PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES TOOLS

To advocate for expanded use of validated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tools in clinical research and direct patient care; further,

To support development of validated PRO tools that are sensitive to differences in cultural and health literacy; further,

To encourage additional research on PRO tools, including studies to assess their correlation to overall patient outcomes; further,

To educate clinicians and patients about the appropriate use of PRO tools.

Rationale

The Council supported expanded use of validated patient-reported outcomes (PRO) tools—assessments of patient satisfaction, health-related quality of life, or health status—in clinical research and direct patient care, and the Board and House agreed. Although PRO tools are most often applied in the research setting, the Council, Board, and House believed that their increased application in direct patient care was warranted as a mechanism to integrate the patient perspective into the assessment and management of disease. Use of PRO tools was noted as consistent with the emphasis on patient-centered care advocated by the Institute of Medicine and other quality improvement initiatives. The Council, Board, and House supported the development of validated PRO tools that account for variability in patient cultural and health literacy and encouraged research to better define the relationship between PRO measures and overall patient outcomes. The need for clinician and patient education on the appropriate use of PRO tools was noted, including the importance of instructing clinicians to select PRO tools that are validated in patient populations that are similar to the populations in which they will be used.