PDF icon Download PDF
Open Access
CC BY 4.0 · TH Open 2025; 09: a26007707
DOI: 10.1055/a-2600-7707
Original Article

First Experiences of Patients and Healthcare Professionals with Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Venous Thromboembolism

Cindy M.M. de Jong
1   Department of Medicine, Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
,
Sophie N.M. ter Haar
1   Department of Medicine, Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
,
Willem Jan W. Bos
2   Department of Medicine, Nephrology, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
3   Department of Internal Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital, Nieuwegein, the Netherlands
,
Paul L. den Exter
1   Department of Medicine, Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
,
Menno V. Huisman
1   Department of Medicine, Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
,
Marlon H.C. Kosterink
4   Department of Information Technology and Digital Innovation, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
,
Thijs E. van Mens
1   Department of Medicine, Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
,
Frederikus A. Klok 
1   Department of Medicine, Thrombosis and Hemostasis, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, the Netherlands
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available ateRef
  Permissions and Reprints
Preview

Abstract

Background

Venous thromboembolism (VTE) can considerably limit patients' functioning and quality of life. Using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), the full impact of VTE on individual patients can be captured.

Methods

To evaluate the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals with the routine use of PROMs for VTE patients visiting the outpatient clinic, a mixed-methods study was performed at Leiden University Medical Center, the Netherlands. VTE PROMs were incorporated into routine care since March 2023, through a digital application sending patients invitations to complete PROMs. Quantitative and qualitative data were obtained from semi-structured interviews with patients and involved healthcare professionals. The NoMAD (normalization measure development) questionnaire was used to assess the implementation process from the professionals' perspective. Patients aged ≥18 years who experienced VTE and completed PROMs at two follow-up time points during ≥3 months follow-up and VTE patients who did not complete PROMs at both time points were asked to participate.

Results

Eight patients (five completed PROMs; three did not) and four professionals were interviewed. Both patients and professionals experienced the use of PROMs as neutral to predominantly positive (lower limit 3 on a scale of 1–5). All professionals valued the effects of PROMs on their work. Most patients felt the questionnaires contained too many questions. Suggestions to improve the completion rate, accessibility, PROMs content, and the digital tool were shared.

Conclusion

PROMs were believed to provide additional value during preparation for the appointment and during the consultation. The first experiences of patients and professionals, tending toward positive, can be used to improve PROMs application and support implementation in routine thrombosis care.

Keywords

venous thromboembolism - patient-reported outcome measures - patient-centered care - patient outcome assessment - implementation science


Publication History

Received: 18 November 2024

Accepted: 28 April 2025

Accepted Manuscript online:
07 May 2025

Article published online:
23 May 2025

© 2025. The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Georg Thieme Verlag KG
Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Bibliographical Record
Cindy M.M. de Jong, Sophie N.M. ter Haar, Willem Jan W. Bos, Paul L. den Exter, Menno V. Huisman, Marlon H.C. Kosterink, Thijs E. van Mens, Frederikus A. Klok. First Experiences of Patients and Healthcare Professionals with Routine Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Venous Thromboembolism. TH Open 2025; 09: a26007707.
DOI: 10.1055/a-2600-7707
 

  • References

  • 1 Kahn SR, Comerota AJ, Cushman M. et al; American Heart Association Council on Peripheral Vascular Disease, Council on Clinical Cardiology, and Council on Cardiovascular and Stroke Nursing. The postthrombotic syndrome: evidence-based prevention, diagnosis, and treatment strategies: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 2014; 130 (18) 1636-1661
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 2 Wolberg AS, Rosendaal FR, Weitz JI. et al. Venous thrombosis. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2015; 1: 15006
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 3 Huisman MV, Barco S, Cannegieter SC. et al. Pulmonary embolism. Nat Rev Dis Primers 2018; 4: 18028
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 4 Klok FA, Mos IC, Broek L. et al. Risk of arterial cardiovascular events in patients after pulmonary embolism. Blood 2009; 114 (08) 1484-1488
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 5 Klok FA, Zondag W, van Kralingen KW. et al. Patient outcomes after acute pulmonary embolism. A pooled survival analysis of different adverse events. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010; 181 (05) 501-506
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 6 Klok FA, van der Hulle T, den Exter PL, Lankeit M, Huisman MV, Konstantinides S. The post-PE syndrome: a new concept for chronic complications of pulmonary embolism. Blood Rev 2014; 28 (06) 221-226
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 7 Barco S, Mahmoudpour SH, Valerio L. et al. Trends in mortality related to pulmonary embolism in the European Region, 2000-15: analysis of vital registration data from the WHO mortality database. Lancet Respir Med 2020; 8 (03) 277-287
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 8 Valerio L, Mavromanoli AC, Barco S. et al; FOCUS Investigators. Chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and impairment after pulmonary embolism: the FOCUS study. Eur Heart J 2022; 43 (36) 3387-3398
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 9 Kahn SR, Ducruet T, Lamping DL. et al. Prospective evaluation of health-related quality of life in patients with deep venous thrombosis. Arch Intern Med 2005; 165 (10) 1173-1178
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 10 Klok FA, van Kralingen KW, van Dijk AP. et al. Quality of life in long-term survivors of acute pulmonary embolism. Chest 2010; 138 (06) 1432-1440
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 11 Valerio L, Barco S, Jankowski M. et al. Quality of life 3 and 12 months following acute pulmonary embolism: analysis from a prospective multicenter cohort study. Chest 2021; 159 (06) 2428-2438
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 12 Braekkan SK, Grosse SD, Okoroh EM. et al. Venous thromboembolism and subsequent permanent work-related disability. J Thromb Haemost 2016; 14 (10) 1978-1987
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 13 Jørgensen H, Horváth-Puhó E, Laugesen K, Brækkan S, Hansen JB, Sørensen HT. Risk of a permanent work-related disability pension after incident venous thromboembolism in Denmark: a population-based cohort study. PLoS Med 2021; 18 (08) e1003770
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 14 Hunter R, Noble S, Lewis S, Bennett P. Long-term psychosocial impact of venous thromboembolism: a qualitative study in the community. BMJ Open 2019; 9 (02) e024805
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 15 Kirchberger I, Ruile S, Linseisen J, Haberl S, Meisinger C, Berghaus TM. The lived experience with pulmonary embolism: a qualitative study using focus groups. Respir Med 2020; 167: 105978
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 16 Tran A, Redley M, de Wit K. The psychological impact of pulmonary embolism: a mixed-methods study. Res Pract Thromb Haemost 2021; 5 (02) 301-307
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 17 Jørgensen H, Horváth-Puhó E, Laugesen K, Brækkan SK, Hansen JB, Sørensen HT. Venous thromboembolism and risk of depression: a population-based cohort study. J Thromb Haemost 2023; 21 (04) 953-962
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 18 Dawson J, Doll H, Fitzpatrick R, Jenkinson C, Carr AJ. The routine use of patient reported outcome measures in healthcare settings. BMJ 2010; 340: c186
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 19 Black N. Patient reported outcome measures could help transform healthcare. BMJ 2013; 346: f167
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 20 Churruca K, Pomare C, Ellis LA. et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs): A review of generic and condition-specific measures and a discussion of trends and issues. Health Expect 2021; 24 (04) 1015-1024
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 21 Rotenstein LS, Huckman RS, Wagle NW. Making patients and doctors happier - the potential of patient-reported outcomes. N Engl J Med 2017; 377 (14) 1309-1312
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 22 de Jong CMM, Rosovsky RP, Klok FA. Outcomes of venous thromboembolism care: future directions. J Thromb Haemost 2023; 21 (05) 1082-1089
