Introducing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) into the NHS
Submitting Institution
London School of Hygiene & Tropical MedicineUnit of Assessment
Public Health, Health Services and Primary CareSummary Impact Type
HealthResearch Subject Area(s)
Medical and Health Sciences: Clinical Sciences, Public Health and Health Services
Summary of the impact
Research carried out by LSHTM to develop and test patient reported
outcome measures (PROMs),
which measure health outcomes from the patient perspective, has
demonstrated the feasibility of
routinely collecting such measures before and after elective operations.
In 2009, the Labour
government mandated that PROMs should be collected on all NHS patients in
England undergoing
one of four surgical operations, a policy endorsed by the coalition
following the 2010 election. This
remains the only nationwide programme of its kind worldwide, providing
essential data for
comparing providers' performance, patient choice and other quality
improvement approaches.
Underpinning research
Patients' views are essential to achieving high quality care. Their
perspective complements that of
clinicians, providing unique insights into their own perceptions of health
status and health-related
quality of life. It is therefore important to find ways of involving
patients in reporting on their own
health outcomes.
The goal of research carried out by LSHTM since 1996 has been to create
PROMs — measures of
patients' health and health-related quality of life collected before and
after surgery. Involving
patient interviews and the development and testing of questionnaires, the
research has been led
by Nick Black, Professor of Health Services Research at LSHTM since 1995.
The research fell into three phases: the development and psychometric
testing of PROMs (1996-
2004); methodological research to ensure accurate analysis and
interpretation of these measures
(1993-2012); and applied research into the feasibility of the routine use
of PROMs to assess the
quality of care of providers (since 2005). While many universities around
the world have
contributed to the first of these areas and some have focused on the
second, Black and colleagues
have been unique in researching the third.
In terms of developing and psychometrically testing patient
questionnaires, under the leadership of
Donna Lamping (Professor of Health Psychology, LSHTM from 1992, until her
death in 2011,
initially Senior Lecturer), major contributions have been made to the
development of new PROMs
for a wide range of surgical procedures: stress incontinence (1996);
benign prostatic hypertrophy
(1998); menorrhagia (1998);3.1 venous disorders (2003); plastic
surgery on hands/arms and on
head /neck procedures (2004); and coronary revascularisation (2004).3.2
Rigorous qualitative and
quantitative methods were used by LSHTM experts in sociology, psychology,
epidemiology and
statistics.
Work in the second area was undertaken on a range of methodological
aspects of the use of
PROMs, including: the influence of patients' preoperative expectations;
the impact of late response
and non-response to follow-up; 3.3 the use of minimally
important differences;3.4 and many others.
Finally, Black, Jan van der Meulen (Professor of Clinical Epidemiology,
LSHTM since 2000, then
Senior Lecturer) and other colleagues have made a unique contribution to
the routine
implementation of PROMs in the NHS. In 2005 they undertook a systematic
review of instruments
for the routine assessment of outcomes following five common elective
operations (hip and knee
replacement, varicose vein surgery, hernia repair and cataract surgery).
This led directly to a study
to develop pre- and postoperative questionnaires for four procedures and
to test the feasibility of
using them routinely in the NHS. Findings reported in 2007 confirmed that
it was possible to recruit
patients, follow them up and make risk-adjusted comparisons of providers,
all at reasonable cost.
To confirm these findings on a larger scale, in 2008 Black established a
much larger study with
about 35,000 patients. In parallel, since 2009, studies have included
equity of use and outcomes,
the impact of choice of metric3.5 and clinicians' and
patients' views of how best to feed back
comparisons of health care providers' performance to maximise the
likelihood that the data will
stimulate improvements in the quality of care.3.6
References to the research
Development of PROMs
3.1 Lamping, DL, Rowe, P, Clarke, A, Black, N and Lessof, L (1998)
Development and validation of
the menorrhagia outcomes questionnaire, British Journal of Obstetrics
and Gynaecology, 105(7): 66-
779, doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1998.tb10209.x.
