Neue Untersuchungsergebnisse zum alter von dunkelbäuchigen Ringelgänsen Branta b. bernicla

info:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

The impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors: a systematic review

Background: Patient feedback is considered integral to quality improvement and professional development. However, while popular across the educational continuum, evidence to support its efficacy in facilitating positive behaviour change in a postgraduate setting remains unclear. This review therefore aims to explore the evidence that supports, or refutes, the impact of patient feedback on the medical performance of qualified doctors. // Methods: Electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Medline and PsycINFO were systematically searched for studies assessing the impact of patient feedback on medical performance published in the English language between 2006-2016. Impact was defined as a measured change in behaviour using Barr’s (2000) adaptation of Kirkpatrick’s four level evaluation model. Papers were quality appraised, thematically analysed and synthesised using a narrative approach. // Results: From 1,269 initial studies, 20 articles were included (qualitative (n=8); observational (n=6); systematic review (n=3); mixed methodology (n=1); randomised control trial (n=1); and longitudinal (n=1) design). One article identified change at an organisational level (Kirkpatrick level 4); six reported a measured change in behaviour (Kirkpatrick level 3b); 12 identified self-reported change or intention to change (Kirkpatrick level 3a), and one identified knowledge or skill acquisition (Kirkpatrick level 2). No study identified a change at the highest level, an improvement in the health and wellbeing of patients. The main factors found to influence the impact of patient feedback were: specificity; perceived credibility; congruence with physician self-perceptions and performance expectations; presence of facilitation and reflection; and inclusion of narrative comments. The quality of feedback facilitation and local professional cultures also appeared integral to positive behaviour change. // Conclusion: Patient feedback can have an impact on medical performance. However, actionable change is influenced by several contextual factors and cannot simply be guaranteed. Patient feedback is likely to be more influential if it is specific, collected through credible methods and contains narrative information. Data obtained should be fed back in a way that facilitates reflective discussion and encourages the formulation of actionable behaviour change. A supportive cultural understanding of patient feedback and its intended purpose is also essential for its effective use

An evidence-based medicine process to determine outcomes after cervical spine trauma: what surgeons should be telling their patients

STUDY DESIGN: A systematic review of the available medical literature from 1980 to 2010 was conducted and combined with expert opinion from a recent survey of experts regarding cervical spine fractures. Using an objective, hierarchical approach, the best available evidence is presented for health-related quality-of-life outcomes for these injuries. OBJECTIVE: To provide an evidence-based set of guidelines for cervical spine injuries in order to reduce variability in the information given to patients and their families. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Patients\u27 expectations regarding quality-of-life outcomes are highly dependent on the information provided by surgeons early in the treatment course. Our previous work has demonstrated that there is substantial variability in what surgeons tell patients regarding outcomes of cervical spine injuries, thus patients\u27 expectations will differ and outcomes vary. METHODS: Four common cervical spine injuries (C1 burst, Hangman fracture, odontoid fracture, and unilateral facet fracture) treated both surgically and nonsurgically were considered. We assessed the evidence regarding 5 health-related quality-of-life outcomes: time to return to work, activity level, hospital stay, the proportion of patients who are pain free and patients who have regained full range of motion at 1 year after the injury. RESULTS: Published outcome data were available for most injuries. Using consensus expert opinion and the literature, answers to each question were achieved. Overall, expert opinion was relatively homogeneous across injury types, suggesting that experts do not distinguish between specific injuries when advising patients of expected outcomes such as pain. CONCLUSION: By overcoming gaps in the literature with consensus expert opinion, our study provides surgeons and others with evidence-based medicine guidelines for patient-centered outcomes after cervical spine injury. This information can be presented to patients to frame expectations of typical outcomes during and after treatment to optimize patient care and quality of life