Stakeholder preferences for cancer care performance indicators

Author:

Gagliardi Anna,Lemieux‐Charles Louise,Brown Adalsteinn,Sullivan Terry,Goel Vivek

Abstract

PurposeThe purpose of this paper is to show that performance data use could be promoted with a better understanding of the type of indicators that are important to different stakeholders. This study explored patient, nurse, physician and manager preferences for cancer care quality indicators.Design/methodology/approachInterviews were held with 30 stakeholders between March and June 2004. They were asked to describe how they would use a cancer “report card”, and which indicators they would want reported. Transcripts were reviewed using qualitative analysis.FindingsRole (patient, nurse, physician, manager) influenced preferences and perceived use of performance data. Patients and physicians were more skeptical than nurses and managers; patients and managers expressed some preferences distinct from nurses and physicians; and patients and nurses interpreted indicators more broadly than physicians and managers. All groups preferred technical process over outcome or interpersonal process indicators.Research limitations/implicationsExpressed views are not directly applicable beyond this setting, or to the general public but findings are congruent with attitudes to performance data for other conditions, and serve as a conceptual basis for further study.Practical implicationsStrategies for maximizing the relevance of performance reports might include technical process indicators, selection by multi‐stakeholder deliberation, information that facilitates information application and customizable report interfaces.Originality/valuePerformance data preferences have not been thoroughly examined, particularly in the context of cancer care. Factors were identified that influence stakeholder views of performance data, and this framework could be used to confirm findings among larger and different populations.

Publisher

Emerald

Subject

Health Policy,General Business, Management and Accounting

Reference47 articles.

1. Attree, M. (2001), “A study of the criteria used by healthcare professionals, managers and patients to represent and evaluate quality care”, Journal of Nursing Management, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 67‐78.

2. Ayanian, J., Landrum, M., Normand, S., Guadagnnoli, E. and McNeil, B. (1998), “Rating the appropriateness of coronary angiography – do practicing physicians agree with an expert panel and with each other?”, New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 338 No. 26, pp. 1896‐904.

3. Barnsley, J., Berta, W., Cockerill, R., MacPhail, J. and Vayda, E. (2005), “Identifying performance indicators for family practice: assessing levels of consensus”, Canadian Family Physician, Vol. 51, pp. 700‐1.

4. Bensimon, C.M., Nohara, N. and Martin, D.K. (2004), “Stakeholders' views about cardiac report cards: a qualitative study”, The Canadian Journal of Cardiology, Vol. 20 No. 4, pp. 433‐8.

5. Cranley, L. and Doran, D.M. (2004), “Nurses' integration of outcome assessment data into practice”, Outcomes Management, Vol. 8 No. 1, pp. 13‐18.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3