PMID- 30467820
OWN - NLM
STAT- PubMed-not-MEDLINE
LR  - 20231004
IS  - 2509-8020 (Electronic)
IS  - 2509-8020 (Linking)
VI  - 2
IP  - 1
DP  - 2018 Nov 15
TI  - Feasibility of collecting retrospective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) 
      in emergency hospital admissions.
PG  - 54
LID - 10.1186/s41687-018-0077-y [doi]
LID - 54
AB  - INTRODUCTION: Outcome of emergency admissions is usually limited to mortality 
      with little attempt to capture the views of health status of survivors. This is 
      because of the challenge of determining patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) 
      for the period before their emergency admission. The aim was to assess the 
      feasibility of collecting retrospective PROMs to capture the pre-admission health 
      status of patients admitted as emergencies. METHODS: Prospective study of two 
      cohorts: patients undergoing primary coronary angioplasty for acute ST elevation 
      myocardial infarction (STEMI) in five hospitals and emergency laparotomy (EL) for 
      gastro-intestinal conditions in 11 hospitals. Three rates were calculated: 
      proportion of patients eligible for inclusion; proportion of eligible patients 
      invited to participate; proportion of invitees who participated. Staff views were 
      thematically analysed to understand factors that affected recruitment. RESULTS: 
      About 85% of patients were eligible of whom most were invited to participate (84% 
      EL; 79% STEMI). The proportions of invitees agreeing to participate differed 
      between STEMI (92%) and EL (72%), probably reflecting greater post-intervention 
      morbidity in the latter. Variation between hospitals was observed in the 
      proportion deemed eligible (EL 72-97%; STEMI 63-100%), proportion invited (EL 
      60-93%; STEMI 71-96%) and the proportion of invitees agreeing to participate (EL 
      55-92%; STEMI 67-100%). While this might reflect case-mix differences between 
      hospitals, it suggests there is scope for less well performing hospitals to 
      improve their recruitment processes. The extent to which this initial feasibility 
      study was able to assess selection bias was limited to the age and sex of 
      patients. There was no bias evident for EL patients but for STEMI, younger men 
      were more likely to participate. CONCLUSION: It appears to be feasible to collect 
      retrospective PROMs from patients admitted unexpectedly as emergencies for the 
      two conditions studied. The relevance of these findings to other causes of 
      emergency admissions needs to be established. In addition, these findings justify 
      the case for a large, multi-site study that could explore unresolved concerns 
      about selection bias, particularly those arising from the clinical 
      characteristics of patients. It would also enable estimates of the extent of 
      variation in PROMs between hospitals to determine the usefulness of using PROMs 
      in emergency admissions.
FAU - Kwong, Esther
AU  - Kwong E
AUID- ORCID: 0000-0002-4269-2741
AD  - Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, 
      London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, 
      WC1H 9SH, UK. esther.kwong@lshtm.ac.uk.
FAU - Black, Nick
AU  - Black N
AD  - Department of Health Services Research, Faculty of Public Health and Policy, 
      London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, 15-17 Tavistock Place, London, 
      WC1H 9SH, UK.
LA  - eng
GR  - ES/J500021/1/Economic and Social Research Council/
PT  - Journal Article
DEP - 20181115
PL  - Germany
TA  - J Patient Rep Outcomes
JT  - Journal of patient-reported outcomes
JID - 101722688
PMC - PMC6238013
OTO - NOTNLM
OT  - Feasibility, emergency admissions, STEMI, emergency laparotomy
OT  - Health status
OT  - Health-related quality of life
OT  - Patient reported outcome measures
OT  - Retrospective
COIS- ETHICS APPROVAL AND CONSENT TO PARTICIPATE: All procedures performed in studies 
      involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 
      institutional and national research committee (NHS Health Research Authority) and 
      with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical 
      standards. NHS ethical approval obtained from South East Coast - Brighton & 
      Sussex Research Ethics Committee (REC reference: 16/LO/2053). Informed consent 
      was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. COMPETING 
      INTERESTS: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. PUBLISHER'S 
      NOTE: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in 
      published maps and institutional affiliations.
EDAT- 2018/11/24 06:00
MHDA- 2018/11/24 06:01
PMCR- 2018/11/15
CRDT- 2018/11/24 06:00
PHST- 2017/11/14 00:00 [received]
PHST- 2018/10/16 00:00 [accepted]
PHST- 2018/11/24 06:00 [entrez]
PHST- 2018/11/24 06:00 [pubmed]
PHST- 2018/11/24 06:01 [medline]
PHST- 2018/11/15 00:00 [pmc-release]
AID - 10.1186/s41687-018-0077-y [pii]
AID - 77 [pii]
AID - 10.1186/s41687-018-0077-y [doi]
PST - epublish
SO  - J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2018 Nov 15;2(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s41687-018-0077-y.