Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Implementation Science
Published in: Implementation Science 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

Surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study

Authors: Maria B Boyce, John P Browne, Joanne Greenhalgh

Published in: Implementation Science | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to provide healthcare professionals with peer benchmarked feedback is growing. However, there is little evidence on the opinions of professionals on the value of this information in practice. The purpose of this research is to explore surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked PROMs feedback and to examine whether this information led to changes in their practice.

Methods

This qualitative research employed a Framework approach. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with surgeons who received peer benchmarked PROMs feedback. The participants included eleven consultant orthopaedic surgeons in the Republic of Ireland.

Results

Five themes were identified: conceptual, methodological, practical, attitudinal, and impact. A typology was developed based on the attitudinal and impact themes from which three distinct groups emerged. ‘Advocates’ had positive attitudes towards PROMs and confirmed that the information promoted a self-reflective process. ‘Converts’ were uncertain about the value of PROMs, which reduced their inclination to use the data. ‘Sceptics’ had negative attitudes towards PROMs and claimed that the information had no impact on their behaviour. The conceptual, methodological and practical factors were linked to the typology.

Conclusion

Surgeons had mixed opinions on the value of peer benchmarked PROMs data. Many appreciated the feedback as it reassured them that their practice was similar to their peers. However, PROMs information alone was considered insufficient to help identify opportunities for quality improvements. The reasons for the observed reluctance of participants to embrace PROMs can be categorised into conceptual, methodological, and practical factors. Policy makers and researchers need to increase professionals’ awareness of the numerous purposes and benefits of using PROMs, challenge the current methods to measure performance using PROMs, and reduce the burden of data collection and information dissemination on routine practice.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Browne J, Browne J, Jamieson L, Lewsey J, van der Meulen J, Black N, Cairns J, Lamping D, Smith S: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Royal College of Surgeons of England. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) in Elective Surgery-Report to the Department of Health. 2007, London: London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
2.
Devlin N, Appleby J: Getting the most out of PROMs: putting health outcomes at the heart of NHS decision-making. Edited by: Weston F. 2010, London: King'd Fund
3.
Boyce MB, Browne JP: Does providing feedback on patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals result in better outcomes for patients?. Syst Rev Qual Life Res. 2013, 22 (9): 2265-78.CrossRef
4.
Greenhalgh J, Long AF, Flynn R: The use of patient reported outcome measures in routine clinical practice: lack of impact or lack of theory?. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 60 (4): 833-843.CrossRefPubMed
5.
Slade M: The use of patient-level outcomes to inform treatment. Epidemiol Psichiatr Soc. 2002, 11 (1): 20-27.PubMed
6.
Santana MJ, Feeny D: Framework to assess the effects of using patient-reported outcome measures in chronic care management. Qual Life Res. 2013, 23 (5): 1505-13.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Bendtsen P, Bendtsen P, Leijon M, Sommer AS, Kristenson M: Measuring health-related quality of life in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in a routine hospital setting: feasibility and perceived value. Health Q Life Outcomes. 2003, 1: 5-5.CrossRef
8.
Appleby J, Devlin N: Measuring success in the NHS-Using patient-assessed health outcomes to manage the performance of healthcare providers. Edited by: Maynard A. 2004, London: Dr Foster Ethics Committee and funded by Dr Foster Limited
9.
10.
11.
12.
Nelson EC: The Darmount Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice. Using Patient-Reported Information to Improve Health Outcomes and Health Care Value: Case Studies from Dartmouth, Karolinska and Group Health. 2012, Darmount: The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and Centre for Population Health
13.
Callaly T, Hyland M, Coombs T, Trauer T: Routine outcome measurement in public mental health: results of a clinician survey. Aust Health Rev. 2006, 30 (2): 164-173.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Meehan T, McCombes S, Hatzipetrou L, Catchpoole R: Introduction of routine outcome measures: staff reactions and issues for consideration. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2006, 13 (5): 581-587.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Pirkis J, Burgess P, Coombs T, Clarke A, Jones-Ellis D, Dickson R: Routine measurement of outcomes in Australia's public sector mental health services. Aust New Zealand Health Policy. 2005, 2 (1): 8-CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
