient populations are used to explore how implementation barriers were addressed to promote the successful integration of PRO collection into the clinical workflow. The case studies address selecting and reporting of relevant content, workflow integration, previsit screening, effective evaluation, and electronic health record integration.

Conclusions: These case studies exemplify elements of well-designed electronic systems, including response automation, tailoring of item selection and reporting algorithms, flexibility of collection location, and integration with patient health care data elements. They also highlight emerging logistical barriers in this area, such as the need for specialized technological and methodological expertise, and design limitations of current electronic data capture systems.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Key Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Workflow and Infrastructure Integration Considerations
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient-Reported Outcome Report from My GI Health
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Food and Drug Administration; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. [Accessed October 7, 2014];2009 Dec; Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. - PubMed
    1. Conway PH, Mostashari F, Clancy C. The future of quality measurement for improvement and accountability. JAMA. 2013;309:2215–2216. - PubMed
    1. Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R. Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006;12:559–568. - PubMed
    1. Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, et al. The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008;17:179–193. - PubMed
    1. Wagner EH, Austin BT, Von KM. Organizing care for patients with chronic illness. Milbank Q. 1996;74:511–544. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding