Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review

被引:22
|
作者
Hancock, Shaun L. [1 ]
Ryan, Olivia F. [1 ]
Marion, Violet [1 ]
Kramer, Sharon [2 ,3 ]
Kelly, Paulette [4 ]
Breen, Sibilah [1 ]
Cadilhac, Dominique A. [1 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Florey Inst Neurosci & Mental Hlth, Publ Hlth & Hlth Serv Res Grp, Stroke Theme, Austin Campus, Heidelberg, Vic, Australia
[2] Florey Inst Neurosci & Mental Hlth, AVERT Early Rehabil Res, Stroke Theme, Heidelberg, Vic, Australia
[3] Deakin Univ, Sch Nursing & Midwifery, Fac Hlth, Ctr Qual & Patient Safety Res,Alfred Hlth Partner, Burwood, Vic, Australia
[4] Victorian Govt, Dept Hlth & Human Serv, Corp Serv, Health Serv Data,Customer Support Branch, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[5] Monash Univ, Med, Clayton, Vic, Australia
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2020年 / 10卷 / 11期
关键词
Clinical audit; public health; audit; health services administration& management; TRAINING CLINICIAN; QUALITY; STROKE; PRO; IMPROVE; INTERVENTIONS; DASHBOARDS; DESIGN; AUDIT;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for 'service-level' feedback to healthcare professionals. Setting Healthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level. Data sources Databases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: 'patient-reported outcome measures', 'patient-reported outcomes', 'patient-centred care', 'value-based care', 'quality improvement' and 'feedback'. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019. Primary and secondary outcome measures Data were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness. Results Overall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified. Conclusion While a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.
引用
收藏
页数:25
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review
    Boyce, Maria B.
    Browne, John P.
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2013, 22 (09) : 2265 - 2278
  • [2] Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients? A systematic review
    Maria B. Boyce
    John P. Browne
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2013, 22 : 2265 - 2278
  • [3] Healthcare and Usability Professionals' Performance in Reflecting on Visualized Patient-Reported Outcomes
    Scherf, Jannick
    Mentler, Tilo
    Herczeg, Michael
    [J]. 2020 8TH IEEE INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON HEALTHCARE INFORMATICS (ICHI 2020), 2020, : 477 - 479
  • [4] Does feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in an improvement in patient outcomes? A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Boyce, Maria B.
    Browne, John
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2012, 21 : 25 - 25
  • [5] Patient-Reported Outcomes in Sarcoma: A scoping review
    Almeida, Ana
    Martins, Teresa
    Lima, Ligia
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY NURSING, 2021, 50
  • [6] Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures in liver transplantation: a scoping review
    Vedadi, Ali
    Khairalla, Roula
    Che, Adrian
    Nagee, Ahsas
    Saqib, Mohammed
    Ayub, Ali
    Wasim, Aghna
    Macanovic, Sara
    Orchanian-Cheff, Ani
    Selzner-Malekkiani, Nazia
    Bartlett, Susan
    Mucsi, Istvan
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2023, 32 (09) : 2435 - 2445
  • [7] Patient-reported outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures in liver transplantation: a scoping review
    Ali Vedadi
    Roula Khairalla
    Adrian Che
    Ahsas Nagee
    Mohammed Saqib
    Ali Ayub
    Aghna Wasim
    Sara Macanovic
    Ani Orchanian-Cheff
    Nazia Selzner-Malekkiani
    Susan Bartlett
    Istvan Mucsi
    [J]. Quality of Life Research, 2023, 32 : 2435 - 2445
  • [8] Patient-reported outcomes in cirrhosis: A scoping review of the literature
    Tapper, Elliot B.
    Kanwal, Fasiha
    Asrani, Sumeet K.
    Ho, Chanda
    Ovchinsky, Nadia
    Poterucha, John
    Flores, Avegail
    Smith, Judith E.
    Ankoma-Sey, Victor
    Luxon, Bruce
    Volk, Michael L.
    [J]. HEPATOLOGY, 2018, 67 (06) : 2375 - 2383
  • [9] Measuring patient-reported mental health outcomes in youth with neurodevelopmental disorders: a scoping review
    McCabe, Erin
    Amarbayan, Mungunzul
    Wittevrongel, Krystle
    Bajgain, Kalpana Thapa
    Naqvi, Syeda Farwa
    Fairie, Paul
    Santana, Maria
    Zwicker, Jennifer
    [J]. QUALITY OF LIFE RESEARCH, 2022, 31 : S54 - S55
  • [10] A Scoping Review of US Insurers Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes '
    Hanmer, Janel
    Cizik, Amy M.
    Gulek, Bernice G.
    McCracken, Polly
    Swart, Elizabeth C. S.
    Turner, Rose
    Kinsky, Suzanne M.
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF MANAGED CARE, 2022, 28 (06): : E232 - +