Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Hancock SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7684821 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Hancock Shaun L SL Ryan Olivia F OF Marion Violet V Kramer Sharon S Kelly Paulette P Breen Sibilah S Cadilhac Dominique A DA

BMJ open 20201123 11

<h4>Objective</h4>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 me ...[more]

PMID: 33234623

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare services regularly receive patient feedback, most of which is positive. Empirical studies suggest that health services can use positive feedback to create patient benefit. Our aim was to map all available empirical evidence for how positive patient feedback creates change in healthcare settings.MethodsEmpirical studies in English were systematically identified through database searches (ACM Digital Library, AMED, ASSIA, CINAHL, MEDLINE and PsycINFO), forwards and backwards citation, and expert consultation. We summarise the characteristics of included studies and the feedback they consider, present a thematic synthesis of qualitative findings, and provide narrative summaries of quantitative findings.Results68 papers were included, describing research conducted across six continents, with qualitative (n = 51), quantitative (n = 10), and mixed (n = 7) methods. Only two studies were interventional. The most common settings were hospitals (n = 27) and community healthcare (n = 19). The most common recipients were nurses (n = 29). Most outcomes described were desirable. These were categorised as (a) short-term emotional change for healthcare workers (including feeling motivated and improved psychological wellbeing); (b) work-home interactional change for healthcare workers (such as improved home-life relationships); (c) work-related change for healthcare workers (such as improved performance and staff retention). Some undesirable outcomes were described, including envy when not receiving positive feedback. The impact of feedback may be moderated by characteristics of particular healthcare roles, such as night shift workers having less interaction time with patients. Some factors moderating the change created by feedback are modifiable.ConclusionFurther interventional research is required to assess the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of receiving positive feedback in creating specific forms of change such as increases in staff retention. Healthcare managers may wish to use positive feedback more regularly, and to address barriers to staff receiving feedback.

Project description:By assessing patient safety culture, healthcare providers can identify areas for improvement in patient safety culture. To achieve this, these assessment outcomes have to be relevant and presented clearly. The aim of our study was to explore healthcare professionals' views on the feedback of a patient safety culture assessment.Twenty four hospitals participated in a patient safety culture assessment in 2012. Hospital departments received feedback in a report and on a website. In a survey, we evaluated healthcare professionals' views on this feedback and the effect of additional information about patient safety culture improvement strategies on the appraisal of the feedback. 20 hospitals participated in part I (evaluation of the report), 13 hospitals participated in part II (evaluation of the website).Healthcare professionals (e.g. members of staff and department heads/managers) rated the feedback in the report and on the website positively (average mean on different aspects?=?7.2 on a scale from 1 to 10). Interpreting results was sometimes difficult, and information was sometimes lacking, like specific recommendations and improvement strategies. The provision of additional general information on patient safety culture improvement strategies resulted only in a higher appraisal of the attractiveness (lay-out) of the report and the understandability of the feedback report. The majority (84 %) of the healthcare professionals agreed or partly agreed that the feedback on patient safety culture stimulated actions to improve patient safety culture. However, a quarter also stated that although the feedback report provided insight into the patient safety culture, they did not know how to improve patient safety culture in their hospital.Healthcare professionals seem to be positive about the feedback on patient safety culture and its effect on stimulating patient safety culture improvement. To optimally tune feedback on patient safety culture towards healthcare professionals, the following might help: 1) pay attention to the understandability of outcomes for its intended users; and 2) create feedback that is tailored towards specific hospital departments.

Project description:ObjectivesSepsis awareness and understanding are important aspects of prevention, recognition, and clinical management of sepsis. We conducted a scoping review to identify and map the literature related to sepsis awareness, general knowledge, and information-seeking behaviors with a goal to inform future sepsis research and knowledge translation campaigns.DesignScoping review.SettingUsing Arksey and O'Malley's methodological framework, we conducted a systematic search on May 3, 2021, across four databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Education Research Complete). Title/abstract and full-text screening was done in duplicate. One researcher extracted the data for each included article, and a second researcher checked data accuracy. The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YX7AU ).SubjectsArticles related to sepsis awareness, knowledge, and information seeking behaviors among patients, public, and healthcare professionals.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsOf 5,927 unique studies, 80 reported on patient ( n = 13/80;16.3%), public ( n = 15/80;18.8%), or healthcare professional (nurses, physicians, emergency medical technicians) ( n = 48/80; 60%) awareness and knowledge of sepsis. Healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis is high compared with patients/public. The proportion of patients/public who had heard of the term sepsis ranged from 2% (Japan) to 88.6% (Germany). The proportions of patients/public who correctly identified the definition of sepsis ranged from 4.2% (Singapore) to 92% (Sweden). The results from the included studies appear to suggest that patient/public awareness of sepsis gradually improved over time. We found that the definition of sepsis was inconsistent in the literature and that few studies reported on patient, public, or healthcare professional knowledge of sepsis risk factors. Most patient/public get their sepsis information from the internet, whereas healthcare professionals get it from their role in healthcare through job training or educational training.ConclusionsPatient, public, and healthcare professional awareness and knowledge of sepsis vary globally. Future research may benefit from a consistent definition as well as country-specific data to support targeted public awareness campaigns.

Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this scoping review is to identify and summarize patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that are being used to track long-term patient-reported outcomes (PROs) after injury and can potentially be included in trauma registries.MethodsOnline databases were used to identify studies published between 2013 and 2019, from which we selected 747 articles that involved survivors of acute physical traumatic injury aged 18 years or older at time of injury and used PROMs to evaluate recovery between 6 months and 10 years postinjury. Data were extracted and summarized using descriptive statistics and a narrative synthesis of the results.ResultsMost studies were observational, with relatively small sample sizes, and predominantly on traumatic brain injury or orthopedic patients. The number of PROs assessed per study varied from one to 12, for a total of 2052 PROs extracted, yielding 74 unique constructs (physical health, 25 [34%]; mental health, 27 [37%]; social health, 12 [16%]; cognitive health, 7 [10%]; and quality of life, 3 [4%]). These 74 constructs were assessed using 355 different PROMs. Mental health was the most frequently examined outcome domain followed by physical health. Health-related quality of life, which appeared in more than half of the studies (n = 401), was the most common PRO evaluated, followed by depressive symptoms. Physical health was the domain with the highest number of PROMs used (n = 157), and lower-extremity functionality was the PRO that contributed most PROMs (n = 33).ConclusionWe identified a wide variety of PROMs available to track long-term PROs after injury in five different health domains: physical, mental, social, cognitive, and quality of life. However, efforts to fully understand the health outcomes of trauma patients remain inconsistent and insufficient. Defining PROs that should be prioritized and standardizing the PROMs to measure them will facilitate the incorporation of long-term outcomes in national registries to improve research and quality of care.Level of evidenceSystematic Reviews & Meta-analyses, Level IV.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets