Patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals: a rapid review.

BACKGROUND: Codesign strengthens partnerships between healthcare workers and patients. It also facilitates collaborations supporting the development, design and delivery of healthcare services. Prior rehabilitation reviews have focused mainly on the clinical and organisational outcomes of codesign with less focus on the lived experience of rehabilitation patients. OBJECTIVE: To explore patient experiences of codesigned hospital rehabilitation interventions. DESIGN: Rapid review and evidence synthesis of the literature. DATA SOURCES: CINAHL, MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane were searched from 1 January 2000 to 25 April 2022. STUDY SELECTION: Studies reporting patient experiences of codesigned rehabilitation interventions in hospitals. RESULTS: 4156 studies were screened, and 38 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility. Seven studies were included in the final rapid review. Five out of the seven studies involved neurological rehabilitation. All eligible studies used qualitative research methods. The main barriers to codesign were related to staffing and dedicated time allocated to face-to-face patient-therapist interactions. High-quality relationships between patients and their therapists were a facilitator of codesign. Thematic synthesis revealed that codesigned rehabilitation interventions can enable a meaningful experience for patients and facilitate tailoring of treatments to align with individual needs. Personalised rehabilitation increases patient involvement in rehabilitation planning, delivery and decision-making. It also promotes positive feelings of empowerment and hope. CONCLUSION: This rapid review supports the implementation of codesigned rehabilitation interventions to improve patient experiences in hospitals. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264547.

Implementing PROMS for elective surgery patients: feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability.

BACKGROUND: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) engage patients in co-evaluation of their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine the feasibility, response rate, degree of recovery and patient acceptability of a PROM survey for elective surgery. METHODS: We sampled patients with a broad range of elective surgeries from four major Australian hospitals to evaluate (1) feasibility of the technology used to implement the PROMs across geographically dispersed sites, (2) response rates for automated short message service (SMS) versus email survey delivery formats, (3) the degree of recovery at one and four weeks post-surgery as measured by the Quality of Recovery 15 Item PROM (QoR-15), and (4) patient acceptability of PROMS based on survey and focus group results. Feasibility and acceptability recommendations were then co-designed with stakeholders, based on the data. RESULTS: Over three months there were 5985 surveys responses from 20,052 surveys (30% response rate). Feasibility testing revealed minor and infrequent technical difficulties in automated email and SMS administration of PROMs prior to surgery. The response rate for the QoR-15 was 34.8% (n = 3108/8919) for SMS and 25.8% (n = 2877/11,133) for email. Mean QoR-15 scores were 122.1 (SD 25.2; n = 1021); 113.1 (SD 27.7; n = 1906) and 123.4 (SD 26.84; n = 1051) for pre-surgery and one and four weeks post-surgery, respectively. One week after surgery, 825 of the 1906 responses (43%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average), and at four weeks post-surgery, 676 of the 1051 responses (64%) exceeded 122.6 (pre-surgery average). The PROM survey was highly acceptable with 76% (n = 2830/3739) of patients rating 8/10 or above for acceptability. Fourteen patient driven recommendations were then co-developed. CONCLUSION: Administering PROMS electronically for elective surgery hospital patients was feasible, acceptable and discriminated changes in surgical recovery over time. Patient co-design and involvement provided innovative and practical solutions to implementation and new recommendations for implementation. Trial Registration and Ethical Approval ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III). Ethics approval has been obtained from La Trobe University (Australia) Human Research Ethics Committee (HEC20479). KEY POINTS: Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) help to engage patients in understanding their health and wellbeing outcomes. This study aimed to determine how patients feel about completing a PROM survey before and after elective surgery, and to develop a set of recommendations on how to roll out the survey, based on patient feedback. We found that implementing an electronic PROM survey before and after elective surgery was relatively easy to do and was well accepted by patients. Consumer feedback throughout the project enabled co-design of innovative and practical solutions to PROM survey administration.

Development of the ‘AusPROM’ recommendations for elective surgery patients.

Objective Implementing the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) is key to improving healthcare quality and patient satisfaction. The implementation process can be strengthened through staff and patient co-design. The aim of this project was to develop a set of Australian PROM implementation recommendations ('AusPROM') to guide rapid translation into practice. Methods Staff working across 29 Australian private hospitals participated in the project. The hospitals provided elective surgery and spanned each state and territory of Australia. Staff engaged in a Delphi technique to develop the AusPROM, which involved three iterative focus groups. To ensure full disclosure, staff were also provided with additional project-related data sources throughout the Delphi technique. This included data from a patient focus group (patient co-design), patient survey, technical feasibility testing, 3 months of pilot testing (four sites), 3 months of national implementation (29 sites) and global evidence. This process ensured that staff and patient feedback was used to co-design the three iterations of the AusPROM recommendations until the final agreed version was established. Results A total of 22 AusPROM recommendations were included in the final iteration. The recommendations covered the domains of PROM characteristics, healthcare organisation characteristics, external influences, staff and patient characteristics, and facilitators to implementing AusPROMS in routine practice. Conclusion The AusPROM recommendations offer practical considerations for the implementation of PROMs in hospitals. The iterative nature of the Delphi technique ensured that staff and patient co-design were central to the development of the AusPROM recommendations.

