Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies

Chindhu Shunmuga Sundaram; Rachel Campbell; Angela Ju; Madeleine T King; Claudia Rutherford

doi:10.1186/s41687-022-00524-0

Patient and healthcare provider perceptions on using patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) in routine clinical care: a systematic review of qualitative studies

J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2022 Dec 2;6(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s41687-022-00524-0.

Authors

Chindhu Shunmuga Sundaram¹, Rachel Campbell¹, Angela Ju¹, Madeleine T King¹, Claudia Rutherford^{2

3

4}

Affiliations

¹ Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia.
² Faculty of Science, School of Psychology, Sydney Quality of Life Office, The University of Sydney, Level 6 North, Chris O'Brien Lifehouse (C39Z), Sydney, NSW, 2006, Australia. claudia.rutherford@sydney.edu.au.
³ Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney Susan Wakil School of Nursing and Midwifery, Cancer Care Research Unit (CCRU), The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. claudia.rutherford@sydney.edu.au.
⁴ The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a Joint Venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, Australia. claudia.rutherford@sydney.edu.au.

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported experience measures (PREMs) assess quality-of-care from patients' perspectives. PREMs can be used to enhance patient-centered care and facilitate patient engagement in care. With increasing quality improvement studies in clinical practice, the use of PREMs has surged. As a result, knowledge about stakeholder experiences of using PREMs to assess quality of care across diverse clinical settings is needed to inform PREM implementation efforts. To address this, this review examines the qualitative literature on patient and healthcare provider experiences of using PREMs in clinical practice.

Methods: Medline, Embase and PsycInfo were systematically searched from inception to May 2021. Additional searching of reference lists for all included articles and relevant review articles were performed. Retrieved articles were screened for eligibility by one reviewer and 25% cross-checked by a second reviewer across all stages of the review. Full texts meeting eligibility criteria were appraised against the COREQ checklist for quality assessment and thematic analysis was used to analyze textual data extracted from the results.

Results: Electronic searches identified 2683 records, of which 20 studies met eligibility criteria. Extracted data were synthesized into six themes: facilitators to PREM implementation; barriers to PREM implementation; healthcare providers' perspectives towards using PREMs; patients' perspectives towards using PREMs; advantages of using PREMs in clinical practice; limitations and practical considerations to reduce resistance of PREM usage. The primary factors facilitating and impeding the use of PREMs include organizational-, staff- and patient-related factors.

Conclusion: Results can be used to guide the usage and implementation of PREMs in clinical settings by addressing the identified barriers and building on the perceived benefits to encourage adoption of PREMs. Results around facilitators to PREM implementation and practical considerations could also promote appropriate use of PREMs by healthcare providers, helping to improve practice and the quality of care based on patient feedback.

Publication types

Review