We sought to assess neurologic provider satisfaction with the systematic electronic collection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for both disease-specific measures and depression screening (Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]).Methods
A web-based survey was sent to 299 staff physicians and advanced practice providers on the staff email list of a large group neurologic practice, of whom 206 used the PROM system. The survey consisted of 11 questions with Likert response options regarding perceived usefulness of PROM collection; usefulness of PROM data for clinical care, quality, and research activities according to provider age group and type; and perceived usefulness between disease-specific information and the PHQ-9 depression screen.Results
Of those who use the PROM system, 73.3% (151/206) responded. PROM collection was useful for patient care (strongly agree or agree 59.6%), research (strongly agree or agree 68.5%), and to a lesser extent, quality improvement (strongly agree or agree 48.6%). Providers aged 66–75 years believed PROM data were less useful for research (p < 0.01). PROM collection affected patient interactions or clinical management (always or usually 34.6% for disease-specific information and 31.3% for the PHQ-9). Responses were similar concerning perceived clinical usefulness (strongly agree or agree 67.3%) for center-selected disease-specific PROMs and the mandated PHQ-9 (69.8%).Conclusions
Providers favorably viewed systematic electronic collection of PROMs in neurologic patients. A mandated depression screening was perceived as favorably as center-selected disease-specific information and should be considered when implementing PROMs in neurologic practice.