Addressing the Need for Public Reporting of Comparative Hospice Quality: A Focus Group Study

Sofaer, Shoshanna; Hopper, Susan S.; Firminger, Kirsten; Naierman, Naomi; Nelson, Marsha

doi:10.1016/s1553-7250(09)35059-x

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2016, SRTR launched 5‐tier summary metrics to improve patient understanding of key metrics. These changes were based on AHRQ best practice guidelines 10–12 . Extensive testing with patients and the general public was conducted on many features of the key metrics 4,8,9 .…”

Section: Recommendations and Resulting Statistical Methods Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference

Israni

Hirose

Segev

et al. 2022

Clinical Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients (SRTR) held a consensus conference in 2012 that examined methods used by SRTR for constructing performance metrics and made recommendations on how to improve program-specific reports. That consensus conference provided 25 recommendations categorized as follows: statistical methods, risk adjustment, and outcomes and data. During the subsequent decade, SRTR has implemented most of these recommendations; these are described in this article along with plans for another consensus conference in 2022. With the present article, SRTR aims to create transparency in the field of transplant metrics and guide discussion in the planning of the next consensus conference in 2022. The new conference will revisit the previous topics and have a broader focus to improve the metrics and information that SRTR provides. Readers can provide feedback on topics to be discussed at the next consensus conference as early as possible, by emailing

show abstract

Section: Recommendations and Resulting Statistical Methods Changesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference

Israni

Hirose

Segev

et al. 2022

Clinical Transplantation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Improving the quality and breadth of public reporting of program outcomes has been a priority of the SRTR and organizations like the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and others for over a decade. [12][13][14][15][16] Much of this work has focused on improving the clinical and regulatory efficacy of program metrics, but there has been a necessary underlying focus on how to make this information accessible to patients. Multidisciplinary teams comprising clinical investigators, social scientists, design experts, and biostatisticians are necessary to negotiate a balance between providing sufficiently robust and yet not overly complex information to patients.…”

Section: Balancing Insight and Accessibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Deconstructing Silos of Knowledge Around Lung Transplantation to Support Patients: A Patient-specific Search of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Data

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Our review of the literature uncovered a single article addressing public reporting for hospice. A 2009 study by Sofaer and colleagues 16 involved a series of focus groups with 2 types of consumers: those with and without previous hospice experience. Their study found important misconceptions of hospice services among consumers with no hospice experience and also identified key priorities for public reporting about hospice, including the provision of data on accreditation, staff characteristics, services available, and quality of services.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What Consumers Want to Know About Quality When Choosing a Hospice Provider

Smith

McDuff

Naierman³

et al. 2014

Am J Hosp Palliat Care

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the availability of endorsed quality measures and widespread usage of hospice, hospice quality data are rarely available to consumers. Moreover, little is known about how consumers prioritize extant measures. This study drew on focus group and survey data collected in 5 metropolitan areas. The study found that consumers reported the hospice quality indicators we tested were easy to understand. Participants placed top priority on measures related to pain and symptom management. Relative to consumers with hospice experience, consumers without previous experience tended to place less value on spiritual support for patients and caregivers, emotional support for caregivers, and after-hours availability. The National Quality Forum-approved measures resonate well with consumers. Consumers also appear to be ready for access to data on the quality of hospice providers.

show abstract

Addressing the Need for Public Reporting of Comparative Hospice Quality: A Focus Group Study

Cited by 5 publications

References 15 publications

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference

Toward continuous improvement of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients performance reporting: Advances following 2012 consensus conference and future consensus building for 2022 consensus conference

Deconstructing Silos of Knowledge Around Lung Transplantation to Support Patients: A Patient-specific Search of Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients Data

What Consumers Want to Know About Quality When Choosing a Hospice Provider

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About