MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403096395 · doi:10.1016/j.cjco.2024.09.012

Using Implementation Science to Evaluate the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in a Clinical Heart Failure Care Setting

2024· article· en· W4403096395 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sarah Lawrason, Heather Ross, Michael McDonald, Juan Duero Posada, Samantha Engbers, Anne Simard

Bibliographic record

VenueCJC Open · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHeart Failure Treatment and Management
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersInstitute of Circulatory and Respiratory HealthCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPatient-reported outcomeOutcome (game theory)Heart failureMedicineMedical physicsComputer scienceNursingInternal medicineQuality of life (healthcare)Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Patients with heart failure (HF) can experience a poor quality-of-life (QOL), recurring hospitalizations, and progressive disease symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) integrate patients' voices into clinical care, by assessing patient symptoms, function, and QOL. In 2022, PROMs were incorporated into the electronic health record system (Epic) at a large academic hospital in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. The purpose of this study was to use implementation-science frameworks to systematically evaluate the uptake and integration of PROMs into clinical HF care. Methods: The Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework guided this mixed-methods, 1-year, quality-improvement project. Data sources included the following: clinician use of PROMs; patient-level data on completed PROMs; and semistructured interviews with clinicians. The PROM was the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire-12, which captures 4 domains related to HF-symptom frequency, physical limitations, social limitations, and QOL (KCCQ-12 is used as an example case of PROMs in general). Quantitative data were analyzed using descriptive statistics; qualitative data were analyzed using behaviour-change frameworks and latent content analysis. Results: Over the course of 1 year, more patients were assigned to PROMs, a higher proportion of patients completed PROMs, and approximately 80% of patients had high scores on the questionnaire. Clinicians experience barriers-related to attention and decision processes, the environmental context, and their professional role-to integrating PROMs into practice. Suggested changes to improve PROM uptake include adding language licenses for PROM translations, reducing cognitive load for clinicians who are assigning and interpreting PROMs in the Epic system, and championing modelling of use of PROMs in practice. Conclusions: This study demonstrates the benefit of using implementation science frameworks, to evaluate the implementation of PROMs in practice and provide actionable recommendations to health systems.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.334

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.360 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCJC OpenSame topicHeart Failure Treatment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207