Browsing by Subject "quality of health care"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Linking Health Information Technology to Patient Safety and Quality Outcomes: A Bibliometric Analysis and Review
    (http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.3109/17538157.2012.678451, 2013-01) Whipple, Elizabeth C.; Dixon, Brian E.; McGowan, Julie J.
    OBJECTIVE: To assess the scholarly output of grants funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that published knowledge relevant to the impact of health information technologies on patient safety and quality of care outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a bibliometric analysis of the identified scholarly articles, their journals, and citations. In addition, we performed a qualitative review of the full-text articles and grant documents. DATA COLLECTION/EXTRACTION METHODS: Papers published by AHRQ-funded investigators were retrieved from MEDLINE, journal impact factors were extracted from the 2010 Thompson Reuters Journal Citation Report, citations were retrieved from ISI's Web of Knowledge and Google Scholar. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Seventy-two articles met the criteria for review. Most articles addressed one or more of AHRQ's outcome goals and focus priorities. The average impact factor for the journals was 4.005 (range: 0.654-28.899). The articles, and their respective grants, represented a broad range of health information technologies. CONCLUSIONS: This set of AHRQ-funded research projects addressed the goals and priorities of AHRQ, indicating notable contributions to the scientific knowledge base on the impact of information system use in healthcare.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    A Standard Method for Determining the Minimal Clinically Important Difference for Rehabilitation Measures
    (Elsevier, 2020) Malec, James F.; Ketchum, Jessica M.; Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, School of Medicine
    The minimal clinically important difference (MCID) is receiving increasing interest and importance in medical practice and research. The MCID is the smallest improvement in scores in the domain of interest that patients perceive as beneficial. In clinical trials, comparing the proportion of individuals between treatment and control groups who obtain a MCID may be more informative than comparisons of mean change between groups because a statistically significant mean difference does not necessarily represent a difference that is perceived as meaningful by treatment recipients. The MCID may also be useful in advancing personalized medicine by characterizing those who are most likely to benefit from a treatment. In clinical practice, the MCID can be used to identify if a participant is experiencing a meaningful change in status. A variety of methods have been used to determine the MCID with no clear agreement on the most appropriate approach. Two major sets of methods are either (1) distribution-based, that is, referencing the MCID to a measure of variability or effect size in the measure of interest or (2) anchor-based, that is, referencing the MCID to an external assessment of change in the condition, ability, or activity represented by the measure of interest. In prior literature, using multiple methods to “triangulate” on the value of the MCID has been proposed. In this commentary, we describe a systematic approach to triangulate on the MCID using both distribution-based and anchor-based methods. Adaptation of a systematic approach for obtaining the MCID in rehabilitation would facilitate communication and comparison of results among rehabilitation researchers and providers.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Use of Survivorship Care Plans in the United States: Associations With Survivorship Care
    (Oxford Journals, 2013-10-16) Forsythe, Laura P.; Parry, Carla; Alfano, Catherine M.; Kent, Erin E.; Leach, Corinne R.; Haggstrom, David A.; Ganz, Patricia A.; Aziz, Noreen; Rowland, Julia H.; Department of Medicine, IU School of Medicine
    Background Survivorship care plans (SCPs), including a treatment summary and follow-up plan, intend to promote coordination of posttreatment cancer care; yet, little is known about the provision of these documents by oncologists to primary care physicians (PCPs). This study compared self-reported oncologist provision and PCP receipt of treatment summaries and follow-up plans, characterized oncologists who reported consistent provision of these documents to PCPs, and examined associations between PCP receipt of these documents and survivorship care. Methods A nationally representative sample of medical oncologists (n = 1130) and PCPs (n = 1020) were surveyed regarding follow-up care for breast and colon cancer survivors. All statistical tests were two-sided. Multivariable regression models identified factors associated with oncologist provision of treatment summaries and SCPs to PCPs (always/almost always vs less frequent). Results Nearly half of oncologists reported always/almost always providing treatment summaries, whereas 20.2% reported always/almost always providing SCPs (treatment summary + follow-up plan). Approximately one-third of PCPs indicated always/almost always receiving treatment summaries; 13.4% reported always/almost always receiving SCPs. Oncologists who reported training in late- and long-term effects of cancer and use of electronic medical records were more likely to report SCP provision (P < .05). PCP receipt of SCPs was associated with better PCP-reported care coordination, physician–physician communication, and confidence in survivorship care knowledge compared to receipt of neither treatment summaries nor SCPs (P < .05). Conclusions Providing SCPs to PCPs may enhance survivorship care coordination, physician–physician communication, and PCP confidence. However, considerable progress will be necessary to achieve implementation of sharing SCPs among oncologists and PCPs.