Surgeons' experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study

Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10147/324304
Title:
Surgeons' experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study
Authors:
Boyce, Maria B; Browne, John P; Greenhalgh, Joanne
Citation:
Boyce MB, Browne JB, Greenhalgh J.Surgeons' experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study. Implementation Science. 2014 Jun 27;9(1):84
Issue Date:
27-Jun-2014
URI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-84; http://hdl.handle.net/10147/324304
Abstract:
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.
Item Type:
Article
Language:
en
Keywords:
SURGERY; PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Local subject classification:
SURGERY, ORTHOPAEDIC

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBoyce, Maria Ben_GB
dc.contributor.authorBrowne, John Pen_GB
dc.contributor.authorGreenhalgh, Joanneen_GB
dc.date.accessioned2014-08-06T09:12:53Z-
dc.date.available2014-08-06T09:12:53Z-
dc.date.issued2014-06-27-
dc.identifier.citationBoyce MB, Browne JB, Greenhalgh J.Surgeons' experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study. Implementation Science. 2014 Jun 27;9(1):84en_GB
dc.identifier.urihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-9-84-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10147/324304-
dc.description.abstractAbstract 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.-
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectSURGERYen_GB
dc.subjectPROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENTen_GB
dc.subject.otherSURGERY, ORTHOPAEDICen_GB
dc.titleSurgeons' experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative studyen_GB
dc.typeArticleen
dc.language.rfc3066en-
dc.rights.holderMaria B Boyce et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.-
dc.description.statusPeer Reviewed-
dc.date.updated2014-08-01T11:21:17Z-
All Items in Lenus, The Irish Health Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.