首页> 外文OA文献 >The effectiveness of providing peer benchmarked feedback to hip replacement surgeons based on patient-reported outcome measures—results from the PROFILE (Patient-Reported Outcomes: Feedback Interpretation and Learning Experiment) trial: a cluster randomised controlled study
【2h】

The effectiveness of providing peer benchmarked feedback to hip replacement surgeons based on patient-reported outcome measures—results from the PROFILE (Patient-Reported Outcomes: Feedback Interpretation and Learning Experiment) trial: a cluster randomised controlled study

机译:根据患者报告的结局指标向髋关节置换手术医生提供同等基准反馈的有效性-来自PROFILE(患者报告的结果:反馈解释和学习实验)试验的结果:一项随机对照研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Objective To test whether providing surgeons with peer benchmarked feedback about patient-reported outcomes is effective in improving patient outcomes.Design Cluster randomised controlled trial.Setting Secondary care—Ireland.Participants Surgeons were recruited through the Irish Institute of Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery, and patients were recruited in hospitals prior to surgery. We randomly allocated 21 surgeons and 550 patients.Intervention Surgeons in the intervention group received peer benchmarked patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) feedback and education.Main outcome variable Postoperative Oxford Hip Score (OHS).Results Primary outcome data were available for 11 intervention surgeons with responsibility for 230 patients and 10 control surgeons with responsibility for 228 patients. The mean postoperative OHS for the intervention group was 40.8 (95% CI 39.8 to 41.7) and for the control group was 41.9 (95% CI 41.1 to 42.7). The adjusted effect estimate was −1.1 (95% CI −2.4 to 0.2, p=0.09). Secondary outcomes were the Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (HOOS), EQ-5D and the proportion of patients reporting a problem after surgery. The mean postoperative HOOS for the intervention group was 36.2 and for the control group was 37.1. The adjusted effect estimate was −1.1 (95% CI −2.4 to 0.3, p=0.1). The mean postoperative EQ-5D for the intervention group was 0.85 and for the control group was 0.87. The adjusted effect estimate was −0.02 (95% CI −0.05 to 0.008, p=0.2). 27% of intervention patients and 24% of control patients reported at least one complication after surgery (adjusted OR=1.2, 95% CI 0.6 to 2.3, p=0.6).Conclusions Outcomes for patients operated on by surgeons who had received peer benchmarked PROMs data were not statistically different from the outcomes of patients operated on by surgeons who did not receive feedback. PROMs information alone seems to be insufficient to identify opportunities for quality improvement.Trial registration number ISRCTN 69032522.
机译:目的测试向外科医生提供关于患者报告的结局的同等基准反馈是否有效地改善了患者的结局。设计聚类随机对照试验。设置二级护理(爱尔兰)。参与者通过爱尔兰创伤与骨科手术研究所招募外科医生在手术前被医院招募。我们随机分配了21名外科医生和550名患者。干预组的干预外科医生接受了同等基准的患者报告结局指标(PROM)反馈和教育。主要结局变量术后牛津髋关节评分(OHS)。结果主要结局数据可用于11项干预措施负责230位患者的外科医生和负责228位患者的10位对照外科医生。干预组术后平均OHS为40.8(95%CI 39.8至41.7),对照组为41.9(95%CI 41.1至42.7)。调整后的效果估计值为-1.1(95%CI -2.4至0.2,p = 0.09)。次要结果是髋骨关节炎结果评分(HOOS),EQ-5D和手术后有问题的患者比例。干预组术后平均HOOS为36.2,对照组为37.1。调整后的效果估算值为-1.1(95%CI -2.4至0.3,p = 0.1)。干预组术后平均EQ-5D为0.85,对照组为0.87。调整后的效果估算值为-0.02(95%CI -0.05至0.008,p = 0.2)。 27%的干预患者和24%的对照患者在手术后报告至少一种并发症(校正OR = 1.2,95%CI 0.6至2.3,p = 0.6)。结论接受同等基准PROM的外科医生手术患者的结果数据与没有收到反馈的外科医生进行手术的患者的结果在统计学上没有差异。仅PROMs信息似乎不足以识别提高质量的机会。注册号ISRCTN 69032522。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号