No Cover Image

Journal article 129 views 5 downloads

KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi

Nathaniel Luke Hatton Orcid Logo, Mark Baxter Orcid Logo, Sally Lewis Orcid Logo, Peter S. Hall Orcid Logo, Katie Spencer Orcid Logo

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, Volume: 9, Issue: 1

Swansea University Author: Sally Lewis Orcid Logo

  • 71004.VoR.pdf

    PDF | Version of Record

    © The Author(s) 2025. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

    Download (1.28MB)

Check full text

DOI (Published version): 10.1186/s41687-025-00898-x

Abstract

IntroductionThe use of electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is increasing in routine cancer care, with benefit demonstrated in improving patient survival, satisfaction and response time. ePROMs represent a complex intervention, with successful implementation reliant upon a range of...

Full description

Published in: Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
ISSN: 2509-8020
Published: Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2025
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa71004
first_indexed 2025-11-28T16:01:39Z
last_indexed 2025-12-20T05:28:45Z
id cronfa71004
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0"?><rfc1807><datestamp>2025-12-19T11:22:27.8389409</datestamp><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>71004</id><entry>2025-11-28</entry><title>KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>f800f55db95f30d9a4ebb0ed6e24fe8a</sid><ORCID>0000-0002-2369-2308</ORCID><firstname>Sally</firstname><surname>Lewis</surname><name>Sally Lewis</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2025-11-28</date><deptcode>CBAE</deptcode><abstract>IntroductionThe use of electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is increasing in routine cancer care, with benefit demonstrated in improving patient survival, satisfaction and response time. ePROMs represent a complex intervention, with successful implementation reliant upon a range of questionnaires, platform, patient and clinician characteristics alongside the wider organisational readiness and environment. Key performance indicators (KPIs) assess the performance of a system. A KPI framework would offer value in assessing ePROM implementation projects, however the outcomes and indicators of importance are not clear.MethodA modified Delphi methodology was used to define a framework of KPIs for assessing the deployment of ePROMs in routine cancer care. Potential KPIs were identified through literature searches, de-duplicated and allocated to a matrix of domains. Delphi participants were identified through a literature review and study team networks. KPIs were presented to participants for prioritisation using an online platform. A final set of KPIs was identified through two rounds of consensus with participants rating each KPI for relevance.ResultsThe literature search generated a list of 196 potential KPIs of which 48 were considered by 15 experts in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached to include 12 KPIs in the first round and a further 2 KPIs in the second round. Participant&#x2019;s open text responses were analysed, suggesting a number of areas of debate regarding which KPIs are most pertinent.DiscussionThis work provides a framework of 14 KPIs, covering those of relevance to patients, clinicians and health services and recognising the acceptability, feasibility and impact of ePROMs. This framework offers a means to appraise the implementation of ePROMs, supporting teams as they implement ePROMs in routine cancer care and other healthcare settings.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes</journal><volume>9</volume><journalNumber>1</journalNumber><paginationStart/><paginationEnd/><publisher>Springer Science and Business Media LLC</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>2509-8020</issnElectronic><keywords>ePROMS; PROMS; Electronic; KPIs; Key performance indicators; Delphi study</keywords><publishedDay>2</publishedDay><publishedMonth>7</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2025</publishedYear><publishedDate>2025-07-02</publishedDate><doi>10.1186/s41687-025-00898-x</doi><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Management School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>CBAE</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Another institution paid the OA fee</apcterm><funders>This study received no funding.</funders><projectreference/><lastEdited>2025-12-19T11:22:27.8389409</lastEdited><Created>2025-11-28T11:09:13.3734596</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">School of Management - Business Management</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Nathaniel Luke</firstname><surname>Hatton</surname><orcid>0000-0001-6294-8380</orcid><order>1</order></author><author><firstname>Mark</firstname><surname>Baxter</surname><orcid>0000-0002-5773-8650</orcid><order>2</order></author><author><firstname>Sally</firstname><surname>Lewis</surname><orcid>0000-0002-2369-2308</orcid><order>3</order></author><author><firstname>Peter S.</firstname><surname>Hall</surname><orcid>0000-0001-6015-7841</orcid><order>4</order></author><author><firstname>Katie</firstname><surname>Spencer</surname><orcid>0000-0002-6846-4341</orcid><order>5</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>71004__35866__ad3db09bb35842acabf805e2a1d58cee.pdf</filename><originalFilename>71004.VoR.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2025-12-19T11:20:54.4021457</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>1345301</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Version of Record</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>&#xA9; The Author(s) 2025. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling 2025-12-19T11:22:27.8389409 v2 71004 2025-11-28 KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi f800f55db95f30d9a4ebb0ed6e24fe8a 0000-0002-2369-2308 Sally Lewis Sally Lewis true false 2025-11-28 CBAE IntroductionThe use of electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is increasing in routine cancer care, with benefit demonstrated in improving patient survival, satisfaction and response time. ePROMs represent a complex intervention, with successful implementation reliant upon a range of questionnaires, platform, patient and clinician characteristics alongside the wider organisational readiness and environment. Key performance indicators (KPIs) assess the performance of a system. A KPI framework would offer value in assessing ePROM implementation projects, however the outcomes and indicators of importance are not clear.MethodA modified Delphi methodology was used to define a framework of KPIs for assessing the deployment of ePROMs in routine cancer care. Potential KPIs were identified through literature searches, de-duplicated and allocated to a matrix of domains. Delphi participants were identified through a literature review and study team networks. KPIs were presented to participants for prioritisation using an online platform. A final set of KPIs was identified through two rounds of consensus with participants rating each KPI for relevance.ResultsThe literature search generated a list of 196 potential KPIs of which 48 were considered by 15 experts in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached to include 12 KPIs in the first round and a further 2 KPIs in the second round. Participant’s open text responses were analysed, suggesting a number of areas of debate regarding which KPIs are most pertinent.DiscussionThis work provides a framework of 14 KPIs, covering those of relevance to patients, clinicians and health services and recognising the acceptability, feasibility and impact of ePROMs. This framework offers a means to appraise the implementation of ePROMs, supporting teams as they implement ePROMs in routine cancer care and other healthcare settings. Journal Article Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes 9 1 Springer Science and Business Media LLC 2509-8020 ePROMS; PROMS; Electronic; KPIs; Key performance indicators; Delphi study 2 7 2025 2025-07-02 10.1186/s41687-025-00898-x COLLEGE NANME Management School COLLEGE CODE CBAE Swansea University Another institution paid the OA fee This study received no funding. 2025-12-19T11:22:27.8389409 2025-11-28T11:09:13.3734596 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences School of Management - Business Management Nathaniel Luke Hatton 0000-0001-6294-8380 1 Mark Baxter 0000-0002-5773-8650 2 Sally Lewis 0000-0002-2369-2308 3 Peter S. Hall 0000-0001-6015-7841 4 Katie Spencer 0000-0002-6846-4341 5 71004__35866__ad3db09bb35842acabf805e2a1d58cee.pdf 71004.VoR.pdf 2025-12-19T11:20:54.4021457 Output 1345301 application/pdf Version of Record true © The Author(s) 2025. This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. true eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
spellingShingle KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
Sally Lewis
title_short KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
title_full KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
title_fullStr KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
title_full_unstemmed KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
title_sort KERMIT: Performance indicators in electronic patient reported outcome measures: a modified Delphi
author_id_str_mv f800f55db95f30d9a4ebb0ed6e24fe8a
author_id_fullname_str_mv f800f55db95f30d9a4ebb0ed6e24fe8a_***_Sally Lewis
author Sally Lewis
author2 Nathaniel Luke Hatton
Mark Baxter
Sally Lewis
Peter S. Hall
Katie Spencer
format Journal article
container_title Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes
container_volume 9
container_issue 1
publishDate 2025
institution Swansea University
issn 2509-8020
doi_str_mv 10.1186/s41687-025-00898-x
publisher Springer Science and Business Media LLC
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str School of Management - Business Management{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}School of Management - Business Management
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description IntroductionThe use of electronic patient reported outcome measures (ePROMs) is increasing in routine cancer care, with benefit demonstrated in improving patient survival, satisfaction and response time. ePROMs represent a complex intervention, with successful implementation reliant upon a range of questionnaires, platform, patient and clinician characteristics alongside the wider organisational readiness and environment. Key performance indicators (KPIs) assess the performance of a system. A KPI framework would offer value in assessing ePROM implementation projects, however the outcomes and indicators of importance are not clear.MethodA modified Delphi methodology was used to define a framework of KPIs for assessing the deployment of ePROMs in routine cancer care. Potential KPIs were identified through literature searches, de-duplicated and allocated to a matrix of domains. Delphi participants were identified through a literature review and study team networks. KPIs were presented to participants for prioritisation using an online platform. A final set of KPIs was identified through two rounds of consensus with participants rating each KPI for relevance.ResultsThe literature search generated a list of 196 potential KPIs of which 48 were considered by 15 experts in the Delphi process. Consensus was reached to include 12 KPIs in the first round and a further 2 KPIs in the second round. Participant’s open text responses were analysed, suggesting a number of areas of debate regarding which KPIs are most pertinent.DiscussionThis work provides a framework of 14 KPIs, covering those of relevance to patients, clinicians and health services and recognising the acceptability, feasibility and impact of ePROMs. This framework offers a means to appraise the implementation of ePROMs, supporting teams as they implement ePROMs in routine cancer care and other healthcare settings.
published_date 2025-07-02T05:32:58Z
_version_ 1856805774890631168
score 11.095862

Similar Items