Original paperTowards standard setting for patient-reported outcomes in the NHS homeopathic hospitals
Introduction
The United Kingdom's homeopathic hospitals are located in Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, London and Tunbridge Wells. The five have been an intrinsic part of the country's National Health Service (NHS) since its inception in 1948, and are staffed by medically qualified practitioners who possess additional training and certification in homeopathy. The range of skills and services on offer at each hospital varies in a number of ways. For example, the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital (RLHH) provides a wide range of other Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) services, such as acupuncture, autogenic training and herbal medicine, comprising in total more than 50% of patient appointments. All units have outpatient services only, except Glasgow Homoeopathic Hospital (GHH), which has an additional in-patient service. Services at the other three hospitals are mostly focused on homeopathy only. At Bristol Homeopathic Hospital (BHH), there is a defined package of care, with detailed review at the fifth appointment; other units consider the number of appointments required per patient on a more individual basis. The Liverpool hospital (LHH) is unusual in being part of a Primary Care Trust (PCT), rather than a hospital trust. Continuation of the main PCT contract for patient referrals to Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital (TWHH) is currently under review.
Each of the hospitals has previously reported clinical outcomes data from a wide range of medical complaints.1, 2, 3, 4, 5 In each unit, positive outcome has been reported by about 70% of follow-up (FU) patients overall, indicating the need for research initiatives to establish the positive effects of the homeopathic intervention in particular diagnoses.6, 7 From the perspective of quality assurance and improvement, on the other hand, these patient surveys have each been carried out without an explicit aim of identifying what standard of clinical outcome might reasonably be expected in subjects with a given type and complexity of medical complaint. Moreover, the earlier studies have each used different methods and outcome scoring techniques, without an overarching objective to consider unifying approaches to clinical data collection across all hospitals.
The present report is a first step in a programme of quality assurance, improvement and development across all five homeopathic hospitals. It has the ultimate aim of setting standards for homeopathic practice outcomes in patients with medical complaints commonly treated in the outpatient setting nationally. Here we report our findings from a pilot data collection study for this programme. It represents the first collaborative effort by the five individual hospitals.
- 1.
To pilot the collection of clinical data in the homeopathic hospital outpatient setting, using Outcome Related to Impact on Daily Living (ORIDL) as outcome measure; to record patient-assessed outcome (in main complaint, MC, and well-being, WB) since the first appointment in the current series at that hospital.
- 2.
By obtaining a 4-week sample of clinical data at all five homeopathic hospitals in the UK, to identify the range of medical complaints that doctors treat using homeopathy in hospital outpatients, and thus identify the nature and complexity of complaints most frequently treated nationally.
- 3.
To present a cross section of patient-reported outcome scores by appointment number, including that for the most frequently treated medical complaints.
- 4.
To explore approaches towards standard setting for homeopathic practice outcome in the most frequently treated medical complaints in outpatients treated at the homeopathic hospitals.
Section snippets
Methods
The study design and methods were agreed by all the authors, many of whom are members of the Faculty of Homeopathy's Clinical Audit Sub-Committee. A total of 51 medical practitioners contributed to the data collection – see Acknowledgements. Each hospital confirmed locally that the work did not require Research Ethics Committee approval.
Data collection took place during the four 5-day periods from 5th to 30th March 2007. No individual patient was expected to receive more than a single
Results
The Access database was used at three of the hospitals, and the Excel version at the other two. Electronic format was used in all hospitals except one, where some practitioners used a hard-copy version of the spreadsheet, necessitating subsequent manual data transcription into Excel. There was a low incidence of missing essential data. Only two records were excluded altogether: one was due to missing “Complaint” data; the other was a second appointment for a single patient during the 4-week
Discussion
A systematic approach to the collection of outpatient data in the homeopathic hospital setting was successfully piloted, using ORIDL to record patient-reported change in MC and WB since the first homeopathic appointment. Information has been obtained on patient demographics and on the most frequently treated complaints. The findings illustrate the range and complexity of chronic disease managed within the homeopathic hospitals. The most frequently treated conditions reflect previously published
Conflict of interest
None of the authors has any financial or personal relationships with other people or organisations that could have influenced this work inappropriately.
Acknowledgements
The work was part-funded by the British Homeopathic Association.
We wish to record our thanks to the following practitioners at the homeopathic hospitals who contributed to this clinical data collection:
BHH: Chris Calcott, Julie Geraghty, Moira Hamilton, Michael Handford, Jonathan Hardy, Gill How, Andrew Morrice, Willa Muir, Richard Savage, Elizabeth Thompson, Trevor Thompson, Roy Welford.
GHH: Leonora Coll, Elaine Hamilton, Martin Innes, Robert Leckridge, Jacqueline Mardon, Alan Mathieson, Iain
References (15)
- et al.
NHS patients' perspective on complementary medicine
Complement Ther Med
(2003) Patient benefit survey: Tunbridge Wells Homoeopathic Hospital
Br Homeopath J
(2000)Patient benefit survey: Liverpool Regional Department of Homoeopathic Medicine
Br Homeopath J
(2001)- et al.
Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year university-hospital outpatient observational study
J Altern Complement Med
(2005) - et al.
Outcome related to impact on daily living: preliminary validation of the ORIDL instrument
BMC Health Serv Res
(2007) - et al.
The case for uncontrolled clinical trials: a starting point for the evidence base for CAM
Complement Ther Med
(2001) - et al.
The role of outcomes research in evaluating complementary and alternative medicine
Altern Ther Health Med
(2002)
Cited by (31)
A patient reported outcome measure in homeopathic clinical practice for long-term conditions
2016, HomeopathyCitation Excerpt :The difference in improvement between completers and non-completers was small, but clinically significant for the profile score, symptom 1 and almost moderate for activity, whereas it was not clinically significant for symptom 2 and wellbeing. As with other data collection initiatives using various types of patient reported outcome measures5,22,23,24,26,27,28 we have demonstrated clinical benefit as measured across a wide range of long term conditions. There have been other published data sets where MYMOP has been used to assess homeopathic treatment in NHS settings (e.g. Ref. 11).
The Making cases count intiative
2014, Complementary Therapies in MedicineHomoeopathy in the public health system: Outcome data from the homoeopathic clinic of the Campo di Marte Hospital, Lucca, Italy (1998-2010)
2014, European Journal of Integrative MedicineCitation Excerpt :With regard to the diseases for which a homoeopathic therapy is requested, our data are similar to those reported by Steinsbekk A. (2003) for respiratory and dermatological diseases [24]; psychological diseases [22]; eczema [23]; musculo-skeletal disorders [25]. The diseases presenting were quite different from those reported by Thompson (2008), for whom the most frequently observed were eczema, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), menopausal disorders and osteoarthritis [26]. In our data 90% of patients had an improvement if we take into account GHHOS values from +1 to +4, 69% if we take into account values from +2 to +4, and 47% if we consider only major improvements (GHHOS +3+4).
Plant-based ointments versus usual care in the management of chronic skin diseases: A comparative analysis on outcome and safety
2013, Complementary Therapies in Medicine