Volume 23, Issue 7 pp. 1368-1377
ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROMs) from specialist pain clinics in England and Wales: Experience from a nationwide study

Cathy M. Price

Corresponding Author

Cathy M. Price

Solent NHS Trust, Southampton, UK

Correspondence

Dr C.M. Price, Adelaide Health Centre, Western Community Hospital Campus, William Macleod Way, Southampton SO16 4XE, UK.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Amanda C. de C. Williams

Amanda C. de C. Williams

Research Department of Clinical, Educational & Health Psychology, UCL, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Blair H. Smith

Blair H. Smith

Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee, UK

Search for more papers by this author
Alex Bottle

Alex Bottle

Dr Foster Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 26 April 2019
Citations: 11

Funding information

To collect PROMs data for the National Pain Audit provided by the Health Quality Improvement Partnership.

Abstract

Introduction

Evaluating outcomes in routine clinical practice is a significant challenge for specialist pain clinics due to the complexity of interventions provided and the subjective nature of pain. This study reports findings from implementation of Patient Reported Outcomes (PROMs) in pain clinics in England and Wales between 2011 and 2013.

Methods

A paper-based questionnaire was administered at a first appointment in participating centres. This assessed quality of life, experience of health care and health care usage with postal follow-up at 6 and 12 months by the research team. Feasibility was assessed in terms of response rates, completion rates and outcomes.

Results

Ninety-one (56%) clinics participated, entering 9,588 patients (19% of those eligible). For responders, there was a 92% item completion rate. The dropout rate was high, 46% and 19% returned questions at 6 and 12 months, respectively. Quality of life at baseline was low, with a mean EQ5D-3L Time Trade Off value of 0.32. Amongst responders at 12 months, 92% continued to experience significant pain. For those with planned discharges 30% achieved the Minimal Important Change for quality of life. Nonetheless, 70% reported positive experiences of care.

Conclusions

Patients attending UK pain clinics report an extraordinarily poor quality of life and difficulty with understanding their condition. Problems with PROMs implementation included initial recruitment, follow-up response rates, classification systems and benchmarking. Successful implementation should include use of electronic data capture, feedback and focus on gradual improvement. To achieve this would require extended periods of funding.

Significance

No nationwide evaluation of the effectiveness of specialist pain clinics had previously been attempted. Comparison of patient outcomes from services enables improvement. This work provides a platform to improve methods of routine PROMs capture in pain clinics, measure clinical effectiveness and identify areas for potential research.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.