6. Implementation of PRO assessment in clinical practice
3. Check setting-specific conditions
After goals and scope are set, analyse the local setting in detail to identify contextual factors that will potentially support or hinder PROM use.
Patient-related factors: e.g. group-specific needs, ability/burden to complete PROMs
HCP-related factors: e.g.knowledge, attitudes, readiness to use PROMs/PRO data, familarity with different assessment modes
Current practice: e.g. documentation gaps, existing workflows that could embed PRO data collection, view and discussion
Spatial aspects: e.g. locations where PRO data can be collected and/or viewed/discussed
Resources: avaliable vs additional investments (e.g. staff time, funding, equipment) to enable/support PRO assessment
Organisational context: policies, guidelines, legal requirements (e.g. privacy, data protection)
The depth of this assessment depends on available resources. At minimum, conduct face-to-face or group discussions with interest-holders who know the setting well (e.g., HCPs).
(protocolled) participant observation to analyse clinical workflows
analysis of clinical documentation to identify assessment and documentation gaps
anonymous survey (e.g. of staff) e.g. to minimise socially desireble response behavior
structured interviews/discussions (e.g. with decision makers, HCPs → face to face or in groups) e.g. to enable in-depth assessment and consensus building
The findings should be documented and shared with relevant interest-holders for discussion.
Antunes, Harding, Higginson, & EUROIMPACT, 2014; E. Basch et al., 2012; Ethan Basch, Rogak, & Dueck, 2016; Nordhausen et al., 2022; Skivington et al., 2021; Snyder et al., 2012; Wintner et al., 2016; ISOQOL, 2015
