Andreas S Nicolaou, Eng Ann Toh, Judith Clarke, Stephen Mark, Phil Hider
{"title":"临床医生对由澳大利亚和新西兰前列腺癌结局登记处生成的两年一次的质量改进报告的反馈。","authors":"Andreas S Nicolaou, Eng Ann Toh, Judith Clarke, Stephen Mark, Phil Hider","doi":"10.26635/6965.6721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to 1) assess clinician perspectives on methods of report distribution, 2) assess the clinical value and utility of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR) Quality Indicator (QI) reports for New Zealand urologists, and 3) identify barriers impacting engagement with these reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PCOR-ANZ provides 6-monthly QI reports to participating clinicians and hospitals. New Zealand urologists receiving scheduled reports were surveyed digitally. Interviews were conducted for qualitative feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three of 49 (67%) eligible urologists participated in this study. One hundred percent (n=33) of clinicians received notifications for new QI reports, 42% (n=14) finding them too lengthy. Seventy-six percent (n=25) and 70% (n=23) found the reports valuable for auditing and improving their practice, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Report distribution and data presentation are effective. PDFs are preferred by clinicians, but proposed interactive mediums were received positively. Reports are valued for auditing and improving practice. Report length and clinician time constraints are key barriers affecting engagement. A revision of the items included in QI reports would be beneficial to reflect modern practice. There is demand for a pathway to allow clinicians to contact others for peer review and advice.</p>","PeriodicalId":48086,"journal":{"name":"NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL","volume":"138 1616","pages":"13-19"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinician feedback for bi-annual quality improvement reports generated by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Australia and New Zealand.\",\"authors\":\"Andreas S Nicolaou, Eng Ann Toh, Judith Clarke, Stephen Mark, Phil Hider\",\"doi\":\"10.26635/6965.6721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aims to 1) assess clinician perspectives on methods of report distribution, 2) assess the clinical value and utility of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR) Quality Indicator (QI) reports for New Zealand urologists, and 3) identify barriers impacting engagement with these reports.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PCOR-ANZ provides 6-monthly QI reports to participating clinicians and hospitals. New Zealand urologists receiving scheduled reports were surveyed digitally. Interviews were conducted for qualitative feedback.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-three of 49 (67%) eligible urologists participated in this study. One hundred percent (n=33) of clinicians received notifications for new QI reports, 42% (n=14) finding them too lengthy. Seventy-six percent (n=25) and 70% (n=23) found the reports valuable for auditing and improving their practice, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Report distribution and data presentation are effective. PDFs are preferred by clinicians, but proposed interactive mediums were received positively. Reports are valued for auditing and improving practice. Report length and clinician time constraints are key barriers affecting engagement. A revision of the items included in QI reports would be beneficial to reflect modern practice. There is demand for a pathway to allow clinicians to contact others for peer review and advice.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48086,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL\",\"volume\":\"138 1616\",\"pages\":\"13-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-06-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.6721\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NEW ZEALAND MEDICAL JOURNAL","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.6721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Clinician feedback for bi-annual quality improvement reports generated by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Australia and New Zealand.
Aim: This study aims to 1) assess clinician perspectives on methods of report distribution, 2) assess the clinical value and utility of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR) Quality Indicator (QI) reports for New Zealand urologists, and 3) identify barriers impacting engagement with these reports.
Methods: PCOR-ANZ provides 6-monthly QI reports to participating clinicians and hospitals. New Zealand urologists receiving scheduled reports were surveyed digitally. Interviews were conducted for qualitative feedback.
Results: Thirty-three of 49 (67%) eligible urologists participated in this study. One hundred percent (n=33) of clinicians received notifications for new QI reports, 42% (n=14) finding them too lengthy. Seventy-six percent (n=25) and 70% (n=23) found the reports valuable for auditing and improving their practice, respectively.
Conclusion: Report distribution and data presentation are effective. PDFs are preferred by clinicians, but proposed interactive mediums were received positively. Reports are valued for auditing and improving practice. Report length and clinician time constraints are key barriers affecting engagement. A revision of the items included in QI reports would be beneficial to reflect modern practice. There is demand for a pathway to allow clinicians to contact others for peer review and advice.