Impact on hospital performance of introducing routine patient reported outcome measures in surgery

Journal of Health Services Research & Policy

Volumn 19, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 77-84

  Varagunam, Mira ^a   Hutchings, Andrew ^b   Neuburger, Jenny ^a   Black, Nick ^a  

^a LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^b Health Services/Systems Research   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

health services; quality improvement; surgery

Indexed keywords

AGED; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HERNIA, INGUINAL; HIP ARTHROPLASTY; HOSPITAL; HUMAN; KNEE ARTHROPLASTY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; STANDARDS; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT; UNITED KINGDOM; VARICOSE VEINS; VERY ELDERLY;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, HIP; ARTHROPLASTY, REPLACEMENT, KNEE; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; ENGLAND; FEMALE; HERNIA, INGUINAL; HOSPITALS; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT; VARICOSE VEINS;

EID: 84916882986     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: 17581060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1355819613506187     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery for Great Britain & Ireland. Sixth national adult cardiac surgery database report 2008, http://www.scts.org/_userfiles/resources/SixthNACSDreport2008withcovers.pdf (2008, accessed 11 September 2013).
2. Intensive Care National Audit & Research Centre. Case mix programme, https://www.icnarc.org/CMS/DisplayContent.aspx?root=AUDIT&ID=1c5740fc-24b1-e011-9385-002264a1a658 (accessed 11 September 2013).
3. Berwick DM James B Coye MJ. Connections between quality management and improvement. Med Care 2003; 41(1 suppl): 130–138.
4. Shekelle PG Lim Y-W Mattke S, et al. Does public release of performance results improve quality of care? A systematic review, London: Health Foundation, 2008.
5. Jamtvedt G Young JM Kristoffersen DT, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006; 2: CD000259–CD000259.
6. Hutchings A Durand MA Grieve R, et al. Evaluation of the modernisation of adult critical care services in England: time-series and cost-effectiveness analysis. BMJ 2009; 339: b4353–b4353.
7. Kohli E Ptak J Smith R, et al. Variability in the Hawthorne effect with regard to hand hygiene performance in high- and low-performing inpatient care units. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2009; 30: 222–225.
8. Lorenc T Petticrew M Welch V, et al. What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews. J Epidemiol Comm Health 2013; 67: 190–193.
9. Health & Social Care Information Centre. National PROMs programme, http://www.hesonline.nhs.uk/Ease/servlet/ContentServer?siteID=1937&categoryID=1295 (accessed 11 September 2013).
10. Dew K Cumming J McLeod D, et al. Explicit rationing of elective services: implementing the New Zealand reforms. Health Policy 2005; 74: 1–12.
11. Department of Health. Guidance on the routine collection of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs). London: Department of Health, 2008, http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130107105354/http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_092625.pdf (accessed 11 September 2013).
12. Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation 2007, London: Communities and Local Government Publications, 2007.
13. Dawson J Fitzpatrick R Carr A, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total hip replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1996; 78: 185–190.
14. Dawson J Fitzpatrick R Murray D, et al. Questionnaire on the perceptions of patients about total knee replacement. J Bone Joint Surg 1998; 80: 63–69.
15. Garratt AM MacDonald LM Ruta DA, et al. Towards measurement of outcome for patients with varicose veins. Qual Health Care 1993; 2: 5–10.
16. The EuroQol Group. EuroQol – a new facility for the measurement of health-related quality of life. Health Policy 1990; 16: 199–208.
17. Dolan P. Modelling valuations for EuroQol health states. Med Care 1997; 35: 1095–1108.
18. Smith S, Cano S, Lamping D, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for routine use in treatment centres: recommendations based on a review of the scientific evidence. Report to Department of Health, December 2005.
19. Neuburger J Hutchings A van der Meulen J, et al. Using patient reported outcomes (PROs) to compare the performance of providers: does the choice of measure matter? Med Care 2013; 51: 517–523.
20. Hutchings A Neuburger J van der Meulen J, et al. Estimating recruitment rates for routine use of patient reported outcome measures and the impact on provider comparisons. BMC Health Serv Res. submitted.
21. Hutchings A Neuburger J Gross Frie K, et al. Factors associated with non-response in routine use of patient reported outcome measures after elective surgery in England. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2012; 10: 34–34.
22. Lied TR Kazandjian VA. A Hawthorne strategy: implications for performance measurement and improvement. Clin Perform Qual Health Care 1998; 6: 201–204.
23. Buist M Harrison J Abaloz E, et al. Six year audit of cardiac arrests and medical emergency team calls in an Australian outer metropolitan teaching Hospital. BMJ 2007; 335: 1210–1212.
24. Leonard KL Masatu MC. Using the Hawthorne effect to examine the gap between a doctor's best possible practice and actual performance. J Dev Econ 2010; 93: 226–234.
25. Allwood D Hildon Z Black N. Clinicians' views of formats of performance comparisons. J Eval Clin Pract 2013; 19: 86–93.
26. Hildon Z Allwood D Black N. Making data more meaningful. Patients' views of the format and content of quality indicators comparing health care providers. Patient Educ Couns 2012; 88: 298–304.
27. Yorkshire and Humber Public Health Observatory. PROMs (Patient reported outcome measures). Report for Yorkshire & Humber region, April 2009–April 2010: Pre and post-operative data, November 2010, http://www.yhpho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=119306 (2013, accessed 11 September 2013).