3.2 Schroter, S and Lamping, DL (2004) Coronary revascularisation outcome
questionnaire
(CROQ): development and validation of a new, patient based measure of
outcome in coronary
bypass surgery and angioplasty, Heart, 90(12): 1460-1466, doi:
10.1136/hrt.2003.021899.
Methodological research
3.3 Hutchings, A, Grosse Frie, K, Neuburger, J, van der Meulen, J and
Black, N (2013) Late
response to patient-reported outcome questionnaires after surgery was
associated with worse
outcome, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(2): 218-225, doi:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.09.001.
3.4 Browne, JP, van der Meulen, JH, Lewsey, JD, Lamping, DL and Black, N
(2010) Mathematical
coupling may account for the association between baseline severity and
minimally important
difference values, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(8):
865-874,
doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.10.004.
Applied research
3.5 Neuburger, J, Hutchings, A, van der Meulen, J and Black, N (2013)
Using patient-reported
outcomes (PROs) to compare the providers of surgery: does the choice of
measure matter?,
Medical Care, 51(6): 517-523, doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31828d4cde.
3.6 Hildon, Z, Allwood, D and Black, N (2012) Making data more
meaningful. Patients' views of the
format and content of quality indicators comparing health care providers,
Patient Education &
Counselling, 88(2): 298-304, doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2012.02.006.
Key grants
Lamping, Development and Validation of Disease-specific Patient-based
Measures of Outcome in
Plastic Surgery, British Association of Plastic Surgeons, Stoke Mandeville
Burns and Reconstructive
Surgery Research Trust, NHSE Anglia & Oxford Regional Office R&D,
1996-1998, £47,890.
Black, Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Evaluating Elective Surgery:
Systematic Review of
Instruments and Development Study, Department of Health Policy Research
Programme, 2004-
2006, £299,000.
Black, Patient Reported Outcome Measures: Methodological Development for
National PROMs
Programme, Department of Health, 2008-2012, £817,000.
Details of the impact
The research into PROMs carried out at LSHTM has led directly to their
introduction across the
NHS in England for four elective surgical procedures. It is the first time
that such measures have
been introduced on a nationwide scale with the aim of comparing the
performance of hospitals.
After Black and colleagues reported their research findings to the
Department of Health (DH) in
July 2007 and recommended the use of PROMs, the NHS Management Board
decided in
December 2007 that from April 2009 it would be mandatory for all NHS
patients undergoing the
designated operations to be invited to complete pre- and postoperative
PROMs questionnaires
(2009/2010 NHS Operating Framework).5.1 The Chair of the DH
PROMs Stakeholder Reference
Group, Dr Andrew Vallance-Owen,5.2 recognised that `Nick Black
and his colleagues were pivotal in
giving the DH the confidence to start the National PROMs Programme', and
Lord Darzi, then
Minister of Health, addressing the Health Select Committee, stated: `I
think the best investment we
have made was actually in this report ... It is good reading actually. It
has come from LSHTM, and
was done jointly with the Royal College of Surgeons.'5.3 In
June 2008, High Quality Care for All (a
key policy document for the DH under the Labour government) provided a
strong endorsement:
`Just as important [as clinical measures] is the effectiveness of care
from the patient's own
perspective which will be measured through patient-reported outcome
measures.'5.4
During 2008-2009, Black and colleagues briefed Conservative shadow
ministers several times on
the opportunities that PROMs presented. Despite the change of government
in 2010, there has
been seamless political support for the use of PROMs; in July 2010 the
coalition government in its
White Paper, Equity and Excellence — Liberating the NHS stated:
`Information generated by
patients themselves will be critical ... and will include much wider use
of effective tools like
PROMs.' Ministers' positive views on PROMs were reflected in the NHS
Operating Framework
2011/2012 (pp. 25-26)5.5 and by the inclusion of PROMs in the
NHS Outcomes Framework
2011/2012 (p20).5.6
The value of PROMs for more sophisticated estimates of NHS productivity
has been recognised by
the Office of National Statistics5.7 and the National Audit
Office.5.8 The latter stated that, `When
producing productivity measures, new data on quality such as PROMs should
be considered' (p.
