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
. 2023 Aug 14;11(16):2290.
doi: 10.3390/healthcare11162290.

Development and Integration of Patient-Reported Measures into E-Health System: Pilot Feasibility Study

Goda Elizabeta Vaitkevičienė  1   2 , Karolis Ažukaitis  2   3 , Augustina Jankauskienė  2   3 , Justė Petrėnė  4 , Roma Puronaitė  2   5 , Justas Trinkūnas  5   6 , Danguolė Jankauskienė  7
Affiliations

Development and Integration of Patient-Reported Measures into E-Health System: Pilot Feasibility Study

Goda Elizabeta Vaitkevičienė et al. Healthcare (Basel). .

Abstract

Patient-centered care is recognized as a key element in recent healthcare management strategies. However, the integrated collection of patient feedback capturing the entire journey of patients with complex medical conditions remains understudied. Herein, we aimed to describe the development of an instrument prototype for the collection of PROMs and PREMs that would encompass a whole patient journey at a single time point. We further describe the process of its integration into a hospital's information system (HIS) and the results of a pilot feasibility study in adult patients with kidney and hematological diseases. We developed an instrument consisting of original PREM and generic EQ-5D-5L questionnaires. E-questionnaires were handled with REDCap software (version 12.5.14) and integrated into the HIS. Patients refusing to use e-questionnaires (48%) were offered paper administration and were older (64 vs. 50 years). The overall response rate for e-questionnaires was 57.1% with a median completion time of 2.0 and 3.7 min for PROM and PREM, respectively. Psychological and social services and primary care setting (diagnosis establishment and involvement in continuous care) were identified as most problematic. The majority of PREM dimensions encompassing different levels of care significantly correlated with PROM responses. Our data indicate the feasibility and potential relevance of the proposed approach, although wider-scale studies in diverse settings are needed.

Keywords: electronic health records; hematological disease; kidney disease; patient involvement; patient-centered care; patient-reported experience measures; patient-reported outcome measures; self-report.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Integrated health information system architecture.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) responses using generic instrument EQ-5D-5L. (A) General overview; (B) Distribution of responses for females and males. Full questionnaire consisting of 12 questions from Q1 to Q12 is provided as Supplement S1.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) responses using generic instrument EQ-5D-5L. (A) Distribution of responses for different age groups; (B) 100-point visual analogue scale (VAS). Full questionnaire consisting of 12 questions from Q1 to Q12 is provided as Supplement S1.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Patient-reported experience measure (PREM) responses using original instrument developed by the study group. Full questionnaire consisting of 12 questions from Q1 to Q12 is provided as Supplement S1. (A) General overview, (B) Distribution of responses for females and males.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Distribution of patient-reported experience measure (PREM) responses using original instrument developed by the study group for different age group patients. Full questionnaire consisting of 12 questions from Q1 to Q12 is provided as Supplement S1.
Figure 6
Figure 6
Power BI data visualization.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Coulter A., Oldham J. Person-centred care: What is it and how do we get there? Future Hosp. J. 2016;3:114–116. doi: 10.7861/futurehosp.3-2-114. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Teisberg E., Wallace S., O’Hara S. Defining and Implementing Value-Based Health Care. Acad. Med. 2020;95:682–685. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lizée T., Basch E., Trémolières P., Voog E., Domont J., Peyraga G., Urban T., Bennouna J., Septans A.-L., Balavoine M., et al. Cost-Effectiveness of Web-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Surveillance in Patients With Lung Cancer. J. Thorac. Oncol. 2019;14:1012–1020. - PubMed
    1. Chen J., Ou L., Hollis S.J. A systematic review of the impact of routine collection of patient reported outcome measures on patients, providers and health organisations in an oncologic setting. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2013;13:211. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Schick-Makaroff K., Molzahn A. Brief Communication: Patient Satisfaction with the Use of Tablet Computers: A Pilot Study in Two Outpatient Home Dialysis Clinics. Can. J. Kidney Health Dis. 2014;1:22. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources