Engaging primary care teams with patient-reported data: design, acceptability and outcomes of a structured intervention

Abstract

Abstract Background Although patient-reported data are increasingly available and their usefulness is recognized, these measures are not well integrated at the clinical levels of primary care. Also, the processes through which these data are translated into actionable insights for quality improvement remain insufficiently described and theorized. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a two-component intervention to support primary care clinics in meaningful quality improvement. Methodology We developed an intervention designed for primary care clinics, utilizing dashboards that present practice-level data on PROMs and PREMs collected during the Patient-Reported Indicators Survey (PaRIS) study in the province of Quebec, Canada, combined with reflective sessions. The intervention combined clinic-specific PROMs/PREMs dashboards with facilitated reflective sessions to support data interpretation and quality improvement planning. We conducted a convergent mixed-methods study combining multiple sources of data (questionnaires, logbooks, and summary reports) to explore the seven components of Acceptability of the intervention, as defined by Sekhon et al. (Affective Attitude, Burden, Ethicality, Intervention Coherence, Opportunity Costs, Perceived Effectiveness, and Self-Efficacy). Results Between September 2024 and April 2025, we conducted the intervention in ten clinics, and 152 participants attended one of the reflective sessions. A high proportion of participants provided positive feedback to the Affective Attitude- and Intervention Coherence-related measured items. Participants reported that the intervention had a good fit with their individual value system and was useful. The average scores for intention and confidence in making a change in their practice post-intervention were high (respectively, 7.82/10 (SD = 1.43) and 8.13/10 (SD = 1.42)). Most participants indicated that the intervention improved their understanding of PROMs and PREMs and supported their use, helped identify clinic strengths and areas for improvement, and facilitated the prioritization of improvement targets. Participants proposed concrete strategies for planning practice changes related to chronic pain management, financial precarity, service utilization, training and mentorship, among other areas. The burden was judged acceptable, despite some participants raising concerns, such as technological issues. Conclusions This study demonstrates the feasibility of translating aggregated group-level patient-reported data into actionable tools that support quality improvement and service reorganization in primary care. Returning these data to practices contributes to the core goals of value-based care by aligning professional practice, organizational processes, patient priorities, and system objectives.