The Milbank Memorial Fund is an endowed operating foundation that publishes The Milbank Quarterly, commissions projects, and convenes state health policy decision makers on issues they identify as important to population health.
We focus on a number of topic areas identified by state health policy leaders as important to population health.
The Center for Evidence-based Policy at Oregon Health & Science University is a national leader in evidence-based decision making and policy design.
Keep up with news and updates from the Milbank Memorial Fund. Get the latest from thought leaders, including Christopher F. Koller, president of the Fund.
We publish The Milbank Quarterly, as well as reports and issues briefs on topics important to population health.
December 2014 (Volume 92)
December 2014 | Philip J . Van der Wees, Maria W.G. Nijhuis-Van der Sanden, John Z. Ayanian, Nick Black, Gert P. Westert, Eric C. Schneider | Original Investigation
Context: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can play an important role in patient-centered health care by focusing on the patient’s health goals guiding therapeutic decisions. When aggregated, PROs also can be used for other purposes, including comparative effectiveness research, practice improvement, assessment of the performance of clinicians and organizations, and as a metric for value-based payments. The feasibility of integrating the use of PROs for these various purposes on a wide scale has not yet been demonstrated. Our study was conducted to inform policymakers of prudent next steps for implementing PROs in clinical practice and performance measurement programs in order to maximize their impact on the quality of health care.
Methods: We conducted a qualitative study, interviewing 58 experts and leaders from 37 organizations (response rate: 88%) in the United States, England, and the Netherlands. Respondents included clinical practitioners (n = 30), measure developers (n=11), and leaders of performance measurement programs (n = 17). We used a qualitative content analysis to assess current strategies for applying PROs in clinical practice and performance measurement and to identify barriers to and facilitators of further implementation.
Findings: The use of PROs in clinical practice and for performance measurement has developed both separately and in parallel. Experts across the stakeholder spectrum support the collection of PRO data in an integrated manner that would enable using the data for these distinct purposes. We identified 2 main concerns about the feasibility for integrated use of PRO data: the complexity of establishing routine data collection and the tension among stakeholders when using PRO data for different purposes. These contrasting stakeholder views suggested varying interests among clinicians, measure developers, and purchasers of care.
Conclusions: Data collection approaches that support the use of PROs in health care are underdeveloped, need better integration with clinical care, and must be tailored to the characteristics of the health care system. Enabling the sustainable use of PROs will require a shared vision of clinical professionals, purchasers, and patients, with a prudent selection of the steps in implementing PROs that will maximize their impact on the quality of health care.
Author(s): Philip J . Van der Wees, Maria W.G. Nijhuis-Van der Sanden, John Z. Ayanian, Nick Black, Gert P. Westert, and Eric C. Schneider
Keywords: patient-reported outcomes, health care policy, quality of care, performance measurement
Read on Wiley Online Library
Volume 92, Issue 4 (pages 754–775)
Published in 2014
Redesigning the Regulatory Framework for Ambulatory Care Services in New York
The Challenge of Implementing Peer-Led Interventions in a Professionalized Health Service: A Case Study of the National Health Trainers Service in England