Patient Judgement of Change with Elective Surgery Correlates with Patient Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life.

Obtaining pre-surgery PROM measures is not always feasible. The aim of this study was to examine if self-reports of change following elective surgery correlate with change scores from a validated PROM (15-item Quality of Recovery (QoR-15)). This cross-sectional study across 29 hospitals enrolled elective surgery patients. PROMs were collected one-week pre-surgery, as well as one- and four-weeks post-surgery via an electronic survey. We examined associations between patient "judgement of change" at one and four-weeks after surgery and the actual pre-to post-surgery PROM change scores. A total of 4177 surveys were received. The correlation between patient judgement of change, and the actual change score was moderately strong at one-week (n = 247, rs = 0.512, p < 0.001), yet low at four-weeks (n = 241, rs = 0.340, p < 0.001). Patient judgement was aligned to the direction of the PROM change score from pre- to post-surgery. We also examined the correlation between the QoR-15 (quality of recovery) and the EQ-5D-5L (QOL). There was a moderately strong positive correlation between the two PROMs (n = 356, rs = 0.666, p < 0.001), indicating that change in quality of recovery was related to change in QOL. These findings support the use of a single "judgement of change" recall question post-surgery.

Patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions: protocol for a rapid review.

INTRODUCTION: Patient-centred care can be facilitated by co-design, which refers to collaboration between healthcare professionals and consumers in producing and implementing healthcare. Systematic reviews on co-design have mainly focused on the effectiveness of co-produced healthcare interventions. Less attention has been directed towards the experiences of patients in co-designed interventions. This rapid review aims to explore patient experiences of co-designed rehabilitation interventions and inform rehabilitation decision-making. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A rapid review will expedite timely information on co-design experiences for stakeholders. Four electronic databases, including Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and CINAHL, will be searched for papers published from 1 January 2000 to 1 January 2022. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool will be used for randomised trials. Critical appraisal checklists from The Joanna Briggs Institute shall evaluate the risk of bias of non-randomised trials and qualitative studies. A narrative synthesis will be provided for the quantitative studies. Thematic synthesis will be conducted on qualitative findings. The overall strength of the evidence will be measured using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework for quantitative investigations and the GRADE-Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative Research for qualitative studies. The results will be presented using narrative summaries, identified themes, summary tables, flow charts and quantitative statistical analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval is not required for the review. The protocol and rapid review will be submitted to an online, open access and peer-reviewed journal for publication. The review findings will be rapidly translated to consumers, clinicians, healthcare leaders, organisations, researchers and policy makers via publications, evidence summaries, conferences, workshops, websites, social media and online events. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42021264547.

Protocol for implementation of the 'AusPROM' recommendations for elective surgery patients: a mixed-methods cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Incorporating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into usual care in hospitals can improve safety and quality. Gaps exist in electronic PROM (ePROM) implementation recommendations, including for elective surgery. The aims are to: (1) understand barriers and enablers to ePROM implementation in hospitals and develop Australian ePROM implementation recommendations (AusPROM); (2) test the feasibility and acceptability of the Quality of Recovery 15 item short-form (QoR-15) PROM for elective surgery patients applying the AusPROM and (3) establish if the QoR-15 PROM has concurrent validity with the EQ-5D-5L. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Phase I will identify staff barriers and facilitators for the implementation of the AusPROM recommendations using a Delphi technique. Phase II will determine QoR-15 acceptability for elective surgery patients across four pilot hospitals, using the AusPROM recommendations. For phase II, in addition to a consumer focus group, patients will complete brief acceptability surveys, incorporating the QoR-15, in the week prior to surgery, in the week following surgery and 4 weeks postsurgery. The primary endpoint will be 4 weeks postsurgery. Phase III will be the national implementation of the AusPROM (29 hospitals) and the concurrent validity of the QoR-15 and generic EQ-5D-5L. This protocol adopts the Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trials Protocols guidelines. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The results will be disseminated via public forums, conferences and peer-reviewed journals. Ethics approval: La Trobe University (HEC20479). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12621000298819 (Phase I and II) and ACTRN12621000969864 (Phase III).