Towards standard setting for patient-reported outcomes in the NHS homeopathic hospitals

Introduction: We report findings from a pilot data collection study within a programme of quality assurance, improvement and development across all five homeopathic hospitals in the UK National Health Service (NHS).

Aims: (1) To pilot the collection of clinical data in the homeopathic hospital outpatient setting, recording patient-reported outcome since first appointment; (2) to sample the range of medical complaints that secondary-care doctors treat using homeopathy, and thus identify the nature and complexity of complaints most frequently treated nationally; (3) to present a cross section of outcome scores by appointment number, including that for the most frequently treated medical complaints; (4) to explore approaches to standard setting for homeopathic practice outcome in patients treated at the homeopathic hospitals.

Methods: A total of 51 medical practitioners took part in data collection over a 4-week period. Consecutive patient appointments were recorded under the headings: (1) date of first appointment in the current series; (2) appointment number; (3) age of patient; (4) sex of patient; (5) main medical complaint being treated; (6) whether other main medical complaint(s); (7) patient-reported change in health, using Outcome Related to Impact on Daily Living (ORIDL) and its derivative, the ORIDL Profile Score (ORIDL-PS; range, –4 to +4, where a score ≤−2 or ≥+2 indicates an effect on the quality of a patient's daily life); (8) receipt of other complementary medicine for their main medical complaint.

Results: The distribution of patient age was bimodal: main peak, 49 years; secondary peak, 6 years. Male:female ratio was 1:3.5. Data were recorded on a total of 1797 individual patients: 195 first appointments, 1602 follow-ups (FUs). Size of clinical service and proportion of patients who attended more than six visits varied between hospitals. A total of 235 different medical complaints were reported. The 30 most commonly treated complaints were (in decreasing order of frequency): eczema; chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS); menopausal disorder; osteoarthritis; depression; breast cancer; rheumatoid arthritis; asthma; anxiety; irritable bowel syndrome; multiple sclerosis; psoriasis; allergy (unspecified); fibromyalgia; migraine; premenstrual syndrome; chronic rhinitis; headache; vitiligo; seasonal allergic rhinitis; chronic intractable pain; insomnia; ulcerative colitis; acne; psoriatic arthropathy; urticaria; ovarian cancer; attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD); epilepsy; sinusitis. The proportion of patients with important co-morbidity was higher in those seen after visit 6 (56.9%) compared with those seen up to and including that point (40.7%; P < 0.001). The proportion of FU patients reporting ORIDL-PS ≥ +2 (improvement affecting daily living) increased overall with appointment number: 34.5% of patients at visit 2 and 59.3% of patients at visit 6, for example. Amongst the four most frequently treated complaints, the proportion of patients that reported ORIDL-PS ≥ +2 at visit numbers greater than 6 varied between 59.3% (CFS) and 73.3% (menopausal disorder).

Conclusions: We have successfully piloted a process of national clinical data collection using patient-reported outcome in homeopathic hospital outpatients, identifying a wide range and complexity of medical complaints treated in that setting. After a series of homeopathy appointments, a high proportion of patients, often representing “effectiveness gaps” for conventional medical treatment, reported improvement in health affecting their daily living. These pilot findings are informing our developing programme of standard setting for homeopathic care in the hospital outpatient context.

Keywords

Clinical data collection - Homeopathic hospitals - Patient-reported outcomes

• References

• 1 Sharples F., van Haselen R., Fisher P. NHS patients' perspective on complementary medicine. Complement Ther Med 2003; 11: 243-248.
• 2 Spence D., Thompson E.A., Barron S.J. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 5: 793-798.
• 3 Clover A. Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital. Br Homeopath J 2000; 89: 68-72.
• 4 Richardson W.R. Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine. Br Homeopath J 2001; 90: 158-162.
• 5 Reilly D., Mercer S.W., Bikker A.P., Harrison T. Outcome related to impact on daily living: preliminary validation of the ORIDL instrument. BMC Health Serv Res 2007; 7: 139.
• 6 White A., Ernst E. The case for uncontrolled clinical trials: a starting point for the evidence base for CAM. Complement Ther Med 2001; 9: 111-115.
• 7 Walach H., Jonas W.B., Lewith G.T. The role of outcomes research in evaluating complementary and alternative medicine. Altern Ther Health Med 2002; 8: 88-95.
• 8 Shaw A., Thompson E.A., Sharp D. Complementary therapy use by patients and parents of children with asthma and the implications for NHS care: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res 2006; 6: 76.
• 9 Shaw A., Thompson E.A., Sharp D.J. Expectations of patients and parents of children with asthma regarding access to complementary therapy information and services via the NHS: a qualitative study. Health Expect 2006; 9: 343-358.
• 10 Fisher P., van Haselen R., Hardy K. et al. Effectiveness gaps: a new concept for evaluating health service and research needs applied to complementary and alternative medicine. J Altern Complement Med 2004; 10: 627-632.
• 11 Delamothe T. Editorial: What counts?. Br Med J 2 February 2008; 336:   10.1136/bmj.39476.584005.47.
• 12 Chanda P., Furnham A. Does homeopathy work? Part 1: a review of studies on patient and practitioner reports. FACT 2008; 13: 82-89.
• 13 Concato J., Shah N., Horwitz R.I. Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1887-1892.
• 14 Thompson T.D.B., Weiss M. Homeopathy – what are the active ingredients? An exploratory study using the UK Medical Research Council's framework for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Complement Altern Med 2006; 6: 37.
• 15 Wahl A.K., Mørk C., Lillehol B.M. et al. Changes in quality of life in persons with eczema and psoriasis after treatment in departments of dermatology. Acta Derm Venereol 2006; 86: 198-201.