Quality improvements of healthcare trajectories by learning from aggregated patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: In healthcare, analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an aggregated level can improve and regulate healthcare for specific patient populations (meso level). This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to summarize and describe the effectiveness of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs. Additionally, it aimed to describe barriers, facilitators and lessons learned when using these quality improvement methods. METHODS: A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that described, implemented or evaluated a quality improvement method based on aggregated PROMs in the curative hospital setting. Quality assessment was conducted via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative data were synthesized into a narrative summary of the characteristics and findings. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic synthesis was conducted. RESULTS: From 2360 unique search records, 13 quantitative and three qualitative studies were included. Four quality improvement methods were identified: benchmarking, plan-do-study-act cycle, dashboards and internal statistical analysis. Five studies reported on the effectiveness of the use of aggregated PROMs, of which four identified no effect and one a positive effect. The qualitative analysis identified the following themes for facilitators and barriers: (1) conceptual (i.e. stakeholders, subjectivity of PROMs, aligning PROMs with clinical data, PROMs versus patient-reported experience measures [PREMs]); (2a) methodological-data collection (i.e. choice, timing, response rate and focus); (2b) methodological-data processing (i.e. representativeness, responsibility, case-mix control, interpretation); (3) practical (i.e. resources). CONCLUSION: The results showed little to no effect of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs, but more empirical research is needed to investigate different quality improvement methods. A shared stakeholder vision, selection of PROMs, timing of measurement and feedback, information on interpretation of data, reduction of missing data, and resources for data collection and feedback infrastructure are important to consider when implementing and evaluating quality improvement methods in future research.

Psychosocial consequences for partners of patients after total laryngectomy and for the relationship between patients and partners.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored the long-term impact of a Total Laryngectomy (TL) on the partner and on the relationship between laryngectomees and their partners. METHODS: 151 laryngectomees and 144 partners completed questionnaires assessing the psychosocial impact of a TL on the partner (quality of life, anxiety and depression, loss of control, fear, hopelessness, post-traumatic growth, caregiving burden) and on the spousal relationship (change in the quality of the spousal relationship and openness to discussion of the illness in the family). RESULTS: A considerable number of partners of laryngectomees experience a psychosocial impact of the consequences of the TL, specifically on their social life (35%) and on their sexual relationship (31%). Also, the tendency of other people to neglect their laryngectomized life companion, affects more than half of the partners negatively. Clinical levels of anxiety and depression were found in around 20% of the partners. The consequences of a TL has a negative change on the sexual functioning for more than 30% of both laryngectomees and partners, the communication for around one fifth of both laryngectomees and partners, and feelings of dependency of the partner for one third of the laryngectomees. CONCLUSIONS: A TL has a considerable impact on the psychosocial life of partners of laryngectomees and on the spousal relationship. The findings of this explorative study sets the stage for structural screening on the need for support, not only for patients, but also for their partners. Sexuality and intimacy should be part of this screening.