Open AccessA feasibility study of implementing a patient‐centered outcome set for pregnancy and childbirth
Author(s) -
Depla Anne L.,
ErnstSmelt Hiske E.,
Poels Marjolein,
Crombag Neeltje M.,
Franx Arie,
Bekker Mireille N.
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
health science reports
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.462
H-Index - 7
ISSN - 2398-8835
DOI - 10.1002/hsr2.168
Subject(s) - prom , childbirth , medicine , pregnancy , family medicine , nursing , health care , usability , health professionals , patient satisfaction , obstetrics , genetics , human–computer interaction , computer science , economics , biology , economic growth
Background and Aims Patient‐reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) can facilitate shared decision making and hold potential to improve healthcare quality. However, their adoption in perinatal care is still limited. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) developed a Pregnancy and Childbirth (PCB) outcome set, including PROM and PREM questionnaires. We studied the feasibility to use these PROMs/PREMs in Dutch perinatal care, addressing both women's and professionals' perspective. Methods Patients and professionals in primary and hospital care participated. Women under care at one of five timepoints for PROM/PREM collection of the PCB set (2 during pregnancy, 3 postpartum) were e‐mailed a questionnaire and discussed their answers with their obstetric professional the next regular visit. Compliance was recorded. After discussing the PROMs/PREMs, usability and experience were assessed with separate surveys amongst women and professionals. Results Of 26 women approached, 21 completed and discussed their PROM/PREM questionnaire. Mean questionnaire completion rate was 97%. Average reported time completing the questionnaires was 10 minutes; most women (90%) stated this was acceptable. Women preferred completing questionnaires digitally and discuss their answers with an obstetric professional rather than other care professionals, also 6 months postpartum. Over half of women agreed PROMs/PREMs supported shared decision making (58%), ability to raise issues (60%), and patient‐clinician relationship (52%). Six professionals participated: two obstetricians, two clinical midwives, and two community midwives. Most professionals experienced sufficient time to discuss the responses, except at 6 months postpartum. They knew what items to discuss but did not always feel responsible to act upon them. Professionals agreed PROMs/PREMs supported symptom detection and personalized care. Conclusions Patients and obstetric professionals consider the PCB set a feasible instrument for PROM/PREM assessment, with good compliance, acceptability and usability. Important determinants of successful implementation are a well‐equipped ICT‐tool, agreements regarding professionals' responsibilities and how outcomes are discussed or acted upon.