Implementation of a standard outcome set in perinatal care: a qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators from all stakeholder perspectives.

BACKGROUND: To improve their quality, healthcare systems are increasingly focused on value delivered to patients. For perinatal care, the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) proposed a patient-centred outcome set with both clinical and patient-reported measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set). This study aimed to identify factors that affect the implementation of the PCB set at the pre-implementation stage, using the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR). METHODS: In this qualitative study, we conducted semi-structured interviews amongst a purposive sample of key stakeholders within an obstetric care network (OCN): 1) patients, 2) perinatal care professionals involved in the full cycle of perinatal care, and 3) policy makers, including hospital managers, administrative staff and health care insurers. While the CFIR guided data capture and structuring, thematic analysis revealed overarching themes that best reflected the barriers and facilitators from different stakeholder perspectives. Within these overarching themes, the CFIR constructs were maintained. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with 6 patients, 16 professionals and 5 policy makers. Thematic analysis supported by the CFIR framework identified four main themes: the instrument and its implementation process, use in individual patient care, use in quality improvement, and the context of the OCN. Important barriers included professional workload, data reliability, and interprofessional and interorganizational collaboration. Potential facilitators were the PCB set's direct value in individual care, interprofessional feedback and education, and aligning with existing systems. Prominent variations between stakeholder groups included the expected patient burden, the level of use, transparency of outcomes and the degree of integrated care. CONCLUSIONS: This study clarified critical factors that affect successful implementation of the PCB set in perinatal care. Practice recommendations, suggested at multiple levels, can enable structural patient-centred care improvement and may unite stakeholders towards integrated birth care.

Polyhydramnios in isolated oral cleft pregnancies: incidence and outcome in a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Polyhydramnios is suggested to be associated with oral clefts (OCs) due to swallowing problems. This study assessed incidence and outcome of idiopathic polyhydramnios in isolated OC pregnancies. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study of prenatally diagnosed OC. The incidence of idiopathic polyhydramnios in isolated OC pregnancies was determined. Pregnancy outcome, neonatal and paediatric follow-up were compared between cases with polyhydramnios and those with normal amniotic fluid. Subgroup analysis was conducted to evaluate whether an association exists between polyhydramnios and presence of associated anomalies diagnosed after birth. RESULTS: In 230 cases of isolated OC, 15 developed polyhydramnios (6.5%). Involvement of the palate was significantly more common in the presence than in the absence of polyhydramnios (13/15 or 87% vs 125/215 or 58%, p = 0.03, odds ratio 4.7, 95% confidence interval 1.0-30.8). No significant differences were seen in pregnancy outcome or neonatal and paediatric follow-up between the two groups. In subgroup analysis, rate of polyhydramnios was not significantly different in associated cases that appeared isolated prenatally (1/27; 3.7%) compared with that in the isolated cases (15/230; 6.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of idiopathic polyhydramnios in isolated OC pregnancies is 6.5%. Polyhydramnios in isolated OC increases the risk of palate involvement. The presence of polyhydramnios is not associated with adverse perinatal or long-term outcome. If isolated at prenatal assessment, polyhydramnios does not increase the risk of associated anomalies postpartum. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

PROMs and PREMs in routine perinatal care: mixed methods evaluation of their implementation into integrated obstetric care networks.

BACKGROUND: In the transition towards value-based healthcare, patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) are recommended by international collaborations and government programs to guide clinical practice and quality improvement. For many conditions, using PROM/PREM over the complete continuum of care requires implementation across care organizations and disciplines. Along PROM/PREM implementation in obstetric care networks (OCN), we aimed to evaluate implementation outcomes and the processes influencing these outcomes in the complex context of care networks across the continuum of perinatal care. METHODS: Three OCN in the Netherlands implemented PROM/PREM in routine practice, using an internationally developed outcomes set with care professionals and patient advocates. Their aim was to use PROM/PREM results individually to guide patient-specific care decisions and at group-level to improve quality of care. The implementation process was designed following the principles of action research: iteratively planning implementation, action, data generation and reflection to refine subsequent actions, involving both researchers and care professionals. During the one-year implementation period in each OCN, implementation outcomes and processes were evaluated in this mixed-methods study. Data generation (including observation, surveys and focus groups) and analysis were guided by two theoretical implementation frameworks: the Normalization Process Theory and Proctor's taxonomy for implementation outcomes. Qualitative findings were supplemented with survey data to solidify findings in a broader group of care professionals. RESULTS: Care professionals in OCN found the use of PROM/PREM acceptable and appropriate, recognized their benefits and felt facilitated in their patient-centered goals and vision. However, feasibility for daily practice was low, mainly due to IT issues and time constraints. Hence PROM/PREM implementation did not sustain, but strategies for future PROM/PREM implementation were formulated in all OCN. Processes contributing positively to implementation outcomes were internalization (understand the value) and initiation (driven by key-participants), whereas challenges in relational integration (maintain confidence) and reconfiguration (refine activities) affected implementation negatively. CONCLUSION: Although implementation did not sustain, network-broad PROM/PREM use in clinic and quality improvement matched professionals' motivation. This study provides recommendations to implement PROM/PREM meaningfully in practice in ways that support professionals in their drive towards patient-centered care. In order for PROM/PREM to fulfill their potential for value-based healthcare, our work highlights the need for sustainable IT infrastructures, as well as an iterative approach to refine their complex implementation into local contexts.

