KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi.

IF 2.4 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Nathaniel Luke Hatton, Mark Baxter, Sally Lewis, Peter S Hall, Katie Spencer
{"title":"KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi.","authors":"Nathaniel Luke Hatton, Mark Baxter, Sally Lewis, Peter S Hall, Katie Spencer","doi":"10.1186/s41687-025-00898-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The use of electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is increasing in routine cancer care, with benefit demonstrated in improving patient survival, satisfaction and response time. ePROMs represent a complex intervention, with successful implementation reliant upon a range of questionnaires, platform, patient and clinician characteristics alongside the wider organisational readiness and environment. Key performance indicators (KPIs) assess the performance of a system. A KPI framework would offer value in assessing ePROM implementation projects, however the outcomes and indicators of importance are not clear.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A modified Delphi methodology was used to define a framework of KPIs for assessing the deployment of ePROMs in routine cancer care. Potential KPIs were identified through literature searches, de-duplicated and allocated to a matrix of domains. Delphi participants were identified through a literature review and study team networks. KPIs were presented to participants for prioritisation using an online platform. A final set of KPIs was identified through two rounds of consensus with participants rating each KPI for relevance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The literature search generated a list of 196 potential KPIs of which 48 were considered by 15 experts in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached to include 12 KPIs in the first round and a further 2 KPIs in the second round. Participant's open text responses were analysed, suggesting a number of areas of debate regarding which KPIs are most pertinent.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This work provides a framework of 14 KPIs, covering those of relevance to patients, clinicians and health services and recognising the acceptability, feasibility and impact of ePROMs. This framework offers a means to appraise the implementation of ePROMs, supporting teams as they implement ePROMs in routine cancer care and other healthcare settings.</p>","PeriodicalId":36660,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","volume":"9 1","pages":"81"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12222585/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-025-00898-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The use of electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is increasing in routine cancer care, with benefit demonstrated in improving patient survival, satisfaction and response time. ePROMs represent a complex intervention, with successful implementation reliant upon a range of questionnaires, platform, patient and clinician characteristics alongside the wider organisational readiness and environment. Key performance indicators (KPIs) assess the performance of a system. A KPI framework would offer value in assessing ePROM implementation projects, however the outcomes and indicators of importance are not clear.

Method: A modified Delphi methodology was used to define a framework of KPIs for assessing the deployment of ePROMs in routine cancer care. Potential KPIs were identified through literature searches, de-duplicated and allocated to a matrix of domains. Delphi participants were identified through a literature review and study team networks. KPIs were presented to participants for prioritisation using an online platform. A final set of KPIs was identified through two rounds of consensus with participants rating each KPI for relevance.

Results: The literature search generated a list of 196 potential KPIs of which 48 were considered by 15 experts in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached to include 12 KPIs in the first round and a further 2 KPIs in the second round. Participant's open text responses were analysed, suggesting a number of areas of debate regarding which KPIs are most pertinent.

Discussion: This work provides a framework of 14 KPIs, covering those of relevance to patients, clinicians and health services and recognising the acceptability, feasibility and impact of ePROMs. This framework offers a means to appraise the implementation of ePROMs, supporting teams as they implement ePROMs in routine cancer care and other healthcare settings.

电子患者报告结果测量的绩效指标:改进的德尔菲。
电子患者报告结果测量(ePROMs)在常规癌症治疗中的使用越来越多,在提高患者生存率、满意度和反应时间方面有明显的好处。eprom是一种复杂的干预手段,其成功实施依赖于一系列问卷调查、平台、患者和临床医生的特点以及更广泛的组织准备和环境。关键性能指标(kpi)用来评估系统的性能。KPI框架将为评估ePROM实施项目提供价值,但结果和重要指标并不明确。方法:采用改进的德尔菲法定义kpi框架,以评估eprom在常规癌症治疗中的部署。通过文献检索确定潜在kpi,去重复并分配到域矩阵。德尔菲参与者通过文献回顾和研究团队网络来确定。kpi通过在线平台呈现给参与者以确定优先级。通过参与者对每个KPI的相关性进行评级的两轮共识,确定了最终的KPI集。结果:文献检索产生了196个潜在kpi列表,其中48个由15位专家在德尔菲过程中考虑。会议达成共识,在第一轮纳入12项关键绩效指标,在第二轮再纳入2项关键绩效指标。对参与者的公开文本回复进行了分析,提出了一些关于哪些kpi最相关的辩论领域。讨论:这项工作提供了一个14个关键绩效指标的框架,涵盖了与患者、临床医生和卫生服务相关的指标,并认识到eprom的可接受性、可行性和影响。该框架提供了一种评估eprom实施的方法,支持团队在常规癌症护理和其他医疗保健环境中实施eprom。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes Health Professions-Health Information Management
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
7.40%
发文量
120
审稿时长
20 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信