PROMs and PREMs: The Building Blocks of Value-Based Healthcare
Many healthcare systems today are undergoing a fundamental shift from fee-for-service models—where providers are reimbursed based on the quantity of services delivered—to value-based care models that pay for the health outcomes achieved. This transition is being driven by rising costs, aging populations and the need for sustainable, high-quality care. To successfully implement value-based healthcare (VBHC), providers must prioritise what truly matters: patient outcomes and experiences.
PROMs and PREMs
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) and Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) play a crucial role in value-based healthcare transformation by measuring what’s important to patients.
These tools enable healthcare providers to move beyond traditional clinical metrics and systematically capture the patient voice as a new dimension of care delivery.
This article explores the significance of PROMs and PROMs as essential building blocks for VBHC.
What Are PROMs?
Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are standardised, medically validated assessments that are designed to collect information directly from patients about their health and well-being
Unlike traditional clinical outcomes and process measures, PROMs provide insights directly from the patient’s perspective and capture key health domains such as:
Quality of life
Pain levels and physical function
Mental health and emotional well-being
Daily activity limitations
Symptom severity
Treatment effectiveness and side effects
What are PREMs?
While PROMs measure health outcomes, Patient-Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) evaluate how patients perceive their care experience.
These surveys assess aspects such as:
Communication with healthcare providers
Waiting times
Ease of access to services
Care coordination
Respect, dignity, and overall satisfaction
Cleanliness and quality of care facilities
How do PROMs and PREMs differ?
While PROMs and PREMs both capture important patient insights, there are key differences:
What They Measure:
PROMs assess the impact of a treatment or condition on a patient’s health - PREMs evaluate the patient's experience with the health system.
When They Are Measured:
PROMs are typically measured throughout the patient’s care journey before, during, and after treatment - PREMs are usually collected once following a specific intervention or treatment.Impact on Care:
PROMs help providers refine treatment plans and improve clinical outcomes - PREMs identify service-level issues that impact patient satisfaction.
Together, PROMs and PREMs offer a comprehensive picture of care quality, ensuring clinical effectiveness and patient experience are prioritised.
Why do PROMs and PREMs matter?
Integrating PROMs and PREMs into health systems is not just about data collection—it’s about transforming care delivery.
Here’s why they are essential:
-
By tracking PROMs, providers can monitor patient progress, adjust treatments in real time, and ensure that care aligns with individual needs. Studies have shown that using PROMs in routine care leads to better symptom management and improved clinical outcomes (Anderson et al., 2024).
-
PREMs offer valuable insights into the patient journey, highlighting gaps in service delivery. Addressing issues like poor communication or long wait times leads to higher patient satisfaction and improved adherence to treatment plans (Attar et al., 2024).
-
Value-based healthcare focuses on delivering the best possible outcomes at the lowest cost. PROMs and PREMs provide measurable data that links healthcare quality with patient results, shifting the focus from volume-driven care to outcome-driven performance (Casaca et al., 2023).
-
Actively involving patients in reporting their outcomes and experiences fosters transparency and shared decision-making. Engaged patients are more likely to adhere to treatment plans, leading to better long-term health (Marzban et al., 2022).
-
By identifying ineffective treatments and inefficient processes, PROMs and PREMs help healthcare providers streamline operations. Hospitals and clinics can allocate resources more effectively, reducing unnecessary interventions and cutting healthcare costs (Kingsley & Patel, 2017).
The Future of Patient-Centred, Value-based Healthcare
As healthcare systems worldwide transition to value-based models, PROMs and PREMs will play an increasingly vital role in shaping high-quality, patient-centric care. By leveraging these tools, providers can create a system that not only delivers better clinical outcomes but also fosters meaningful, efficient, and compassionate patient experiences.
The question is no longer if organisations should implement PROMs and PREMs - it’s how fast they can integrate them to deliver better care.
References
Anderson, P., Smith, R., & Brown, J. (2024). Patient-Reported Outcomes and Clinical Effectiveness. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 22(1), 45-62. The use of patient-reported outcome measures to improve patient-related outcomes – a systematic review - Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
Attar, A., Shukla, K., & Mulay, P. (2024). Top 100 most cited articles on Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM): insights and perspectives. Journal of patient-reported outcomes, 8(1), 114. Top 100 most cited articles on Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREM): insights and perspectives - Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes .
Casaca, P., Schäfer, W., Nunes, A. B., & Sousa, P. (2023). Using patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures to elevate the quality of healthcare. International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 35(4), mzad098. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzad098
Marzban, S., Najafi, M., Agolli, A., & Ashrafi, E. (2022). Impact of Patient Engagement on Healthcare Quality: A Scoping Review. Journal of patient experience, 9, 23743735221125439. https://doi.org/10.1177/23743735221125439
Kingsley, C., & Patel, S. (2017). Patient-reported outcome measures and patient-reported experience measures. British Journal of Anaesthesia Education, 17(4), 137–144. https://academic.oup.com/bjaed/article/17/4/137/2999278?