16.
Canadian Institute of Public Health: Health Outcomes of Care: An Idea Whose Time Has Come. 2012, Ottawa, Ontario: Canadian Institute of Public Health
17.
Delnoij DM, Westert GP: Assessing the validity of quality indicators: keep the context in mind!. Eur J Public Health. 2012, 22 (4): 452-453.CrossRefPubMed
18.
NHS: Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS. 2010, London: Department of Health
19.
Greenhalgh J, Meadows K: The effectiveness of the use of patient-based measures of health in routine practice in improving the process and outcomes of patient care: a literature review. J Eval Clin Pract. 1999, 5 (4): 401-416.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Luckett T, Butow PN, King MT: Improving patient outcomes through the routine use of patient-reported data in cancer clinics: future directions. Psychooncology. 2009, 18 (11): 1129-1138.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Espallargues M, Valderas JM, Alonso J: Provision of feedback on perceived health status to health care professionals: a systematic review of its impact. Med Care. 2000, 38 (2): 175-186.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Marshall S, Haywood K, Fitzpatrick R: Impact of patient-reported outcome measures on routine practice: a structured review. J Eval Clin Pract. 2006, 12 (5): 559-568.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Gilbody SM, House AO, Sheldon T: Routine administration of Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and needs assessment instruments to improve psychological outcome–a systematic review. Psychol Med. 2002, 32 (8): 1345-1356.CrossRefPubMed
24.
25.
Valderas JM, Kotzeva A, Espallargues M, Guyatt G, Ferrans CE, Halyard MY, Revicki DA, Symonds T, Parada A, Alonso J: The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature. Qual Life Res. 2008, 17 (2): 179-193.CrossRefPubMed
26.
Boyce MB, Browne JP, Greenhalgh J: The experiences of professionals with using information from patient-reported outcome measures to improve the quality of healthcare: a systematic review of qualitative research. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014, 23 (6): 508-18.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Valderas JM, Fitzpatrick R, Roland M: Using health status to measure NHS performance: another step into the dark for the health reform in England. BMJ Qual Saf. 2012, 21 (4): 352-353.CrossRefPubMed
28.
NHS: Patent Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). An alternative aggregation methodology for case-mix adjustment. Edited by: A.E.A. Team. 2013, London: NHS England
29.
NQF: Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) in Performance Measurement. 2013, Washington: National Quality Forum
30.
Dawson J, Fitzpatrick R, Churchman D, Verjee-Lorenz A, Clayson D: User Manual for the Oxford Hip Score (OHS). Information on development and use of the OHS. 2010, Oxford: University of Oxford
31.
32.
Davis AM, Davis AM, Perruccio AV, Canizares M, Tennant A, Hawker GA, Conaghan PG, Roos EM, Jordan JM, Maillefert JF, Dougados M, Lohmander LS: The development of a short measure of physical function for hip OA HOOS-Physical Function Shortform (HOOS-PS): an OARSI/OMERACT initiative. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008, 16 (5): 551-559.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Hildon Z, Neuburger J, Allwood D, van der Meulen J, Black N: Clinicians' and patients' views of metrics of change derived from patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for comparing providers' performance of surgery. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012, 12: 171-CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
Richie J, Lewis J: Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers- Chapter 9 ‘Carrying out Qualitative Analysis. 2003, London: Sage Publications Ltd
35.
Green J, Thorogood N: QualitativeMethods for Health Resarchers. 2004, London: Sage Publications Ltd
36.
37.
UCC: An Introduction to Research Ethics at UCC. Edited by: U.R.E. Board. 2007, Cork: University College Cork
38.
QSR: NVivo qualitative data analysis software. 2013, Australia: QSR International
39.
Ziebland S, McPherson A: Making sense of qualitative data analysis: an introduction with illustrations from DIPEx (personal experiences of health and illness). Med Educ. 2006, 40 (5): 405-414.CrossRefPubMed
40.
Baker SE, Edwards R: How many qualitative interviews is enough. 2012, Southampton: Natioanl Centre for Research Methods
41.
Harvey WS: Methodological Approaches for Junior Researchers Interviewing Elites: A Multidisciplinary Perspective, in Economic Geography Research Group. 2009, Vancouver: University of British Columbia
42.
Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, Glidewell L, Entwistle V, Eccles MP, Grimshaw JM: What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010, 25 (10): 1229-1245.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Shenton AK: Strategies for ensuring trustworthiness in qualitative research projects. Educ Inf. 2004, 22: 63-75.
