Rapid Fire Best of the Best Oral 2025 Joint Meeting of the COSA ASM and IPOS Congress

Healthcare personnel’s perspectives on barriers and facilitators of PROMs and PREMs implementation: A qualitative study. (126749)

Lisa Grech 1 2 , Alastair Kwok 1 3 , Sok Mian Ng 1 3 , Georgia Kennedy 1 , Kira Button 2 , Michelle White 1 3 , Janne Williams 4 5 6 , Debbie Packham 4 5 , Kate Webber 1 3
  1. School of Clinical Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  2. School of Psychology, Deakin University, Burwood , VIC , Australia
  3. Department of Oncology, Monash Health, Clayton, VIC , Australia
  4. Monash Health, Clayton, VIC, Australia
  5. Southern Melbourne Integrated Cancer Service, Bentleigh East, VIC, Australia
  6. Monash Partners Comprehensive Cancer Consortium, Clayton, VIC, Australia

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) and patient-reported experience measures (PREMS) have shown improvements in quality of care and survival rates for people with cancer. Despite this, barriers to implementation exist that limit routine use in oncology clinics.

 

Aim: To understand the pre-implementation and post-implementation perspectives of healthcare personnel on the routine administration of PROMS and PREMS at a busy oncology clinic.

 

Methods: Qualitative, semi-structured face-to-face and online interviews were conducted with 19 healthcare personnel at an Australian cancer service. Clerical, nursing, and medical staff members (role experience range: 1 to 40 years) participated in either or both the pre-implementation (n=14) and post-implementation interviews (n=17). All willing and available potential participants were interviewed, rather than focusing on data saturation. Transcripts underwent qualitative framework analysis.

 

Results: Pre-implementation interview themes included: (1) Concerns about time and resource constraints; (2) Logistical challenges with getting survey results into clinical records; (3) Potential difficulties with staff engagement and buy-in; (4) Patient difficulties with completing survey due to computer access and literacy issues. Post-implementation themes were: (1) impact on clinical consultations, which was broadly positive and clinicians reported survey results helped guide the consultation; (2) value of PROMS and PREMS content, which identified symptoms that otherwise might be missed and prompt referral, especially for psychosocial symptoms; (3) improved patient-doctor collaboration and communication; (4) generally no negative impact on consultation time; (5) sustainability concerns because structural gaps would not be supported once the implementation study finished.

 

Discussion: Healthcare personnel identified benefits of the PROMs and PREMs implementation with streamlining patient consultations. Pre-implementation real and perceived concerns did not translate following the experience of the PROMs and PREMs implementation. Structural issues to sustainable implementation of PROMS and PREMS were observed that need to be addressed at a health service level.