Quality Improvement in Health Care (한국의료질향상학회지)

Korean Society for Quality in Health Care (한국의료질향상학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

International Trends on Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Improving Care Quality and Its Implication for South Korea: Focus on OECD PaRIS

의료의 질 향상을 위한 환자중심 건강결과 측정의 국제 동향과 국내 시사점 - OECD PaRIS를 중심으로

  • Received : 2019.05.11
  • Accepted : 2019.05.31
  • Published : 2019.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to derive implication on the adoption of PROMs (Patient-Reported Outcome Measures) to improve quality of care in South Korea. With this purpose, the paper examines the status of PROMs in South Korea and other countries including OECD's PaRIS (Patient Reported Indicators Survey) initiative, and reviews policy cases that have adopted PROMs to improve performance of healthcare system. Methods: We conducted literature review on OECD reports on PaRIS, peer-reviewed journals, and information from the websites of relevant institutions such as ICHOM, NQF and OECD. Results: To identify healthcare services of best values and support patient-centered health system, OECD has initiated PaRIS which develops, collects and analyzes patient-reported indicators for cross-countries comparison. PaRIS is implemented on two work streams: 1) collect, validate and standardize PROMs in the areas where patient-reported indicators already exist such as breast cancers, hip and knee replacement, and mental conditions, 2) develop a new international survey on multiple chronic conditions. Countries like England, U.S., Sweden and Netherlands use PROMs for measuring performance of hospitals and performance evaluation at the national level, and provide the financial incentives for reporting PROMs. Conclusions: The use of PROMs can support the current policy agenda that is the patient-centered healthcare system which has been emphasized to reinforce the primary and the community-based care. For the use of PROMs, it is recommended to actively participate in PaRIS initiative by OECD, select appropriate instruments for PROMs, and continue on standardization of them. This will assure patients' involvement in improving health system performance, systemize information generated in the process of adopting PROMs, and develop a system to evaluate performance.

