Patient-reported outcomes allow clinicians to, “systematically and rigorously assess those internal health constructs, both for improving the delivery of ebp and to use as evidence in support of the profession” (cohen & hula, 2020).

DISCUSSION ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
The student must post 2 replies of at least 450 words each to 2 different classmates post. Each reply must incorporate at least 2
scholarly citation(s) in APA format. All sources cited must be published within the last five years except for the Bible. Acceptable sources include scholarly, peer-reviewed references and the Bible. Please include a text integration of the biblical principles. This text should also be expounded upon not just integrated. You must include at least 2 citations to each reply. Current APA format must be used.
Prompt question: How do patient-reported outcomes and hospital-reported outcomes differ?
Textbook:
Melnyk, B., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2015). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN: 9781496384539
Student #1 Post : Jossie Vistins
Outcomes as defined by the text are, “health status reports experienced by patients…that surface between two or more time points and are caused by the care that is provided in combination with discrete modifiable or nonmodifiable patient or environmental factors” (Melnyk & Fineout-Overholt, 2018). Such outcomes can be utilized by patients, payers, and providers to influence future clinical decision making. Measurement of outcomes is of importance with EBP as it creates an opportunity to understand concepts associated with identification or diagnosis of a condition, comparing health statistics across various individuals, assigning treatments, monitoring progress, and evaluating outcomes. Understanding such outcomes helps further influence the need to utilize successful evidence-based practice within a health system or organization.
One of the key components in evidence-based clinical decision making and patient-centered care is patient preference and values. Because of this, there is great value in patient-reported outcomes as it allows clinicians to reassess their treatment plans and make improvements as needed. Patient-reported outcomes allow clinicians to, “systematically and rigorously assess those internal health constructs, both for improving the delivery of EBP and to use as evidence in support of the profession” (Cohen & Hula, 2020). Therefore, these outcomes should be measured and considered when assessing the success of treatment for a health condition. While patient-reported outcomes do not outweigh hospital-reported outcomes, they do have their importance. There is a growing amount of evidence supporting the collection of patient-reported outcomes to facilitate treatment of adverse events, early recognition of symptoms, pro-active symptom management, improved patient satisfaction, as well as improvement of the patient and physician relationship (Fiteni, et. al, 2022).
Hospital-reported outcomes typically capture behavior, which is external and observable manifestations of their patients’ conditions (Cohen & Hula, 2020). Hospital-reported outcomes are more data driven and provide information to support the “bigger picture” such as disease incidence rates and treatment results. These outcomes typically result in quantitative research data and provide a broad understanding of cause and effect of treatments. This is of importance as it drives ongoing research that will support long term EBP efforts. However, many researchers agree that hospital-reported outcomes are not sufficient on their own to improve disease management.
Ultimately, outcomes should reflect the reason that a patient is seeking healthcare services. To effectively incorporate EBP, clinicians must understand that both types of outcomes are of relevance to the treatment of their patients. As discussed in the previous discussion board, both qualitative and quantitative research data serve their purpose in clinical decision-making. Both types of outcomes are of importance as well. 1 Peter 4:10 teaches us, “As each has received a gift, use it to serve one another, as good stewards of God’s varied grace” (ESV). Understanding outcomes of treatments allow clinicians to make more informed decisions moving forward, especially in EBP. This includes understanding incidence rates, the success of certain treatment methods, but also the ability to diagnose illness and address symptoms. All clinicians should seek to merge the data received from hospital-reported outcomes and patient experiences reflected in patient-reported outcomes. In doing so, healthcare can continued to be improved upon.
References
Cohen, & Hula, W. D. (2020). Patient-Reported Outcomes and Evidence-Based Practice in
Speech-Language Pathology. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 29(1), 357–370. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_AJSLP-19-00076
Fiteni, F., Cuenant, A., Favier, M., Cousin, C., & Houede, N. (2019). Clinical relevance of
routine monitoring of patient-reported outcomes versus clinician-reported outcomes in oncology. In Vivo (Athens), 33(1), 17-21. https://doi.org/10.21873/invivo.11433
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2018).
Evidence-based practice in Nursing &
Healthcare: A guide to best practice. Wolters Kluwer Health.
