What is the potential for the use of clinical outcome measures to be computerised? Findings from a qualitative research study

Hughes, Rhidian; Sinha, Anu; Aspinal, Fiona; Dunckley, Maria; Addington‐Hall, Julia; Higginson, Irene J

doi:10.1108/09526860410515936

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten studies examined healthcare professionals’ views on the POS 18,25,31–38 and one on a computerized POS version. 39 As a family version was also developed for the POS four papers included either only informal carers 40 or patients and carers. 7,17,24…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Ten studies examined healthcare professionals' views on the POS 18,25,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] and one on a computerized POS version. 39 As a family version was also developed for the POS four papers included either only informal carers 40 or patients and carers. 7,17,24 Translations and country of data collection Both measures have been translated into a wide range of languages (see Table 2) but not all translations followed a formal translation process (e.g.…”

Section: Versions Of Stas and Posmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…30 Six papers studied the implementation of the POS into clinical practice. [31][32][33]35,38,39 Eleven studies examined professional's 18,25,[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] and five papers patient's views on the POS. 17,25,35,36,76 For one study using the POS, the protocol was published in advance.…”

Section: Versions Of Stas and Posmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: A systematic review of POS and STAS

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Palliative Care Outcome Scale (POS) and the Support Team Assessment Schedule (STAS) are outcome measures assessing quality of care in palliative care patients. This review aims to appraise their use in clinical care and research. Five electronic databases were searched (February 2010) for original papers describing the validation or use of POS and/or STAS. Of the 83 papers included, 43 studies were on POS, 39 on STAS and one study using both. Eight STAS studies validated the original version, four an adaptation; 20 studies applied the STAS in another culture and 19 in other languages. POS papers reported included: 14 adapted POS versions, 12 translations of the POS and 15 studies of use in different cultures. Both measures have been used in cancer, HIV/AIDS and in mixed groups. POS has also been applied in neurological, kidney, pulmonary and heart disease. Both tools were used in different areas such as the evaluation of care or interventions, description of symptom prevalence and implementation of outcome measures in clinical practice. Overall, they seem to be well accepted tools for outcome measurement in palliative care, both in clinical care and research.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Versions Of Stas and Posmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: A systematic review of POS and STAS

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Palliative care Outcomes Scale (POS) was used to assess patient-reported quality of care and well-being. The POS is a 12-item self-administered questionnaire (total scores range from 0-40, with higher scores being worse); a difference of one point on each item is considered clinically meaningful [ 37 - 39 ]. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS) is a 9-item, patient-reported questionnaire of symptom intensity (pain, tiredness, nausea, depression, anxiety, drowsiness, appetite, well-being, shortness of breath) with each item rated from 0 (worst) to 10 (best).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

My Team of Care Study: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based Communication Tool for Collaborative Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Voruganti¹,

Grunfeld²,

Jamieson³

et al. 2017

J Med Internet Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe management of patients with complex care needs requires the expertise of health care providers from multiple settings and specialties. As such, there is a need for cross-setting, cross-disciplinary solutions that address deficits in communication and continuity of care. We have developed a Web-based tool for clinical collaboration, called Loop, which assembles the patient and care team in a virtual space for the purpose of facilitating communication around care management.ObjectiveThe objectives of this pilot study were to evaluate the feasibility of integrating a tool like Loop into current care practices and to capture preliminary measures of the effect of Loop on continuity of care, quality of care, symptom distress, and health care utilization.MethodsWe conducted an open-label pilot cluster randomized controlled trial allocating patients with advanced cancer (defined as stage III or IV disease) with ≥3 months prognosis, their participating health care team and caregivers to receive either the Loop intervention or usual care. Outcome data were collected from patients on a monthly basis for 3 months. Trial feasibility was measured with rate of uptake, as well as recruitment and system usage. The Picker Continuity of Care subscale, Palliative care Outcomes Scale, Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale, and Ambulatory and Home Care Record were patient self-reported measures of continuity of care, quality of care, symptom distress, and health services utilization, respectively. We conducted a content analysis of messages posted on Loop to understand how the system was used.ResultsNineteen physicians (oncologists or palliative care physicians) were randomized to the intervention or control arms. One hundred twenty-seven of their patients with advanced cancer were approached and 48 patients enrolled. Of 24 patients in the intervention arm, 20 (83.3%) registered onto Loop. In the intervention and control arms, 12 and 11 patients completed three months of follow-up, respectively. A mean of 1.2 (range: 0 to 4) additional healthcare providers with an average total of 3 healthcare providers participated per team. An unadjusted between-arm increase of +11.4 was observed on the Picker scale in favor of the intervention arm. Other measures showed negligible changes. Loop was primarily used for medical care management, symptom reporting, and appointment coordination.ConclusionsThe results of this study show that implementation of Loop was feasible. It provides useful information for planning future studies further examining effectiveness and team collaboration. Numerically higher scores were observed for the Loop arm relative to the control arm with respect to continuity of care. Future work is required to understand the incentives and barriers to participation so that the implementation of tools like Loop can be optimized.Trial RegistrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02372994; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02372994 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6r00L4Skb).

show abstract

“…A study by Hughes et al (2004a) found that lengthy procedures implementing audit, coupled with a lack of staff time led to a 'failing' in the use of the measure across a number of care settings. There was, however, some potential for the use of the audit measure to be incorporated into information communication technologies, such as handheld computers, to facilitatethe use of audit measures (Hughes et al 2004b).…”

Section: Journal Of Health and Social Policymentioning

confidence: 99%

Discussion of Quality and Audit in Health

Hughes

Higginson

2006

Journal of Health & Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attaining quality health care has long been a social policy priority for countries internationally. This discussion considers issues important to understanding quality, and audit implementation in particular. The paper covers, first, the principles and practice of audit and, second, broader implementation issues, which together point to the further development of quality initiatives in health in the United Kingdom health care context. To close, the future of audit as a means of improving health care is elaborated.

show abstract

What is the potential for the use of clinical outcome measures to be computerised? Findings from a qualitative research study

Cited by 5 publications

References 16 publications

The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: A systematic review of POS and STAS

The use of two common palliative outcome measures in clinical care and research: A systematic review of POS and STAS

My Team of Care Study: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial of a Web-Based Communication Tool for Collaborative Care in Patients With Advanced Cancer

Discussion of Quality and Audit in Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About