Qualitative study of implementation of patient self‐reported measures in a consultation‐liaison psychiatry practice. Issue 3 (30th April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Spaulding, Aaron; Nordan, Lisa; Blanchfield, Lorrie; Asiedu, Gladys B.; Saltivan, Jean; Pecenka, Stacey; Uitti, Ryan; Naessens, James; Niazi, Shehzad
• Is Part Of: Journal of evaluation in clinical practice. Volume 25:Issue 3(2019)
• Page Start: 482
• Page End: 490
• Publication Date: 2019-04-30
• Subjects: patient self‐reported measures -- psychiatry -- qualitative analysis -- RE‐AIM implementation; Clinical medicine -- Periodicals; 616.005
• DOI: 10.1111/jep.13160
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 1356-1294

Abstract

Abstract: Rational, aims, and objectives: Understanding of barriers and successes associated with the implementation of electronic patient self‐reported measures (ePSRMs) within clinical settings are limited and have not been pursued utilizing implementation science frameworks. This qualitative study is designed to assess staff perceptions of an ePSRM implementation. Methods: The study took place in an academic hospital's Consultation Liaison Psychiatry practice. Qualitative interviews were conducted with the staff and clinicians from the practice. Participants were directly involved with the implementation and use of the ePSRM system within the Psychiatry practice. Interviews were structured around the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE‐AIM) framework. Results: Participants reported increased patient engagement as well as efficiency and time savings. The intervention was perceived to be more challenging for older patients. Facilitators include communicating the ePSRM to patients prior to the care visit, having enough trained staff or super‐users who can assist with technical problems, and having a shorter questionnaire. Conclusions: Overall, assessment of the ePSRM implementation was positive. Staff and clinicians indicated benefits in time, effectiveness, and improvements in patient treatment. Results indicate that defining how the system would fit within the clinical workflow was key, as was a flexible and user‐friendly technology platform. The ePSRM implementation was dependent upon clinical involvement and interest in adoption, while barriers were associated with technical challenges as well as some patient difficulties, such as cognitive impairment. The use of the RE‐AIM framework is valuable as it allows for systematic assessment of the implementation and identifies areas in that implementation has succeeded or is lacking.