10).
The historical importance for surgeons was recognised in 2012 by
Professor Norman Williams,
President of the Royal College of Surgeons, when he stated that `the
introduction of PROMs has
been a major development in the history of surgery'.5.9
Since April 2010, PROMs data have been published online (http://www.ic.nhs.uk/proms)
for the
use of clinicians, managers, commissioners and the public. The huge scale
of the programme is
indicated by the 515,000 patients who participated over the first three
years (over 70% of those
eligible). In 2012, the DH's Branch Head of Strategy, Finance and NHS
Directorate, David Nuttall,
commended Black and colleagues' continued research after the introduction
of PROMs as having
`informed decisions on how data should best be analysed, presented and
used'.5.10
Another indication of success is that coronary revascularisation will be
included from 2014 using a
PROM (CROQ) developed at LSHTM. The University of Oxford has undertaken
preliminary work
on the use of PROMs in long-term conditions, but the impact described in
this case study is a
direct result of the work of LSHTM alone.
Black has raised awareness and understanding of PROMs among clinicians,
NHS managers and
patient organisations by chairing many national conferences and giving 11
keynote talks since
2009, including at the Royal College of Nursing (March 2010); the
Pre-Operative Assessment
Association (September 2010); the NHS Medical Directors Conference
(October 2010); the
National PROMs Summit (December 2012, 2013); and the International Society
for Quality in
Healthcare (October 2013) at which his contribution internationally was
recognised by the award of
the first Career Achievement Prize in PROMs, funded by the Medical
Outcomes Trust in the USA.
He is advising the US National Institute of Medicine and the American
Medical Association.
The introduction of PROMs was widely reported in the press, raising
awareness and understanding
among the general public. In a Financial Times report on 19 August
2011, Professor Sir Bruce
Keogh, Medical Director of the NHS, was quoted as saying he hoped PROMS
`would shift the
focus among doctors [away] from technocratic results, where an operation
was deemed a success
regardless of whether the patient remained in pain'.
Sources to corroborate the impact
5.1 Department of Health (2008) The Operating Framework for the NHS
in England 2009/10: High
Quality Care for All. London: DH,
http://www.connectingforhealth.nhs.uk/systemsandservices/infogov/links/opframework20092010.pdf
(accessed 16 October 2013).
5.2 Chair, Department of Health PROMs Stakeholder Review Group.
5.3 Health Select Committee (2008) NHS Next Stage Review (HC 937-ii),
17 July, uncorrected
transcript of oral evidence,
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmhealth/uc937-ii/uc93702.htm
(accessed 16 October 2013) (q.154).
5.4 Darzi, A (2008) High Quality Care for All: NHS Next Stage Review
Final Report, Cm 7432.
London: The Stationery Office, http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm74/7432/7432.pdf
(accessed 16 October 2013).
5.5 Department of Health (2010) The Operating Framework for the NHS
in England 2011/12.
London: DH,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/216187/dh_122736.pdf
(accessed 16 October 2013).
5.6 Department of Health (2010) The NHS Outcomes Framework 2011/12.
London: DH,
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/213789/dh_123138.pdf
(accessed 16 October 2013).
5.7 Hardie, M, Cheers, J, Pinder, C and Qaiser, U (eds) (2011) Public
Service Output, Inputs and
Productivity: Healthcare. Newport: ONS, http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/public-service-productivity/healthcare-2011/public-service-output--input-and-productivity.pdf
(accessed 16 October 2013).
5.8 National Audit Office (2010) Department of Health: Management of
NHS Hospital Productivity,
report by the Comptroller and Auditor General, HC 491, Session 2010-2011.
London: The
Stationery Office, http://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/1011491.pdf
(accessed 16
October 2013).
5.9 President, Royal College of Surgeons.
5.10 Deputy Branch Head, Choice and PROMs, Commissioning Development,
Department of
Health.