Literature DB >> 15284325

Outcome monitoring to facilitate clinical governance; experience from a national programme in the independent sector.

Andrew Vallance-Owen, Sally Cubbin, Virginia Warren, Brian Matthews.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Since 1998 BUPA has used the Short-Form 36 (SF-36) questionnaire to monitor changes in health status after adult elective surgery. Over 70 independent hospitals across the United Kingdom have collected data on over 100000 patient episodes. SF-36 is one of a number of tools that support clinical governance in the sector. Results are reported confidentially, putting the emphasis on supporting a learning culture. FORMULATION OF PROBLEMS APPARENT AT 3 YEARS: Feedback was sub-optimal: discussions with hospital staff and consultants revealed that the league tables were hard to interpret, and there was uncertainty about the definition of outlier results. The number of patients recruited to the survey was variable across the hospitals. No grouping of low-volume procedures met with agreement. ACTION PLAN FOR YEAR 4: Use 'Shewhart' control charts to distinguish common and special cause variation in results; substitute a condition-specific tool in one instance; adoption of an 'alert' process to prompt local audit of unusual results; use of a reminder letter to improve return rate of follow-up questionnaires; and focus programme on a list of 20 common procedures. Discuss these changes with the managerial and clinical leaders of each of BUPA's hospitals. CURRENT POSITION AT YEAR 5 : The use of Shewhart charts has been welcomed by managers and clinicians at BUPA's hospitals. The renewed confidence in the programme has encouraged constructive debate into allowing wider access to previously confidential results. Some changes in clinical practice have occurred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15284325     DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdh127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Public Health (Oxf)        ISSN: 1741-3842            Impact factor:   2.341


  6 in total

1.  Patient and public involvement in patient-reported outcome measures: evolution not revolution.

Authors:  Sophie Staniszewska; Kirstie L Haywood; Jo Brett; Liz Tutton
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2012       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Respondent satisfaction regarding SF-36 and EQ-5D, and patients' perspectives concerning health outcome assessment within routine health care.

Authors:  Evalill Nilsson; Marika Wenemark; Preben Bendtsen; Margareta Kristenson
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-10-09       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  Patient reported outcome measurement: learning to walk before we run.

Authors:  Alan Maynard; Karen Bloor
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 18.000

4.  Assessment of technical equipment supply in healthcare institutions: example of Almaty.

Authors:  Kuralbai K Kurakbayev; Daniyar S Issayev; Murat K Koshimbekov; Ainur B Kumar
Journal:  J Res Med Sci       Date:  2014-09       Impact factor: 1.852

5.  Patients' attitudes and perceptions of two health-related quality-of-life questionnaires used to collect patient-reported outcome measures in the English National Health Service: A qualitative study of patients undergoing cardiac interventions.

Authors:  Bashir M Matata; Susan Hinder; Sharon Steele; Elizabeth Gibbons; Mark Jackson
Journal:  SAGE Open Med       Date:  2013-09-25

6.  Usage of glaucoma-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the Singapore context: a qualitative scoping exercise.

Authors:  Owen Kim Hee; Zheng-Xian Thng; Hong-Yuan Zhu; Ecosse Luc Lamoureux
Journal:  BMC Ophthalmol       Date:  2018-08-14       Impact factor: 2.209

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.