To send content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about sending content to .
To send content items to your Kindle, first ensure firstname.lastname@example.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
Many institutions are attempting to implement patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Because PROs often change clinical workflows significantly for patients and providers, implementation choices can have major impact. While various implementation guides exist, a stepwise list of decision points covering the full implementation process and drawing explicitly on a sociotechnical conceptual framework does not exist.
To facilitate real-world implementation of PROs in electronic health records (EHRs) for use in clinical practice, members of the EHR Access to Seamless Integration of Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Consortium developed structured PRO implementation planning tools. Each institution pilot tested the tools. Joint meetings led to the identification of critical sociotechnical success factors.
Three tools were developed and tested: (1) a PRO Planning Guide summarizes the empirical knowledge and guidance about PRO implementation in routine clinical care; (2) a Decision Log allows decision tracking; and (3) an Implementation Plan Template simplifies creation of a sharable implementation plan. Seven lessons learned during implementation underscore the iterative nature of planning and the importance of the clinician champion, as well as the need to understand aims, manage implementation barriers, minimize disruption, provide ample discussion time, and continuously engage key stakeholders.
Highly structured planning tools, informed by a sociotechnical perspective, enabled the construction of clear, clinic-specific plans. By developing and testing three reusable tools (freely available for immediate use), our project addressed the need for consolidated guidance and created new materials for PRO implementation planning. We identified seven important lessons that, while common to technology implementation, are especially critical in PRO implementation.
Monitoring the effectiveness of knee and hip arthroplasties could be useful at the clinical, economic, and patient levels. In Catalonia, there is currently no systematic monitoring of the different prostheses available. The aims of this study were to propose an approach for the systematic identification of knee and hip prostheses with the highest revision rates, and to identify those with the poorest outcomes.
Data recorded from January 2005 to December 2016 were considered from 53 out of the 61 public hospitals in Catalonia included in the Catalonian Arthroplasty Register (RACat). Specific prostheses were classified by joint, type, fixation, and, in total hip prostheses, the bearing surface. Prostheses with the worst outcomes were identified using a three-step approach, based on previous literature: (i) screening using Poisson models; (ii) comparison of prostheses using adjusted Cox models; and (iii) consensus-based review by a panel of orthopedic surgeons to detect possible sources of bias. After this process, selected prostheses were provisionally labeled as having the poorest outcomes. This process will be repeated periodically within the RACat to definitively classify the prostheses.
After first two steps, ten knee prostheses and eight hip prostheses were identified. After the panel discussion (third step), one knee and one hip prosthesis were excluded from the final list. The knee prosthesis was excluded because it was a unicompartmental implant, while the hip prosthesis was excluded because it was a monoblock implant. Finally, nine knee prostheses and seven hip prostheses were provisionally identified as having the worst results relative to other available prostheses. These results await confirmation in subsequent analyses.
This study contributed to the current need to identify hip and knee prostheses whose outcomes might be worse than expected. This identification could have an impact at the patient, surgeon, industry, and stakeholder levels.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.