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 23 Gwozdz AM, de Jong CMM, Fialho LS. et al. Development of an international standard set of outcome measures for patients with venous thromboembolism: an International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement consensus recommendation. Lancet Haematol 2022; 9 (09) e698-e706
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 24 Rapley T, Girling M, Mair FS. et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 1 - development of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT). BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18 (01) 133
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 25 Finch TL, Girling M, May CR. et al. Improving the normalization of complex interventions: part 2 - validation of the NoMAD instrument for assessing implementation work based on normalization process theory (NPT). BMC Med Res Methodol 2018; 18 (01) 135
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 26 May CR, Mair F, Finch T. et al. Development of a theory of implementation and integration: normalization process theory. Implement Sci 2009; 4: 29
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 27 Vis C, Ruwaard J, Finch T. et al. Toward an objective assessment of implementation processes for innovations in health care: psychometric evaluation of the normalization measure development (NoMAD) questionnaire among mental health care professionals. J Med Internet Res 2019; 21 (02) e12376
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 28 de Jong CMM, de Wit K, Black SA. et al. Use of patient-reported outcome measures in patients with venous thromboembolism: communication from the ISTH SSC subcommittee on predictive and diagnostic variables in thrombotic disease. J Thromb Haemost 2023; 21 (10) 2953-2962
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 29 Ackerman IN, Cavka B, Lippa J, Bucknill A. The feasibility of implementing the ICHOM Standard set for hip and knee osteoarthritis: a mixed-methods evaluation in public and private hospital settings. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2018; 2: 32
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 30 Depla AL, Ernst-Smelt HE, Poels M, Crombag NM, Franx A, Bekker MN. A feasibility study of implementing a patient-centered outcome set for pregnancy and childbirth. Health Sci Rep 2020; 3 (03) e168
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 31 Niazi SK, Spaulding A, Vargas E. et al. Feasibility study of three-phase implementation of international consortium for health outcomes measurement depression and anxiety standard set in an outpatient consultation-liaison psychiatry practice. Psychosomatics 2020; 61 (01) 8-18
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 32 Queirós L, Redondo P, França M. et al. Implementing ICHOM standard set for cataract surgery at IPO-Porto (Portugal): clinical outcomes, quality of life and costs. BMC Ophthalmol 2021; 21 (01) 119
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 33 Al-Shammari I, Roa L, Yorlets RR. et al. Implementation of an international standardized set of outcome indicators in pregnancy and childbirth in Kenya: utilizing mobile technology to collect patient-reported outcomes. PLoS One 2019; 14 (10) e0222978
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 34 Bittar PG, Carlson AR, Mabie-DeRuyter A, Marcus JR, Allori AC. Implementation of a standardized data-collection system for comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J 2018; 55 (10) 1382-1390
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 35 Depla AL, Pluut B, Lamain-de Ruiter M. et al. PROMs and PREMs in routine perinatal care: mixed methods evaluation of their implementation into integrated obstetric care networks. J Patient Rep Outcomes 2023; 7 (01) 26
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 36 Lebherz L, Fraune E, Thomalla G. et al. Implementability of collecting patient-reported outcome data in stroke unit care - a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22 (01) 346
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 37 Depla AL, Crombag NM, Franx A, Bekker MN. Implementation of a standard outcome set in perinatal care: a qualitative analysis of barriers and facilitators from all stakeholder perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21 (01) 113
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 38 Chen A, Väyrynen K, Leskelä RL. et al. A qualitative study on professionals' attitudes and views towards the introduction of patient reported measures into public maternity care pathway. BMC Health Serv Res 2021; 21 (01) 645
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 39 van der Willik EM, Hemmelder MH, Bart HAJ. et al. Routinely measuring symptom burden and health-related quality of life in dialysis patients: first results from the Dutch registry of patient-reported outcome measures. Clin Kidney J 2020; 14 (06) 1535-1544
    Search in Google Scholar
  • 40 van der Willik EM, Milders J, Bart JAJ. et al. Discussing results of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) between patients and healthcare professionals in routine dialysis care: a qualitative study. BMJ Open 2022; 12 (11) e067044
    Search in Google Scholar