Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: https://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30481
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRyan, Olivia Francis-
dc.contributor.authorHancock, Shaun L-
dc.contributor.authorMarion, Violet-
dc.contributor.authorKelly, Paulette-
dc.contributor.authorKilkenny, Monique F-
dc.contributor.authorClissold, Benjamin-
dc.contributor.authorGunzburg, Penina-
dc.contributor.authorCooke, Shae-
dc.contributor.authorGuy, Lauren-
dc.contributor.authorSanders, Lauren-
dc.contributor.authorBreen, Sibilah-
dc.contributor.authorCadilhac, Dominique A-
dc.date2022-
dc.date.accessioned2022-07-06T06:23:30Z-
dc.date.available2022-07-06T06:23:30Z-
dc.date.issued2022-07-01-
dc.identifier.citationBMJ open 2022; 12(7): e055999en
dc.identifier.urihttps://ahro.austin.org.au/austinjspui/handle/1/30481-
dc.description.abstractPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to measure the patient's perspective of their outcomes following healthcare interventions. The aim of this study was to determine the preferred formats for reporting service-level PROs data to clinicians, researchers and managers to support greater utility of these data to improve healthcare and patient outcomes. Healthcare professionals receiving PRO data feedback at the health service level. An interdisciplinary Project Working Group comprised of clinicians participated in three workshops to codesign reporting templates of summarised PRO data (modified Rankin Scale, EuroQol Five Dimension Descriptive System, EuroQol Visual Analogue Scale and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) using a modified Delphi process. An electronic survey was then distributed to short list the preferred templates among a broad sample of clinical end users. A final workshop was undertaken with the Project Working Group to review results and reach consensus on the final templates. The recommendation of preferred PRO summary data feedback templates and guiding principles for reporting aggregate PRO data to clinicians was the primary outcome. A secondary outcome was the identification of perceived barriers and enablers to the use of PRO data in hospitals. For each outcome measure, quantitative and qualitative data were summarised. 31 Working Group members (19 stroke, 2 psychology, 1 pharmacy, 9 researchers) participated in the workshops, where 25/55 templates were shortlisted for wider assessment. The survey was completed by 114 end users. Strongest preferences were identified for bar charts (37/82 votes, 45%) and stacked bar charts (37/91 votes, 41%). At the final workshop, recommendations to enhance communication of PROs data for comparing health service performance were made including tailoring feedback to professional roles and use of case-mix adjustment to ensure fair comparisons. Our research provides guidance on PROs reporting for optimising data interpretation and comparing hospital performance.en
dc.language.isoeng-
dc.subjectepidemiologyen
dc.subjecthealth & safetyen
dc.subjectpublic healthen
dc.subjectquality in health careen
dc.subjectstrokeen
dc.titleFeedback of aggregate patient-reported outcomes (PROs) data to clinicians and hospital end users: findings from an Australian codesign workshop process.en
dc.typeJournal Articleen
dc.identifier.journaltitleBMJ openen
dc.identifier.affiliationStroke and Ageing Research, Department of Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationVictorian Agency for Health Information, Victoria Department of Health and Human Services, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationNeurosciences Department, Monash Health, Clayton, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationNeurosciences Department, Barwon Health, Geelong, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationPhysiotherapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Physiotherapy, Eastern Health, Box Hill, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationCommunity Based Rehabilitation, Sunshine Hospital, Saint Albans, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Neurosciences, St Vincent's Hospital Melbourne Pty Ltd, Fitzroy, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationDepartment of Medical Education, The University of Melbourne - Parkville Campus, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia..en
dc.identifier.affiliationThe Florey Institute of Neuroscience and Mental Healthen
dc.identifier.pubmedurihttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35777872/en
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055999en
dc.type.contentTexten
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0003-4977-6742en
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-2015-2752en
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3375-287Xen
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-8162-682Xen
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-6643-7035en
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0002-3375-287Xen
dc.identifier.orcidhttp://orcid.org/0000-0001-9896-004Xen
dc.identifier.pubmedid35777872-
item.languageiso639-1en-
item.fulltextNo Fulltext-
item.grantfulltextnone-
item.openairecristypehttp://purl.org/coar/resource_type/c_18cf-
item.cerifentitytypePublications-
item.openairetypeJournal Article-
Appears in Collections:Journal articles
Show simple item record

Page view(s)

14
checked on Dec 24, 2024

Google ScholarTM

Check


Items in AHRO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.