RESUMO
Chronic wounds are a significant burden on healthcare systems due to high costs of care (2%-4% total healthcare cost) and a considerable burden on patient's quality of life. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are questionnaires developed to enable patient self-assessments of their outcomes. A gap in knowledge exists because previous reviews on wound-specific PROMs did not evaluate the quality of the development. The main question is which PROM has the best quality development properties and should be used in clinical care and research. Methods: PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were searched from their inception through December 2021. Studies that included patients aged 18 years or older, with chronic wounds, and who reported using a condition-specific PROM for wounds were extracted. We excluded generic PROMs, comments, guidelines, and editorial letters. The COSMIN-guidelines were used to evaluate the quality of the PROMs. Results: Of the 16,356 articles, a total of 251 articles describing 33 condition-specific PROMs for wounds were used. In total, 17 of 33 (52%) PROMs were developed for specific wound types, and nine of 33 (27%) PROMs were developed for any type of wound. Two of 33 (6%) PROMs were not rated because no development article was available. Only the SCI-QOL (Spinal Cord Injury-QOL) and the WOUND-Q rated "very good" in PROM design. Conclusions: Thirty-three condition-specific PROMs were found. Only the SCI-QOL and the WOUND-Q rated very good in PROM design. The WOUND-Q is the only condition-specific PROM, which can be used in all types of chronic wounds in any anatomic location.
RESUMO
Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for chronic wounds mainly focus on specific types of wounds. Our team developed the WOUND-Q for use with all types of wounds in any anatomic location. We conducted 60 concept elicitation interviews with patients in Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands, and the United States. Analysis identified concepts of interest to patients and scales were formed and refined through cognitive interviews with 20 patients and input from 26 wound care experts. Scales were translated into Danish and Dutch. An international field-test study collected data from 881 patients (1020 assessments) with chronic wounds. Rasch measurement theory (RMT) analysis was used to refine the scales and examine psychometric properties. RMT analysis supported the reliability and validity of 13 WOUND-Q scales that measure wound characteristics (assessment, discharge, and smell), health-related quality of life (life impact, psychological, sleep impact, and social), experience of care (information, home care nurses, medical team, and office staff), and wound treatment (dressing and suction device). The WOUND-Q can be used to measure outcomes in research and clinical practice from the perspective of patients with any type of wound.
Assuntos
Medidas de Resultados Relatados pelo Paciente , Qualidade de Vida , Bandagens , Humanos , Psicometria , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Inquéritos e QuestionáriosRESUMO
Traditional quality measures for chronic wounds have focused on objective outcomes that are challenging to risk adjust, lack patient input, and have limited ability to inform quality improvement interventions. Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) provide information from the patient perspective regarding health care quality and have potential to improve patient-centredness, increase care efficiency, and generate actionable data for quality improvement. The purpose of this study was to understand patient experiences and health care processes that impact quality of care among patients with chronic wounds. Sixty patients at least 18 years of age with various wound aetiologies were recruited from Canada, Denmark, The Netherlands, and the United States as part of a larger phase 1 qualitative study to develop a patient-reported outcome measure for chronic wounds (WOUND-Q). All patients had a chronic wound for at least 3 months, were fluent in their native speaking language, and able to participate in a one-on-one semi-structured interview. Interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interpretive description was used to identify recurrent themes relating to patient experience and quality of care. We identified five domains (care coordination, establishing/obtaining care, information delivery, patient-provider interaction, and treatment delivery) and 21 sub-domains (access to patient information, interdisciplinary communication, encounter efficiency, provider availability, specialist referral, staff professionalism, travel/convenience, modality, reciprocity, understandability/consistency, accountability, continuity, credentials, rapport, appropriateness, complication management, continuity, environment/setting, equipment and supply needs, expectation, and patient-centred) as potential opportunities to measure and improve quality of care in the chronic wound population. PREMs for chronic wounds represent an important opportunity to engage patients and longitudinally assess quality across clinical settings and providers. Future research should focus on developing PREMs to complement traditional objective and patient-reported outcome measures for chronic wounds.