Keywords

References

  1. McDowell I. Measuring health-a guide to rating scales and questionnaires, 3rd edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2006.
  2. Ware JE, Brook RH, Davies AR, Lohr KN. Choosing measures of health status for individuals in general populations. American Journal of Public Health. 1981;71(6):620-5. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.71.6.620
  3. Institute of Medicine. Crossing the quality chasm - a new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC; National Academy Press; 2001.
  4. OECD. Recommendation to OECD Ministers of Health from the High Level Reflection Group on the future of Health Statistics-Strengthening the international comparison of health system performance through patient-reported indicators. OECD; 2017.
  5. OECD. PaRIS (Patient Reported Indicator Surey): Measuring, 23rd Health Committee Meeting. OECD; 2018.
  6. Coulter A. Measuring What matters to patients. British Medical Journal 2017;368:j816. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j816
  7. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register 2009;74(235):65132-3, available from https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2009-12-09/pdf/E9-29273.pdf.
  8. Webster G. Generic PROMs in Canada. Presented at the OECD Generic PROMs workshop, Paris, France, 2017.
  9. McGrail K, Bryan S, Davis J. Let's all go to the PROM: the case for routine patient-reported outcome measurement in Canadian healthcare. HealthcarePapers. 2011;11(4):8-18. https://doi.org/10.12927/hcpap.2011.22246
  10. Ware JE Jr, Sherbourne CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36): I. Conceptual framework and item selection. Medcal Care. 1992;30(6):473-83. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005650-199206000-00002
  11. Koh SB, Chang SJ, Kang MG, Cha BS, Park JK. Reliability and validity on measurement instrument for health status assessment in occupational workers. Korean Journal of Preventive Medicine. 1997;30(2):251-66.
  12. Bryan S, Davis J, Broesch J, Doyle-Waters MM, Lewis S, Mcgrail K, et al. Choosing your partner for the PROM: a review of evidence on patient-reported outcome measures for use in primary and community care. Healthcare Policy. 2014;10(2):38-51.
  13. Devlin, NJ, Shah KK, Feng Y, Mulhern B, van Hout B. Valuing health-related quality of life: An EQ5D-5L value set for England. Health Economics. 2018;27(1):7-22. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.3564
  14. Janet S. Health outcomes: an overview from an Australian perspective. Australian Health Services research institute, University of Wollongong; 2016.
  15. Ko TS, Kim SY, Lee JS. Reliability and validity of the Korean Western Ontario and McMaster Universities(WOMAC) osteoarthritis index in patients with osteoarthritis of the knee. Journal of Oriental Rehabilitation Medicine. 2009;19(2):251-60.
  16. Collins NJ, Prinsen CA, Christensen R, Bartels EM, Terwee CB, Roos EM. Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2016;24(8):1317-29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joca.2016.03.010
  17. Jung CY, Kim EJ, Hwang MS, Cho HS, Kim KH, Lee SD, et al. The research of pain and functional disability assessment scales for knee joint disease. Journal of Acupuncture Research. 2010;27(2):123-42.
  18. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Orga-nization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1993;85(5):365-76. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/85.5.365
  19. Brady MJ, Cella DF, Mo F, Bonomi AE, Tulsky DS, Lloyd SR, et al. Reliability and validity of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast quality-of-life instrument. Journal of Clinic Oncology. 1997;15(3):974-86. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1997.15.3.974
  20. Lee NH, Cho JH, Son CG, Yoo HS, Lee YW, Yoon DH, et al. Analysis of studies on quality of life according to cancer types and symptoms. The Journal of Korean Oriental Internal Medicine. 2006;27(3):555-60.
  21. Wing JK, Beevor AS, Curtis RH, Park SGB, Had-den J, Burns A. Health of the nation outcome scales(HoNOS): research and development. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1998;172(1):11-8. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.172.1.11
  22. Orrell M, Yard P, Handysides J, Schapira R. Validity and reliability of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales in psychiatric patients in the community. British Journal of Psychiatry. 1999;174(5):409-12. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.174.5.409
  23. Brooks R. The reliability and validity of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales: validation in relation to patient derived measures. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry. 2000;34(3):504-11. https://doi.org/10.1080/j.1440-1614.2000.00755.x
  24. Pirkis JE, Burgess PM, Kirk PK, Dodson S, Coombs TJ, Williamson MK. A review of the psychometric properties of the Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) family of measures. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes. 2005;3:76. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-3-76
  25. Lee JY, Cho MJ, Kwon JS. Global assessment of functioning scale and social and occupational functioning scale. Korean Journal of psychopharmacology. 2006;17(2):122-7.
  26. Yi JS, Chung MH, Lee BW, Lee SI. Reliability and validity of the Korean version of global assessment of functioning scale. Korean Journal of Schizophrenia Research. 2003;6(2):118-24.
  27. Ha EH, Lee SH, Jeong J, Lee HD, Lee JE, Nam SJ, et al. Biopsychosocial predictors of the quality of life in breast cancer patients. Journal of Breast Cancer. 2010;13(2):219-26. https://doi.org/10.4048/jbc.2010.13.2.219
  28. Lee R, Kim SH, Lee KS, Seo MK. Development and validation of self-efficacy scale for self-manage-ment of breast cancer (SESSM-B). Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing. 2012;42(3):385-95. https://doi.org/10.4040/jkan.2012.42.3.385
  29. Ock MS, Jo MW, Lee SI. Measuring health related quality of life using EQ-5D in South Korea. Journal of Health Technology Assessment. 2013;1:103-11.
  30. Health Measures. Intro to PROMIS. [Internet]. U.S: [cited 2018 Aug 07]. Available from: http://www.healthmeasures.net/explore-measurement-systems/promis/intro-to-promis.
  31. NQF. Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Performance Measurement. 2013 [Internet]. U.S: [cited 2018 Aug 07]. Available from: https://www.qualityforum.org/Publications/2012/12/Patient-Reported_Outcomes_in_Performance_Measurement.aspx.
  32. McCann L, Maguire R, Miller M, Kearney N. Patients' perceptions and experiences of using a mobile phonebased advanced symptom management system (ASyMS) to monitor and manage chemotherapy related toxicity. European Journal of Cancer Care. 2009;18(2):156-64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2008.00938.x