Literature DB >> 22098070

Clinicians' views of formats of performance comparisons.

Dominique Allwood1, Zoe Hildon, Nick Black.   

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: Comparisons of the performance of health care providers are increasingly being used. Despite one key audience being clinicians, there has been little research on the format and content of such comparisons. Our aim was to explore clinicians' comprehension and preferences of format and content in displaying provider outcomes using comparisons of patient reported outcome measures data.
METHOD: A qualitative study, based on seven meetings involving 107 clinicians (mostly consultant and junior doctors, and nurses), revealed their views on nine formats and five aspects of content.
RESULTS: Key findings were the desire for data in more than one format, explicit display of comparative performance (rank order) and the need for explanations (e.g. of unfamiliar formats and of statistical uncertainty).
CONCLUSIONS: Several themes were identified that shaped clinicians' views. Results were sufficiently clear to permit recommendations for the form and content of standard reports for the National Health Service.
© 2011 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22098070     DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01777.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  8 in total

1.  Patients' and clinicians' views of comparing the performance of providers of surgery: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Zoe Hildon; Dominique Allwood; Nick Black
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2012-12-20       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Feedback of aggregate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data to clinicians and hospital end users: findings from an Australian codesign workshop process.

Authors:  Olivia Francis Ryan; Shaun L Hancock; Violet Marion; Paulette Kelly; Monique F Kilkenny; Benjamin Clissold; Penina Gunzburg; Shae Cooke; Lauren Guy; Lauren Sanders; Sibilah Breen; Dominique A Cadilhac
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-07-01       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  Prosthetists' perceptions of information obtained from a lower limb prosthesis monitoring system: a pilot study.

Authors:  Geoffrey S Balkman; Andrew C Vamos; Joan E Sanders; Brian G Larsen; Brian J Hafner
Journal:  J Prosthet Orthot       Date:  2019-04

4.  Clinicians' and patients' views of metrics of change derived from patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for comparing providers' performance of surgery.

Authors:  Zoe Hildon; Jenny Neuburger; Dominique Allwood; Jan van der Meulen; Nick Black
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 2.655

Review 5.  Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review.

Authors:  Shaun L Hancock; Olivia F Ryan; Violet Marion; Sharon Kramer; Paulette Kelly; Sibilah Breen; Dominique A Cadilhac
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Surgeon's experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Maria B Boyce; John P Browne; Joanne Greenhalgh
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2014-06-27       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  Healthcare professionals' views on feedback of a patient safety culture assessment.

Authors:  Nicolien C Zwijnenberg; Michelle Hendriks; Janneke Hoogervorst-Schilp; Cordula Wagner
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-06-17       Impact factor: 2.655

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.