Table 3 Constructs and items of the PRMs Implementation Assessment Tools for healthcare professionals
Constructs | Items |
|---|---|
PRE-IMPLEMENTATION SECTION | |
Previous knowledge | • Understanding of what PROMs are • Interpreting PROMs results • Understanding of what PREMs are |
Willingness to change | • Willingness to implement PROMs in clinical practice • Reason for not willing |
PRE AND POST IMPLEMENTATION SECTION | |
Active involvement of the patient | • Patients actively involved in disease management |
Focus of the consultation | • Doctor has overall view of health status of patients • Identifying main needs of patients |
Quality of care | • Satisfaction with the quality of care towards patients |
Standard monitoring of patients’ outcomes | • Standardized visits for patients at the same stage of the disease |
Doctor-patient communication | • Communication with patients is fluid |
Suitability for all patients | • The PROMs used collect all relevant information |
Knowledge and beliefs about the implementation | • Current use of PROMs in routine practice • Implementation of PROMs provides benefits for patients • Implementation of PROMs provides benefits for professionals • Implementation of PROMs provides benefits for professionals’ institution/department/service • Implementation of PREMs provides benefits for patients • Implementation of PREMs provides benefits for professionals • Implementation of PREMs provides benefits for professionals’ institution/department/service |
Training | • Sufficient training to interpret and use PROMs |
Preparation for the implementation | • Institution is prepared to incorporate PROMs into clinical practice |
Sustainability | • Use of PROMs will be incorporated into routine clinical practice • Use of PREMs will be incorporated into routine clinical practice |
POST-IMPLEMENTATION SECTION | |
Sustainability | • Incorporation of PROMs into own routine clinical practice • Institution should support the implementation of PRMs • Continuing to use PRMs beyond current implementation program |
Value of the implementation | • Incorporation of PROMs has improved overall view of the patient • Detection of symptoms sooner |
Logistic support to the implementation | • Knowing who to contact regarding questions about the implementation • Enough support from research team when needed |
Usability | • PROMs administration’s frequency is adequate • PROMs results are easily accessible • PROMs results are easily interpretable |
Open questions | • Advantages of PRMs implementation program • Disadvantages of PRMs implementation program • How can the usability of the software be improved • What is missing in the software used |