44.
Alazzawi S, Bardakos NV, Hadfield SG, Butt U, Beer ZH, Field RE: Patient-reported complications after elective joint replacement surgery: are they correct?. J Bone Joint Surg (Br). 2012, 94 (8): 1120-1125.CrossRef
45.
Berkanovic E, Hurwicz ML, Lachenbruch PA: Concordant and discrepant views of patients' physical functioning. Arthritis Care Res. 1995, 8 (2): 94-101.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Detmar SB, Aaronson NK, Wever LD, Muller M, Schornagel JH: How are you feeling? Who wants to know? Patients' and oncologists' preferences for discussing health-related quality-of-life issues. J Clin Oncol. 2000, 18 (18): 3295-3301.PubMed
47.
Middleton S, Lumby J: Comparing professional and patient outcomes for the same episode of care. Aust J Adv Nurs. 1999, 17 (1): 22-27.PubMed
48.
Newell S, Sanson-Fisher RW, Girgis A, Bonaventura A: How well do medical oncologists' perceptions reflect their patients' reported physical and psychosocial problems? Data from a survey of five oncologists. Cancer. 1998, 83 (8): 1640-1651.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Suarez-Almazor ME, Conner-Spady B, Kendall CJ, Russell AS, Skeith K: Lack of congruence in the ratings of patients' health status by patients and their physicians. Medical Decision Making. Int J Soc Med Decis Making. 2001, 21 (2): 113-121.CrossRef
50.
Allwood D, Hildon Z, Black N: Clinicians' views of formats of performance comparisons. J Eval Clin Practice. 2013, 19 (1): 86-93.CrossRef
51.
AQuA: Advancing Quality 3 Year Business Plan 2013/14 – 2015/16. 2013, Salford: Advancing Quality Programme Office
52.
Deutsch A, Smith L, Gage B, Kelleher C, Garfinkel D: Patient-Reported Outcomes in Performance Measurement. 2012, Washington: National Quality Forum
53.
Cano SJ, Barrett LE, Zajicek JP, Hobart JC: Beyond the reach of traditional analyses: using Rasch to evaluate the DASH in people with multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2011, 17 (2): 214-222.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Hobart J, Cano S: Rating Scales for Clinical Studies in Neurology—Challenges and Opportunities. U S N E U R O L O G Y. 2008, 4 (1): 12-18.
55.
Bamm EL, Rosenbaum P, Wilkins S: Is Health Related Quality Of Life of people living with chronic conditions related to patient satisfaction with care?. Disz Rehabil. 2013, 35 (9): 766-774.CrossRef
56.
Awad SS: Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and post-operative surgical site infections. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2012, 13 (4): 234-237.CrossRef
57.
Stulberg JJ, Delaney CP, Neuhauser DV, Aron DC, Fu P, Koroukian SM: Adherence to surgical care improvement project measures and the association with postoperative infections. JAMA. 2010, 303 (24): 2479-2485.CrossRefPubMed
58.
Lyratzopoulos G, Elliott MN, Barbiere JM, Staetsky L, Paddison CA, Campbell J, Roland M: How can Health Care Organizations be Reliably Compared?: Lessons From a National Survey of Patient Experience. Med Care. 2011, 49 (8): 724-733.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Hall BL, Hamilton BH, Richards K, Bilimoria KY, Cohen ME, Ko CY: Does surgical quality improve in the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program: an evaluation of all participating hospitals. Ann Surg. 2009, 250 (3): 363-376.PubMed
60.
Share DA, Campbell DA, Birkmeyer N, Prager RL, Gurm HS, Moscucci M, Udow-Phillips M, Birkmeyer JD: How a regional collaborative of hospitals and physicians in Michigan cut costs and improved the quality of care. Health Aff (Millwood). 2011, 30 (4): 636-645.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study
Authors
Maria B Boyce
John P Browne
Joanne Greenhalgh
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Implementation Science / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 1748-5908
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-84

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Implementation Science 1/2014 Go to the issue

Research

Using the collaborative intervention planning framework to adapt a health-care manager intervention to a new population and provider group to improve the health of people with serious mental illness

Study protocol

Design, implementation, and evaluation of a knowledge translation intervention to increase organ donation after cardiocirculatory death in Canada: a study protocol

Methodology

Systematic and transparent inclusion of ethical issues and recommendations in clinical practice guidelines: a six-step approach

Methodology

Patients-people-place: developing a framework for researching organizational culture during health service redesign and change

Research

Towards a better understanding of the nomenclature used in information-packaging efforts to support evidence-informed policymaking in low- and middle-income countries

Research

The last one heard: the importance of an early-stage participatory evaluation for programme implementation