Openly accessible

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

Hancock, SL, Ryan, OF, Marion, V, Kramer, Sharon, Kelly, P, Breen, S and Cadilhac, DA 2020, Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review, BMJ Open, vol. 10, no. 11, pp. 1-25, doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
kramer-feedbackofpatient-2020.pdf Published version application/pdf 597.62KB 7

Title Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
Author(s) Hancock, SL
Ryan, OF
Marion, V
Kramer, Sharon
Kelly, P
Breen, S
Cadilhac, DA
Journal name BMJ Open
Volume number 10
Issue number 11
Article ID e038190
Start page 1
End page 25
Total pages 25
Publisher BMJ
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2020-11-23
ISSN 2044-6055
2044-6055
Keyword(s) Clinical audit
audit
health services administration& management
public health
Summary 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.
Language eng
DOI 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190
Indigenous content off
Field of Research 1103 Clinical Sciences
1117 Public Health and Health Services
1199 Other Medical and Health Sciences
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
Copyright notice ©2020, The Authors
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution non-commercial licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30146373

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: Faculty of Health
School of Nursing and Midwifery
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 0 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 0 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 10 Abstract Views, 8 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Mon, 04 Jan 2021, 11:22:45 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.