P3.15-05 Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) as Performance Measures After Surgery for Lung Cancer

Brønserud, Majken M.; Iachina, Maria; Green, A.; Grønvold, Mogens; Jakobsen, Erik

doi:10.1016/j.jtho.2018.08.1881

Cited by 1 publication

(11 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Three studies were found through hand searching [24][25][26]. Finally, 13 quantitative studies [24,25,[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] and three qualitative studies [10,11,37] met the inclusion criteria. Research questions 1 and 2 are addressed in the "Quantitative studies" section, and research question 3 is addressed in the "Qualitative studies" section.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neither randomized study was able to blind healthcare professionals to the intervention provided, although since receipt or non-receipt of feedback in these studies could not be disguised, this was not weighed as poor quality. Lack of complete outcome data was a shortcoming in five of the studies [24,26,29,30,33,34]. In addition, for two descriptive studies [31,35], it was not possible to assess response bias.…”

Section: Quality Of the Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The search yielded two randomized controlled trials [24,28], eight non-randomized controlled studies [25-27, 29, 30, 33, 34, 36] and three single-centre descriptive studies [31,32,35]. Studies were performed in the United States [24,26,27,35], United Kingdom [30,32,34], Netherlands [25,33], Sweden [31], Denmark [29], Canada [36] and Ireland [28]. Twelve studies focused on patients from surgical specialties, including orthopaedic [26,28,30,32,35], thoracic [29,33], urologic [27,36], ophthalmic [31], rhinoplastic [25] and general surgery [34].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies were performed in the United States [24,26,27,35], United Kingdom [30,32,34], Netherlands [25,33], Sweden [31], Denmark [29], Canada [36] and Ireland [28]. Twelve studies focused on patients from surgical specialties, including orthopaedic [26,28,30,32,35], thoracic [29,33], urologic [27,36], ophthalmic [31], rhinoplastic [25] and general surgery [34]. One study focused on primary care [24].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One study focused on primary care [24]. In eight studies, data were obtained from a regional or national quality registry [27,[29][30][31][32][33][34][35]. The included studies used generic PROMs [30,33], disease-specific PROMs [25,27,29,31] or a combination of generic and specific PROMs [24,26,28,32,[34][35][36].…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Quality improvements of healthcare trajectories by learning from aggregated patient-reported outcomes: a mixed-methods systematic literature review

Dorr

Hof

Jelsma

et al. 2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In healthcare, analysing patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on an aggregated level can improve and regulate healthcare for specific patient populations (meso level). This mixed-methods systematic review aimed to summarize and describe the effectiveness of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs. Additionally, it aimed to describe barriers, facilitators and lessons learned when using these quality improvement methods. Methods A mixed-methods systematic review was conducted. Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies that described, implemented or evaluated a quality improvement method based on aggregated PROMs in the curative hospital setting. Quality assessment was conducted via the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Quantitative data were synthesized into a narrative summary of the characteristics and findings. For the qualitative analysis, a thematic synthesis was conducted. Results From 2360 unique search records, 13 quantitative and three qualitative studies were included. Four quality improvement methods were identified: benchmarking, plan-do-study-act cycle, dashboards and internal statistical analysis. Five studies reported on the effectiveness of the use of aggregated PROMs, of which four identified no effect and one a positive effect. The qualitative analysis identified the following themes for facilitators and barriers: (1) conceptual (i.e. stakeholders, subjectivity of PROMs, aligning PROMs with clinical data, PROMs versus patient-reported experience measures [PREMs]); (2a) methodological—data collection (i.e. choice, timing, response rate and focus); (2b) methodological—data processing (i.e. representativeness, responsibility, case-mix control, interpretation); (3) practical (i.e. resources). Conclusion The results showed little to no effect of quality improvement methods based on aggregated PROMs, but more empirical research is needed to investigate different quality improvement methods. A shared stakeholder vision, selection of PROMs, timing of measurement and feedback, information on interpretation of data, reduction of missing data, and resources for data collection and feedback infrastructure are important to consider when implementing and evaluating quality improvement methods in future research.

show abstract