Student #2 Post: Lori Bradsher
Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2019) defined outcome measures as “those healthcare results that can be quantified, such as health status, death, disability, iatrogenic (undesirable or unwanted) effects of treatment, health behaviors, and the economic impact of therapy and illness management” (p. 285). Furthermore, the authors depicted that the purpose behind these outcome measures are to ultimately take the information obtained in order to assess clinical practice adjustments, provide backing to the decisions being made, as well as to implement updated regulations and standards of care to follow. Moreover, the authors defined what is meant by outcomes. Outcomes, in the text by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2019), is depicted as “‘health status results’ experienced by the patients (e.g., blood pressure, anxiety, disease severity, functional status, the cost of the health services, recidivism, etc.), that surface between two or more time points and are caused by the care that is provided in combination with discrete modifiable or nonmodified patient or environment factors.” There are two different types of reported outcomes to decipher between. These two types of outcomes are patient-reported outcomes and hospital-reported outcomes.
Firstly, patient-reported outcomes are those are portrayed by the authors as “the value patients and families place on the healthcare received” (p. 286). Leblanc and Abernethy (2017) depicted in their work that “[t]he FDA defines a PRO as ‘a measurement based on a report that comes directly from the patient about the status of a patient’s health condition without amendment or interpretation of the patient’s response by a clinician or anyone else.’” Additionally, the authors add to their discussion that “patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which provide a direct measurement of patients’ experiences, often via validated scales assessing patient-centred parameters that include symptom burden, mood, physical function, quality of life (QoL), or distress, among others.” As the healthcare delivery system continues to push and implement change to become an increasingly more patient-centered dynamic, the importance of obtaining patient-reported outcomes will become more vital and necessary for the successful implementation.
On the other hand, hospital-reported outcomes depicted by the efficiency of process portrayed by Melnyk and Fineout-Overholt (2019). In this process, the “timing of interventions, effective discharge planning, and efficient utilization of hospital beds” are all indicators for which to evaluate hospital-reported outcomes. (p. 287) It is also stated that through efficiency of evidence-based practice, the quality of care and cost proficiency of that care is appropriately met. Weir et al. (2021) suggested that “[h]ospitals and payers are using data-driven methods to identify and measure the extent of wasteful spending.” Furthermore, the author portray that “[t]o improve value and reduce costs, quantifiable metrics such as patient length of stay (LOS), in-hospital complications, and 30-day all-cause readmissions rates are being targeted by the hospitals as well as CMS.” These are stated examples of what is integrated into a hospital-reported outcome.
In Galatians 6:9-10, the bible says “[a]nd let us not grow weary of doing good, for in due season we will reap, if we do not give up. So then, as we have opportunity, let us do good to everyone, and especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:9-10 ESV – – Bible Gateway). God instructs us to do unto others as we would want them to do unto us. This verse stuck out to me because in very busy, stressful times, providers can get overwhelmed and potentially overworked. In this state, the focus to provide quality care to patients may go astray without that intention. Patient’s need that focused, detailed care at all times. As aspiring healthcare administrators, it is our duty to not only attend to the patients in the facility to ensure they are getting appropriate treatment but also ensure that the providers mental health and focus to provide quality health care. While patient-reported outcomes and hospital-reported outcomes are different, they both provide essential information in order to assess and implement appropriate change to continue to strive to do better.
References
Galatians 6:9-10 ESV – – Bible Gateway. (n.d.). Retrieved September 14, 2022, from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%2B6%3A9-10&version=ESV
Leblanc, T. W., & Abernethy, A. P. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer care — hearing the patient voice at greater volume. Nature Reviews.Clinical Oncology, 14(12), 763-772. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrclinonc.2017.153
Melnyk, B. M., & Fineout-Overholt, E. (2019). Evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare: A guide to best practice (4th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
Weir, T. B., Usmani, M. F., Camacho, J., Sokolow, M., Bruckner, J., Jazini, E., Jauregui, J. J., Gopinath, R., Sansur, C., Davis, R., Koh, E. Y., Banagan, K. E., Gelb, D. E., Buraimoh, K., & Ludwig, S. C. (2021). Effect of surgical setting on cost and hospital reported outcomes for single-level anterior cervical discectomy and fusion. International Journal of Spine Surgery, 15(4), 701–709. https://doi.org/10.14444/8092