Literature DB >> 18578202

Stakeholder preferences for cancer care performance indicators.

Anna Gagliardi1, Louise Lemieux-Charles, Adalsteinn Brown, Terry Sullivan, Vivek Goel.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to show that performance data use could be promoted with a better understanding of the type of indicators that are important to different stakeholders. This study explored patient, nurse, physician and manager preferences for cancer care quality indicators. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: Interviews were held with 30 stakeholders between March and June 2004. They were asked to describe how they would use a cancer "report card", and which indicators they would want reported. Transcripts were reviewed using qualitative analysis.
FINDINGS: Role (patient, nurse, physician, manager) influenced preferences and perceived use of performance data. Patients and physicians were more skeptical than nurses and managers; patients and managers expressed some preferences distinct from nurses and physicians; and patients and nurses interpreted indicators more broadly than physicians and managers. All groups preferred technical process over outcome or interpersonal process indicators. RESEARCH LIMITATIONS/IMPLICATIONS: Expressed views are not directly applicable beyond this setting, or to the general public but findings are congruent with attitudes to performance data for other conditions, and serve as a conceptual basis for further study. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Strategies for maximizing the relevance of performance reports might include technical process indicators, selection by multi-stakeholder deliberation, information that facilitates information application and customizable report interfaces. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Performance data preferences have not been thoroughly examined, particularly in the context of cancer care. Factors were identified that influence stakeholder views of performance data, and this framework could be used to confirm findings among larger and different populations.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18578202     DOI: 10.1108/09526860810859030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Int J Health Care Qual Assur        ISSN: 0952-6862


  12 in total

1.  The Value of Performance Measurement in Promoting Improvements in Women's Health.

Authors:  Emily C Y Siu; Carey Levinton; Adalsteinn D Brown
Journal:  Healthc Policy       Date:  2009-11

2.  S-MEDUTA: Combining Balanced Scorecard with Simulation and MCDA Techniques for the Evaluation of the Strategic Performance of an Emergency Department.

Authors:  Panagiotis Manolitzas; Evangelos Grigoroudis; Jason Christodoulou; Nikolaos Matsatsinis
Journal:  Adv Exp Med Biol       Date:  2020       Impact factor: 2.622

3.  Validation of a Comprehensive Patient Experience Survey for Addiction and Mental Health that was Co-designed with Service Users.

Authors:  Shawn R Currie; Priscilla Liu; Jassandre Adamyk-Simpson; Jesse Stanich
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2020-01-01

4.  Consensus group sessions: a useful method to reconcile stakeholders' perspectives about network performance evaluation.

Authors:  Marie-Eve Lamontagne; Bonnie R Swaine; André Lavoie; François Champagne; Anne-Claire Marcotte
Journal:  Int J Integr Care       Date:  2010-12-09       Impact factor: 5.120

5.  How can diagnostic assessment programs be implemented to enhance inter-professional collaborative care for cancer?

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Terri Stuart-McEwan; Julie Gilbert; Frances C Wright; Jeffrey Hoch; Melissa C Brouwers; Mark J Dobrow; Thomas K Waddell; David R McCready
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-01-03       Impact factor: 7.327

6.  Public performance reporting and hospital choice: a cross-sectional study of patients undergoing cancer surgery in the Australian private healthcare sector.

Authors:  Khic-Houy Prang; Rachel Canaway; Marie Bismark; David Dunt; Julie A Miller; Margaret Kelaher
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Varying viewpoints of Belgian stakeholders on models of interhospital collaboration.

Authors:  Melissa De Regge; Kaat De Pourcq; Paul Gemmel; Carine Van de Voorde; Koen Van den Heede; Kristof Eeckloo
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  Involving patients in quality indicator development - a systematic review.

Authors:  Thomas Kötter; Friederike Anna Schaefer; Martin Scherer; Eva Blozik
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.711

9.  Developing a patient and family-centred approach for measuring the quality of injury care: a study protocol.

Authors:  Henry T Stelfox; Jamie M Boyd; Sharon E Straus; Anna R Gagliardi
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2013-01-27       Impact factor: 2.655

10.  A qualitative analysis of a consensus process to develop quality indicators of injury care.

Authors:  Niklas Bobrovitz; Julia S Parrilla; Maria Santana; Sharon E Straus; Henry T Stelfox
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2013-04-18       Impact factor: 7.327

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.