Cleft-related Patient Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) results were formatted into graphical displays for children scoring below the 25th percentile on one or more scales. Reports were piloted in a multidisciplinary clinic where providers reviewed them, and their impact was qualitatively recorded. Graphical PROM reports informed discussions, led to treatment plan changes, and raised awareness of unmet psychosocial needs. Because of the success of this quality improvement pilot, visual PROM reports will become a regular part of our multidisciplinary cleft care. More broadly, graphical PROM data display facilitates better understanding of the patient's perspective and leads to more informed visits.
BrowerKSchmitt-BoshnickMHaenerM, et al.The use of patient-reported outcome measures in primary care: Applications, benefits and challenges. J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021;5(Suppl 2):84. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00361-7.
2.
CampbellRJuAKingMTRutherfordC. Perceived benefits and limitations of using patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice with individual patients: A systematic review of qualitative studies. Qual Life Res. 2022;31(6):1597-1620. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-03003-z.
3.
PusicALLemaineVKlassenAF, et al.Patient-reported outcome measures in plastic surgery: Use and interpretation in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2011;127(3):1361-1367. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3182063276.
4.
BeleSChughAMohamedBTeelaLHavermanLSantanaMJ. Patient-Reported outcome measures in routine pediatric clinical care: A systematic review. Front Pediatr. 2020;28(8):364. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fped.2020.00364.
5.
NgVLDunphyCShemeshE, et al.Feasibility of using a patient-reported outcome measure into clinical practice following pediatric liver transplantation: The Starzl Network experience. Pediatr Transplant. 2023;27(1):e14409. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/petr.14409. PMID: 36272132.
6.
FrancisJProthasisSGeorgeJStoicaS. Patient-reported outcome measures in congenital heart surgery: A systematic review. Cardiol Young. 2023;33(3):337-341. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1047951123000057. PMID: 36650739.
7.
EngstromTTannerSLeeWR, et al.Patient reported outcome measure domains and tools used among adolescents and young adults with cancer: A scoping review. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2023;181:103867. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.critrevonc.2022.103867. PMID: 36427770.
8.
GreenhalghJ. The applications of PROs in clinical practice: What are they, do they work, and why?Qual Life Res. 2009;18(1):115-123. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-008-9430-6.
9.
RiffKWYWTsangarisEGoodacreTEE, et al.What matters to patients with cleft lip and/or palate: An international qualitative study informing the development of the CLEFT-Q. Cleft Palate Craniofac J. 2018;55(3):442-450. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/1055665617732854.
10.
KrepsBLArdouinKBogartK, et al.The Power of Lived Experience: Facing Cleft and Craniofacial Care Forward. Panel presented at, American Cleft Palate Craniofacial Association Annual Meeting; April 12, 2024; Denver, CO.
11.
AlloriACKelleyTAMearaJG, et al.A standard set of outcome measures for the comprehensive appraisal of cleft care. Cleft Palate Craniofac J.2017;54(5):540-554. doi:https://doi.org/10.1597/15-292.
RiffKWYWTsangarisEGoodacreT, et al.International multiphase mixed methods study protocol to develop a cross-cultural patient-reported outcome instrument for children and young adults with cleft lip and/or palate (CLEFT-Q). BMJ Open. 2017;7(1):e015467. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-015467.
15.
SalineroLKVillavisanisDFCheungL, et al.Integration of the cleft-Q patient-reported outcome tool into a multidisciplinary cleft and craniofacial clinic: A proof of concept. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2024;154(2):351e–355e. doi:10.1097/prs.0000000000010859.
16.
SalineroLKCheungLVillavisanisDF, et al.How does CLEFT-Q change the way we practice? A prospective study integrating patient-reported outcomes. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2023. Epub ahead of print. doi:10.1097/PRS.0000000000011036.
17.
McLeodSHarrisonLJMcCormackJ. The intelligibility in context scale: Validity and reliability of a subjective rating measure. J Speech Lang Hear Res.2012;55(2):648-656. doi:https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0130.
18.
SkirkoJRWeaverEMPerkinsJAKinterSSieK. Modification and evaluation of a velopharyngeal insufficiency quality-of-life instrument. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg.2012;138(10):929. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/2013.jamaoto.122.
19.
BroderHLMcGrathCCisnerosGJ. Questionnaire development: Face validity and item impact testing of the child oral health impact profile. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.2007;35(s1):8-19. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.00401.x.
20.
BroderHLWilson-GendersonM. Reliability and convergent and discriminant validity of the child oral health impact profile (COHIP child’s version). Community Dent Oral Epidemiol.2007;35(s1):20-31. doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0528.2007.0002.x.
21.
LipanMJMostSP. Development of a severity classification system for subjective nasal obstruction. JAMA Facial Plast Surg.2013;15(5):358-361. doi:https://doi.org/10.1001/jamafacial.2013.344.
22.
NeameMTReillyDPuthiyaveetilA, et al.Successful integration of an automated patient-reported outcome measure within a hospital electronic patient record. Rheumatol Adv Pract. 2022;6(3):rkac065. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/rap/rkac065. PMID: 36071947.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
