Feasibility of collecting retrospective patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in emergency hospital admissions.

INTRODUCTION: Outcome of emergency admissions is usually limited to mortality with little attempt to capture the views of health status of survivors. This is because of the challenge of determining patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for the period before their emergency admission. The aim was to assess the feasibility of collecting retrospective PROMs to capture the pre-admission health status of patients admitted as emergencies. METHODS: Prospective study of two cohorts: patients undergoing primary coronary angioplasty for acute ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) in five hospitals and emergency laparotomy (EL) for gastro-intestinal conditions in 11 hospitals. Three rates were calculated: proportion of patients eligible for inclusion; proportion of eligible patients invited to participate; proportion of invitees who participated. Staff views were thematically analysed to understand factors that affected recruitment. RESULTS: About 85% of patients were eligible of whom most were invited to participate (84% EL; 79% STEMI). The proportions of invitees agreeing to participate differed between STEMI (92%) and EL (72%), probably reflecting greater post-intervention morbidity in the latter. Variation between hospitals was observed in the proportion deemed eligible (EL 72-97%; STEMI 63-100%), proportion invited (EL 60-93%; STEMI 71-96%) and the proportion of invitees agreeing to participate (EL 55-92%; STEMI 67-100%). While this might reflect case-mix differences between hospitals, it suggests there is scope for less well performing hospitals to improve their recruitment processes. The extent to which this initial feasibility study was able to assess selection bias was limited to the age and sex of patients. There was no bias evident for EL patients but for STEMI, younger men were more likely to participate. CONCLUSION: It appears to be feasible to collect retrospective PROMs from patients admitted unexpectedly as emergencies for the two conditions studied. The relevance of these findings to other causes of emergency admissions needs to be established. In addition, these findings justify the case for a large, multi-site study that could explore unresolved concerns about selection bias, particularly those arising from the clinical characteristics of patients. It would also enable estimates of the extent of variation in PROMs between hospitals to determine the usefulness of using PROMs in emergency admissions.