| Autor: |
Samuel Finnikin, Ian Litchfield, M Calvert, Sheila Greenfield, Grace M Turner |
| Rok vydání: |
2020 |
| Předmět: |
|
| DOI: |
10.21203/rs.2.22632/v1 |
| Popis: |
BackgroundThe recently announced long-term plan for the NHS is based on a model of person-centred care which relies on the sustained engagement of patients, shared decision making, and capability for self-management. It is of particular importance to a primary care service under increasing pressure from an ageing and chronically ill population. Patient Reported Outcome Measures appear capable of supporting many of the requirements of this model yet we know little of the circumstances of their current implementation or how their use might be optimised.MethodsWe conducted a series of semi-structured interviews with general practitioners across England that explored their experiences and preferences for the use of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). We then used a post-hoc deductive analysis of the data to populate the consolidated framework for implementation research and provide a systematic description of their existing implementation and the ways in which it can be optimised and sustained.ResultsA total of 25 interviews were conducted. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research highlighted a number of areas that need to be addressed if PROMs are to fulfil their potential to support person-centred care. These include a lack of evidence that they offer any advantage especially if universally deployed in patients possessing a range of backgrounds, preferences and needs. Busy staff were also hesitant to produce more data that might require a response and prioritise their use in already brief consultations. A lack of training and engagement was also apparent both of which were symptomatic of the lack of a guidance in their use from within their practice, Clinical Commissioning Group or across the wider primary care system. ConclusionsThough PROMs can be readily integrated into IT systems and may help support patient engagement General Practitioners will not embrace their use until a compelling body of evidence of their benefit is created, and staff are engaged in when and how they are used. Appropriate training for staff and patients is then required funded as part of a coherent implementation strategy led by commissioning groups and policymakers. |
| Databáze: |
OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