Women's experiences with using patient-reported outcome and experience measures in routine perinatal care in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.

OBJECTIVES: To gain insight into the experiences of women with completing and discussing patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) and patient-reported experience measures (PREM), and tailoring their care based on their outcomes. DESIGN: A mixed-methods prospective cohort study. SETTING: Seven obstetric care networks in the Netherlands that implemented a set of patient-centred outcome measures for pregnancy and childbirth (PCB set), published by the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement. PARTICIPANTS: All women, receiving the PROM and PREM questionnaires as part of their routine perinatal care, received an invitation for a survey (n=460) and an interview (n=16). The results of the survey were analysed using descriptive statistics; thematic inductive content analysis was applied on the data from open text answers and the interviews. RESULTS: More than half of the survey participants (n=255) felt the need to discuss the outcomes of PROM and PREM with their care professionals. The time spent on completing questionnaires and the comprehensiveness of the questions was scored 'good' by most of the survey participants. From the interviews, four main themes were identified: content of the PROM and PREM questionnaires, application of these outcomes in perinatal care, discussing PREM and data capture tool. Important facilitators included awareness of health status, receiving personalised care based on their outcomes and the relevance of discussing PREM 6 months post partum. Barriers were found in insufficient information about the goal of PROM and PREM for individual care, technical problems in data capture tools and discrepancy between the questionnaire topics and the care pathway. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed that women found the PCB set an acceptable and useful instrument for symptom detection and personalised care up until 6 months post partum. This patient evaluation of the PCB set has several implications for practice regarding the questionnaire content, role of care professionals and congruity with care pathways.

A feasibility study of implementing a patient-centered outcome set for pregnancy and childbirth.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patient-reported outcome and experience measures (PROM and PREM) can facilitate shared decision making and hold potential to improve healthcare quality. However, their adoption in perinatal care is still limited. The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) developed a Pregnancy and Childbirth (PCB) outcome set, including PROM and PREM questionnaires. We studied the feasibility to use these PROMs/PREMs in Dutch perinatal care, addressing both women's and professionals' perspective. METHODS: Patients and professionals in primary and hospital care participated. Women under care at one of five timepoints for PROM/PREM collection of the PCB set (2 during pregnancy, 3 postpartum) were e-mailed a questionnaire and discussed their answers with their obstetric professional the next regular visit. Compliance was recorded. After discussing the PROMs/PREMs, usability and experience were assessed with separate surveys amongst women and professionals. RESULTS: Of 26 women approached, 21 completed and discussed their PROM/PREM questionnaire. Mean questionnaire completion rate was 97%. Average reported time completing the questionnaires was 10 minutes; most women (90%) stated this was acceptable. Women preferred completing questionnaires digitally and discuss their answers with an obstetric professional rather than other care professionals, also 6 months postpartum. Over half of women agreed PROMs/PREMs supported shared decision making (58%), ability to raise issues (60%), and patient-clinician relationship (52%). Six professionals participated: two obstetricians, two clinical midwives, and two community midwives. Most professionals experienced sufficient time to discuss the responses, except at 6 months postpartum. They knew what items to discuss but did not always feel responsible to act upon them. Professionals agreed PROMs/PREMs supported symptom detection and personalized care. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and obstetric professionals consider the PCB set a feasible instrument for PROM/PREM assessment, with good compliance, acceptability and usability. Important determinants of successful implementation are a well-equipped ICT-tool, agreements regarding professionals' responsibilities and how outcomes are discussed or acted upon.