Abstract
Background: Outcome measures need to be used by allied health professionals (AHPs) to measure clinical effectiveness, as well as communicate with patients and commissioners.
Methods: A survey of current use of outcome measures was conducted across acute and community therapies departments (dietetics, occupational therapy, physiotherapy and speech & language therapy services) within University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay NHS Foundation Trust (UHMBT).
Results: There was a 17% response rate with 51 respondents completing the survey. 25% of respondents used outcome measures with every patient, 24% at least once per day, 22% at least once per week, and 29% rarely or never. Most therapists felt confident that they are able to score outcome measures accurately (mode rating for confidence: 8/10). However, 1 in 5 therapists reported low (≤5/10) confidence in using outcome measures. There was wide variation in the outcome measures used by respondents. The most commonly used outcome measures were the Berg Balance Scale (n=13) and the Therapies Outcome Measure (TOMS) – Multifactorial Conditions (n= 9). However there were 35 outcome measure tools cited as being used by only 1 respondent each. Themes from comments included: ‘considering change’ and barriers to outcome measure use as ‘COVID-19 impact’, ‘staffing pressures’ or ‘brief-intervention services’.
Conclusion: Whilst a wide variety of outcome measures are used by therapy staff at UHMBT, they are not used with sufficient frequency to allow routine monitoring of clinical effectiveness. Being able to measure the impact of different models of service delivery would be particularly beneficial where service changes are implemented rapidly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Next steps could draw on evidence from previous studies by identifying suitable outcome measures (including those suitable for use in remote consultations), and developing a training programme to encourage the routine use of outcome measures in practice.
References
Chief Allied Heath Professions Officer’s Team. (2017). Allied Health Professions into Action: Using Allied Health Professionals to transform health, care and wellbeing. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ahp-action-transform-hlth.pdf (accessed 28.01.2021).
Colquhoun HL, Islam R, Sullivan KJ, Sandercock J, Steinwender S, Grimshaw JM. Behaviour change domains likely to influence occupational therapist use of the Canadian Occupational Performance Measure. Occupational Therapy International 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/3549835
Hammond R. Evaluation of physiotherapy by measuring the outcome. Physiotherapy 2000;86(4):170–172. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0031-9406(05)60959-5
NHS England. (2016). Commissioning guidance for rehabilitation. Available from: https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/commissioning-guidance-for-rehabilitation/ (accessed 28.01.2021).
Duncan EAS, Murray J. The barriers and facilitators to routine outcome measurement by allied health professionals in practice: a systematic review. BMC Health Services Research 2012;12(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-12-96
Copeland J. Outcome measures: why physiotherapists must use them. Physical Therapy Reviews 2009;14(6):367–368. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1179/108331909X12488667117131
Gondek D, Edbrooke-Childs J, Fink E, Deighton J, Wolpert, M. Feedback from outcome measures and treatment effectiveness, treatment efficiency, and collaborative practice: a systematic review. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research 2016;43(3):325–343. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-015-0710-5
The Kings Fund. (2010). Getting the most out of PROMS. Putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision making. Available from: https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/publications/getting-most-out-proms (accessed 28.01.2021).
World Health Organization. (2002). Towards a common language for functioning, disability and health ICF. International Classification, 1149, 1–22. Available from: https://doi.org/WHO/EIP/GPE/CAS/01.3.
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, & CBM. (2010). Evaluating the impact of rehabilitation in the lives of people with disabilities and their families in low and middle income countries – a review of tools.
Unsworth CA. Evidence-based practice depends on the routine use of outcome measures. British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2011;74(5), 209. Available from: https://doi.org/10.4276/030802211X13046730116371
World Health Organization. (2011). World Report on Disability. Available from: https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/disability-and-rehabilitation/world-report-on-disability (accessed 28.01.2021).
Enderby PM, John A. Therapy outcome measures in speech and language therapy: comparing performance between different providers. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 1999; 34(4):417–429. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/136828299247360
Van Peppen RPS, Schuurmans MJ, Stutterheim EC, Lindeman E, Van Meeteren NLU. Promoting the use of outcome measures by an educational programme for physiotherapists in stroke rehabilitation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Clinical Rehabilitation2009;23(11):1005–1017. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/0269215509338999
Coo C, McCluskey A, Bowman J. Use of outcome measures after participation in an education programme. Britsh Journal of Occupational Therapy 2007;70(November):487–492.
Swinkels RAHM, Meerhoff GM, Custers JWH, et al. Using outcome measures in daily practice: development and evaluation of an implementation strategy for physiotherapists in the Netherlands. Physiotherapy Canada 2015;67(4):357–364. Available from: https://doi.org/10.3138/ptc.2014-28
Unsworth CA, Duncombe D. A comparison of client outcomes from two acute care neurological services using self-care data from the Australian Therapy Outcome Measures for Occupational Therapy (AusTOMs – OT). British Journal of Occupational Therapy 2005;68(10):477–481. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/030802260506801007
Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 2006;3(2):77–101. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Rastrick S. (2020). Capturing the impact of new ways of working for Allied Health Professionals arising from the COVID-19 response. Retrieved November 11, 2020, from https://www.england.nhs.uk/blog/capturing-the-impact-of-new-ways-of-working-for-allied-health-professionals-arising-from-the-covid-19-response/
Hutchings R. (2020). The impact of Covid-19 on the use of digital technology in the NHS. Nuffield Trust. Available from: https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/research/the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-use-of-digital-technology-in-the-nhs (accessed 28.01.2021).
Lein DH, Willig JH, Smith CR, et al. Assessing a novel way to measure three common rehabilitation outcome measures using a custom mobile phone application. Gait and Posture 2019;73(July):246–250. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaitpost.2019.07.251
Veras M, Kairy D, Rogante M, Giacomozzi, Saraiva S. Scoping review of outcome measures used for telerehabilitation and virtual reality for post-stroke rehabilitation. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 2017;23(6): 527–587. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1357633X16656235
NICE (2019). Position statement on use of the EQ-5D-5L value set for England (updated October 2019). Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/about/what-we-do/our-programmes/nice-guidance/technology-appraisal-guidance/eq-5d-5l (accessed 28.01.2021).
Foster A, Croot L, Brazier J, Harris J, O’Cathain A. The facilitators and barriers to implementing patient reported outcome measures in organisations delivering health related services: a systematic review of reviews. Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes 2018;2:1–16. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-018-0072-3
Chiarotto A. Patient-reported outcome measures: best is the enemy of good (but what if good is not good enough?). Journal of Orthopaedic and Sports Physical Therapy 2019;49(2):39–42. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2519/jospt.2019.0602