References | Aim | Design | Setting | PROM | Quality improvement method | Outcome |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Boyce et al. [28] | To assess whether peer-benchmarked feedback is effective in improving patient outcomes | Randomized | Orthopaedics N = 21 surgeons Ireland | Oxford Hip Score (DS) Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS) EuroQol 5D (G) | Peer-benchmarked feedback and educational intervention | (−) No effect from peer-benchmarked feedback was found on patient-reported outcomes |
Weingarten et al. [24] | To determine whether providing physicians with peer-comparison feedback can improve patient functional status | Randomized | Primary care N = 48 surgeons United States | Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project chart | Peer-comparison feedback and educational intervention | (−) No improvement in patient functional status |
Varagunam et al. [34] | To determine the impact of introduction of PROMs on the selection of patients and on outcome | Non-randomized | General surgery N = 409 surgeons United Kingdom | Oxford Hip Score (DS) Oxford Knee Score (DS) Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire (DS) EuroQol 5D | Peer-benchmarked feedback | (±) No to minimal impact of routine use and feedback of PROMs was found |
Kumar et al. [36] | To determine whether providing surgical report cards to surgeons resulted in improved patient outcomes | Non-randomized | Urologic surgery N = 8 surgeons Canada | Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (DS) EuroQol 5D (G) | Peer-benchmarked feedback | (−) No improvement in functional or oncologic outcomes |
Van Veghel et al. [33] | To assess patient-relevant outcomes of delivered cardiovascular care, to establish and share best practices by comparing outcomes and to embed value-based decision-making to improve quality and efficiency | Non-randomized | Cardiac surgery N = 12 centres Netherlands | Short Form Health Survey 36 (G) Short Form Health Survey 12 (G) | PDSA cycle and benchmarking | Not applicable |
Bronserüd et al. [29] | To propose a model for the use of PROMs as quality indicators, enabling comparison across surgical departments | Non-randomized | Thoracic surgery N = 4 departments Denmark | EORTC-QLQ-C30 (DS) | Benchmarking surgical departments | Not applicable |
Van Zijl et al. [25] | To present a method to measure and evaluate data-based performance | Non-randomized | Rhinologic surgery N = 1 surgeon Netherlands | Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (DS) Utrecht Questionnaire (DS) Visual analogue scale (DS) | Information technology (IT) application Dashboarding | Not applicable |
Reilly et al. [26] | To develop a novel approach to consistently and pragmatically measure the value of total knee and hip arthroplasty | Non-randomized | Orthopaedics N = 6 surgeons | Physical function domain from the PROMIS-10 (G) Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS) Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS) | IT application Dashboarding | Not applicable |
Lucas et al. [27] | To report on the establishment of a web-based collection system and measure variability in outcome among practice groups | Non-randomized | Urologic surgery N > 40 centres United States | Symptom Tracking and Reporting (DS) | Benchmarked reports for individual surgeons | Not applicable |
Gutacker et al. 2013 [30] | To measure the extent to which treatment impact varies across hospitals | Non-randomized | Orthopaedics N > 153 hospitals United Kingdom | EuroQol 5D (G) | Hospital benchmarking | Not applicable |
Partridge et al. [32] | To improve PROMs after implementation of evidence-based change in practice | Descriptive | Orthopaedics N = 14 surgeons United Kingdom | Oxford Knee Score (DS) EuroQol 5D (G) | PDSA cycle | (+) Significant improvement on the Oxford Knee Score and EQ-5D |
Lundström et al. [31] | To analyse three models enabling data connection between PROMs and clinical data in order to identify opportunities for improvement of quality of care | Descriptive | Ophthalmology N = 41 surgeons Sweden | Catquest-9SF (DS) | Aggregated internal analyses | Not applicable |
Zheng et al. [35] | To present the design and implementation of a website which is able to return comparative patient-reported outcome reports for participating surgeons in order to monitor and improve quality and health outcomes | Descriptive | Orthopaedics N > 130 surgeons United States | Short Form Health Survey 36 (G) Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS) | Site, practice and individual benchmarking | Not applicable |