Cargando…

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

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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hancock, Shaun L, Ryan, Olivia F, Marion, Violet, Kramer, Sharon, Kelly, Paulette, Breen, Sibilah, Cadilhac, Dominique A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7684821/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33234623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190
_version_ 1783613074627887104
author Hancock, Shaun L
Ryan, Olivia F
Marion, Violet
Kramer, Sharon
Kelly, Paulette
Breen, Sibilah
Cadilhac, Dominique A
author_facet Hancock, Shaun L
Ryan, Olivia F
Marion, Violet
Kramer, Sharon
Kelly, Paulette
Breen, Sibilah
Cadilhac, Dominique A
author_sort Hancock, Shaun L
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7684821
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-76848212020-11-30 Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review Hancock, Shaun L Ryan, Olivia F Marion, Violet Kramer, Sharon Kelly, Paulette Breen, Sibilah Cadilhac, Dominique A BMJ Open Public Health 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-11-23 /pmc/articles/PMC7684821/ /pubmed/33234623 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.
spellingShingle Public Health
Hancock, Shaun L
Ryan, Olivia F
Marion, Violet
Kramer, Sharon
Kelly, Paulette
Breen, Sibilah
Cadilhac, Dominique A
Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
title Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
title_full Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
title_fullStr Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
title_full_unstemmed Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
title_short Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
title_sort feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review
topic Public Health
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7684821/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33234623
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-038190
work_keys_str_mv AT hancockshaunl feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview
AT ryanoliviaf feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview
AT marionviolet feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview
AT kramersharon feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview
AT kellypaulette feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview
AT breensibilah feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview
AT cadilhacdominiquea feedbackofpatientreportedoutcomestohealthcareprofessionalsforcomparinghealthserviceperformanceascopingreview