Routine provision of information on patient-reported outcome measures to healthcare providers and patients in clinical practice

This is the final version. Available from Cochrane Collaboration via the DOI in this record.This is the protocol for a review and there is no abstract. The objectives are as follows: To assess the impact of the routine use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical practice on the process of care (including patient-physician communication, professionals awareness of patients' quality of life, diagnosis and recognition rates, treatment rates, health services and resource use, as well as patient behaviour); patients' and professionals' experiences of care; and health outcomes (both generic and disease-specific, using both routinely-used clinical measures and PROs).Spanish Ministry of ScienceInnovation and the European commissionNational Institutes of Health Research (NIHR

Quality improvement practices used by teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres: analysis of a multinational survey of adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand

Background: Although studies have suggested that a relationship exists between hospital teaching status and quality improvement activities, it is unknown whether this relationship exists for trauma centres. Methods: We surveyed 249 adult trauma centres in the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand (76% response rate) regarding their quality improvement programs. Trauma centres were stratified into two groups (teaching [academic-based or –affiliated] versus non-teaching) and their quality improvement programs were compared. Results: All participating trauma centres reported using a trauma registry and measuring quality of care. Teaching centres were more likely than non-teaching centres to use indicators whose content evaluated treatment (18% vs. 14%, p  Conclusions: Teaching and non-teaching centres reported being engaged in quality improvement and exhibited largely similar quality improvement activities. However, differences exist in the type and frequency of quality indicators utilized among teaching versus non-teaching trauma centres. </p

Evaluating the Change in Space in a Technology-Enabled Primary Years Setting

There has been considerable attention in the literature postulating the potential effects of contemporary, technology-enabled new generation learning spaces (NGLS) on both teaching and learning (Brooks, 2011, 2012). This has, in part, been driven by the pervasive and transformative potentiall of ubiquitous access to and use of digital technology in the classroom (Chan et al., 2006). Increased access to mobile technology in recent years has freed students from the restrictive nature of shared access in tradiitional computer laboratories (Blackmore, Bateman, O'Mara, & Loughlin, 2011). Students now have personal 'anywhere, anytime' access to a boundless library of highly indexed information (Beichner, 2014), which in turn challenges the highly sequential style of instruction that has allowed teachers to preserve their historically authoritative role. Personal access to technology can support more adaptive and connected learning experiences. These experiences are created by connecting teachers and students within multimodalities of teaching and },earning that may have not been possible before (Bocconi, Karnpylis, & Punie, 2012; Hall-van den Elsen & Palaskas, 2014; Swan, van'T Hooft, Kratcoski, & Schenk,er, 2007). Multimodalities afford teachers the ability to orchestrate adaptive learning opportunities using a range of physical, text and visual tools, whilst connecting students with each other. A key element is the connectivity between teachers-students and students-students is established through the creaition of technology-enabled NGLS. The technology-enabled spaces have ubiquitous access to digital technology through one-to-one digital devices connected through wireless infrastructure. The affordances of a NGLS environment has the potential to revolutionize how, where and with whom students learn (Mouza & Lavigne, 2013; Thomas & Brown, 2011). It has the potential to sup,port contemporary pedagogical practices that facilitate highly personalised models of student learning (Bocconi et al., 2012; Magee, 2009; Zandvliet & Fraser, 2004). This personalised model includes learning outside the primacy of the traditional classroom forum (Mouza & Lavigne, 2013). Together these elements intertwine to create a model of teaching and learning that can be radically different to prevailing school cultures (Mouza & Lavigne, 2013)