Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care - users' cry for help
Implementing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in palliative care - users' cry for help
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1477-7525-9-27
复制
发表时间：
2011-04-20
影响因子：
3.6
通讯作者：
Higginson, Irene J.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Bausewein, Claudia;Simon, Steffen T.;Higginson, Irene J.
背景：患者报告的结果测量（PROM）在姑息治疗中发挥着越来越重要的作用。各种各样的措施存在，并用于临床护理，审计和研究。然而，很少有人知道专业人士的意见，使用这些措施。本研究的目的是描述的使用和经验的姑息治疗专业人员与结果measurements.Methods：一个基于网络的在线调查在欧洲和非洲进行。通过国家姑息治疗协会和各种数据库邀请在姑息治疗临床护理、审计和研究方面工作的专业人员参加调查。结果：总体参与率为42%（663/1592），总体完成率为59%（392/663）。大多数受访者为女性（63.4%），平均年龄46岁（SD 9）。68.1%的欧洲受访者和73.3%的非洲受访者有姑息治疗结局指标的经验。非使用者报告说，时间限制、负担、缺乏培训和指导是主要原因。在临床护理/审计中，评估患者情况、监测变化和评价服务是使用的主要原因。研究的OM的选择受到姑息治疗工具的有效性和与国际文献的可比性的影响。主要问题与患者特征、工作人员和结果测量有关。与会者表示，需要更多的指导和培训，在使用PROMs.Conclusions：专业人员需要更多的支持，在临床实践和研究中，通过培训和指导，以提高病人的护理PROMs的使用和实施。
Background: Patient-reported outcome measurement (PROM) plays an increasingly important role in palliative care. A variety of measures exists and is used in clinical care, audit and research. However, little is known about professionals' views using these measures. The aim of this study is to describe the use and experiences of palliative care professionals with outcome measures.Methods: A web-based online survey was conducted in Europe and Africa. Professionals working in clinical care, audit and research in palliative care were invited to the survey via national palliative care associations and various databases. Invitation e-mails were sent with a link to the questionnaire.Results: Overall participation rate 42% (663/1592), overall completion rate 59% (392/663). The majority of respondents were female (63.4%), mean age 46 years (SD 9). 68.1% respondents from Europe and 73.3% from Africa had experiences with outcome measures in palliative care. Non-users reported time constraints, burden, lack of training and guidance as main reasons. In clinical care/audit, assessment of patients' situation, monitoring changes and evaluation of services were main reasons for use. Choice of OMs for research was influenced by validity of the instrument in palliative care and comparability with international literature. Main problems were related to patient characteristics, staff, and outcome measures. Participants expressed the need for more guidance and training in the use of PROMs.Conclusions: Professionals need more support for the use and implementation of PROMs in clinical practice and research through training and guidance in order to improve patient care.