IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0243563.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice

Author

Listed:
  • Alexandra O Robertson
  • Valerija Tadić
  • Jugnoo S Rahi

Abstract

Background/Objectives: Routine use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess quality of health care systems is mandated in many countries and has been implemented successfully in many specialities. Ophthalmology currently lags behind. To support and inform future implementation, we investigated paediatric ophthalmic clinicians’ experience of, and future training needs for, using child-appropriate vision PROMs and their views about the barriers and enablers to future routine implementation in clinical practice. Methods: We conducted a pilot study, using an online survey to elicit the experience, attitudes, training needs and perceptions of barriers and enablers to routine PROMs use of ophthalmic health professionals in the Paediatric Ophthalmology Department at Great Ormond Street Hospital, London. A focus-group was undertaken to discuss survey results and preferences regarding presentation of PROM data. Analysis comprised descriptive statistics, presented alongside complementary qualitative data. Results: Eighteen clinicians in the department completed the survey. Twenty-seven took part in the focus group. Clinicians had limited experience of using PROMs but high confidence in the potential positive impact on communication with patients, monitoring chronic conditions and clinical decision-making. Clinicians identified operational issues (collection and analysis of data) and impact (interpretation and application of data) as the two key areas for consideration. Training and information requirements before implementation were clearly articulated, alongside the benefits of using digital/electronic data capture ahead of consultations to allow efficiency and automated analysis, and presentation in an appropriate visual format alongside clinical data to ensure meaningful use. Conclusion: The findings of this pilot study of ophthalmic clinicians working in a specialist paediatric ophthalmology department, suggest that ophthalmic clinicians recognise the potential benefits of routine PROMs use in clinical practice. Together with existing literature outside ophthalmology relating to overcoming barriers and exploiting enablers to routine implementation, findings may be applicable in planning routine PROM implementation in paediatric ophthalmology.

Suggested Citation

  • Alexandra O Robertson & Valerija Tadić & Jugnoo S Rahi, 2020. "Attitudes, experiences, and preferences of ophthalmic professionals regarding routine use of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(12), pages 1-10, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243563
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0243563
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243563
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0243563&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0243563?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0243563. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.