No abstract

IntroductionIncorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into usual care in hospitals can improve safety and quality. Gaps exist in electronic PROM (ePROM) implementation recommendations, including for elective surgery. The aims are to: (1) understand barriers and enablers to ePROM implementation in hospitals and develop Australian ePROM implementation recommendations (AusPROM); (2) test the feasibility and acceptability of the Quality of Recovery 15 item short-form (QoR-15) PROM for elective surgery patients applying the AusPROM and (3) establish if the QoR-15 PROM has concurrent validity with the EQ-5D-5L.Methods and analysisPhase I will identify staff barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the AusPROM recommendations using a Delphi technique. Phase II will determine QoR-15 acceptability for elective surgery patients across four pilot hospitals, using the AusPROM recommendations. For phase II, in addition to a consumer focus group, patients will complete brief acceptability surveys, incorporating the QoR-15, in the week prior to surgery, in the week following surgery and 4 weeks postsurgery. The primary endpoint will be 4 weeks postsurgery. Phase III will be the national implementation of the AusPROM (29 hospitals) and the concurrent validity of the QoR-15 and generic EQ-5D-5L. This protocol adopts the Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Protocols guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThe results will be disseminated via public forums, conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Ethics approval: La Trobe University (HEC20479).Trial registration numberACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III)

ObjectiveIn 2018 the Australian Commission on Quality and Safety in Health Care released a new consumer driven Australian Hospital Patient Experience Question set. The objective was to explore the acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration, resources and sustainability of implementing the AHPEQS, and to review which questions correlated with overall rating of care. MethodsThirty-six Australian private hospitals participated in the AHPEQS implementation over an 18-month period. ResultsResponses were analysed for 86 180 patient experience surveys. Positive patient experiences (Question 12) correlated most highly with Question 2 (My individual needs were met; correlation coefficient (CC) 0.45, P < 0.001), Question 4 (I felt cared for; CC 0.45, P < 0.001) and Question 9 (When I was in the hospital, I felt confident in the safety of my treatment and care; CC 0.44, P < 0.001). Day procedure patients rated their experience higher than overnight patients. Uptake was rapid across the 36 hospitals, with minimal resources and demonstrable acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, fidelity, penetration and sustainability. ConclusionUtilising a consumer-driven survey highlighting treatment and care, assisted in enhancing staff engagement and continuous improvement in patient experience in acute, day procedure and rehabilitation hospitals. What is known about the topic?Patient experience in hospital is associated with healthcare quality, safety and outcomes. What does this paper add?From a consumer perspective, feeling cared for, having needs met and confidence in the safety of care, correlated with a positive patient experience. What are the implications for practitioners?Investing staff time and health service resources into a consumer-driven patient experience survey tool, which highlighted treatment and care, assisted in enhancing staff engagement and continuous improvement in patient experience in acute, day procedure and rehabilitation hospitals.

Background Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery. Methods We sampled patients with a broad range of elective surgeries from four major Australian hospitals to evaluate (1) feasibility of the technology used to implement the PROMs across geographically dispersed sites, (2) response rates for automated short message service (SMS) versus email survey delivery formats, (3) the degree of recovery at one and four weeks post-surgery as measured by the Quality of Recovery 15 Item PROM (QoR-15), and (4) patient acceptability of PROMS based on survey and focus group results. Feasibility and acceptability recommendations were then co-designed with stakeholders, based on the data. Results Over three months there were 5985 surveys responses from 20,052 surveys (30% response rate). Feasibility testing revealed minor and infrequent technical difficulties in automated email and SMS administration of PROMs prior to surgery. The response rate for the QoR-15 was 34.8% (n = 3108/8919) for SMS and 25.8% (n = 2877/11,133) for email. Mean QoR-15 scores were 122.1 (SD 25.2; n = 1021); 113.1 (SD 27.7; n = 1906) and 123.4 (SD 26.84; n = 1051) for pre-surgery and one and four weeks post-surgery, respectively. One week after surgery, 825 of the 1906 responses (43%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average), and at four weeks post-surgery, 676 of the 1051 responses (64%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average). The PROM survey was highly acceptable with 76% (n = 2830/3739) of patients rating 8/10 or above for acceptability. Fourteen patient driven recommendations were then co-developed. Conclusion Administering PROMS electronically for elective surgery hospital patients was feasible, acceptable and discriminated changes in surgical recovery over time. Patient co-design and involvement provided innovative and practical solutions to implementation and new recommendations for implementation. Trial Registration and Ethical Approval ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III). Ethics approval has been obtained from La Trobe University (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20479). Key points Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) help to engage patients in understanding their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine how patients feel about completing a PROM survey before and after elective surgery, and to develop a set of recommendations on how to roll out the survey, based on patient feedback. We found that implementing an electronic PROM survey before and after elective surgery was relatively easy to do and was well accepted by patients. Consumer feedback throughout the project enabled co-design of innovative and practical solutions to PROM survey administration.

IntroductionPatient-centred care can be facilitated by co-design, which refers to collaboration between healthcare professionals and consumers in producing and implementing healthcare. Systematic reviews on co-design have mainly focused on the effectiveness of co-produced healthcare interventions. Less attention has been directed towards the experiences of patients in co-designed interventions. This rapid review aims to explore patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions and inform rehabilitation decision-making.Methods and analysisA rapid review will expedite timely information on co-design experiences for stakeholders. Four electronic databases, including Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched for papers published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used for randomised trials. Critical appraisal checklists from The Joanna Briggs Institute shall evaluate the risk of bias of non-randomised trials and qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be provided for the quantitative studies. Thematic synthesis will be conducted on qualitative findings. The overall strength of the evidence will be measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for quantitative investigations and the GRADE-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research for qualitative studies. The results will be presented using narrative summaries, identified themes, summary tables, flow charts and quantitative statistical analyses.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for the review. The protocol and rapid review will be submitted to an online, open access and peer-reviewed journal for publication. The review findings will be rapidly translated to consumers, clinicians, healthcare leaders, organisations, researchers and policy makers via publications, evidence summaries, conferences, workshops, websites, social media and online events.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021264547.