2010 review - Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement - University ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Patient-reported Outcome Measure Rating Scale 1. On the basis of the review of evidence and your personal experience, and considering the content of the questionnaire, is this questionnaire suitable for the measurement of the quality and outcomes of services for people undergoing elective coronary revascularisation procedures? (please tick one box) □ Not at all suitable □ To some extent unsuitable □ Uncertain □ To some extent suitable □Very suitable Do you have another questionnaire you could suggest? Overall, do you agree with the conclusions of the review? □ Yes □ No: Please explain Any additional comments 52
Multidisciplinary panel – list of members Mr. Thanos Athanasiou Consultant Cardiothoracic Surgeon and Reader in Clinical Surgery, Imperial College London Professor Christi Deaton Professor of Nursing, University of Manchester Dr. Mark Jackson Head of Clinical Governance/Quality Assurance Lead, The Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool NHS Trust Mr. James Roxburgh Consultant Cardiac Surgeon, St Thomas’ Hospital Dr. Rod Stables Consultant Cardiologist, The Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool NHS Trust Dr. Everard W. Thornton (retired) Research Psychologist, University of Liverpool PROM Group Ray Fitzpatrick Professor of Public Health and Primary Care and Acting Head, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford Elizabeth Gibbons Senior Research Officer, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford Anne Mackintosh Research Officer, Department of Public Health, University of Oxford 53
Page 1:
PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASUREMEN
Page 5:
A STRUCTURED REVIEW OF PATIENT-REPO
Page 8 and 9: Fifteen cardiovascular-specific mea
Page 10 and 11: Heart disease in the UK Coronary he
Page 12 and 13: Hand-searching of titles of key jou
Page 14 and 15: 2. PREFERENCE-BASED MEASURES Four p
Page 16 and 17: Response rates of 93% and above wer
Page 18 and 19: 3. GENERIC PROMs Six generic measur
Page 20 and 21: Responsiveness of the NHP was suppo
Page 22 and 23: The PF subscale discriminated betwe
Page 24 and 25: neuropsychologic deficits, and mood
Page 26 and 27: (2009), with women having significa
Page 28 and 29: 4. CARDIOVASCULAR-SPECIFIC PROMs Ca
Page 30 and 31: larger than for the SF-36 SF and MH
Page 32 and 33: Responsiveness of the DASI was illu
Page 34 and 35: satisfaction with various aspects o
Page 36 and 37: the SAQ AF and QL scales showed sig
Page 38 and 39: Content of the SOIS was based on fa
Page 40 and 41: undergoing ECP. However, it is (int
Page 42 and 43: Table 3: Summary of instruments: he
Page 44 and 45: Table ii: Appraisal criteria Apprai
Page 46 and 47: SF-20: MOS 20-item Short Form Healt
Page 48 and 49: Duke Activity Status Index, DASI (1
Page 50 and 51: Appendix C Table v: Summary of card
Page 52 and 53: Control Attitudes Index* *Moser & D
Page 54 and 55: Appendix D Membership, methods of w
Page 56 and 57: CROQ This suite of instruments was
Page 60 and 61: Appendix E: Abbreviations and acron
Page 62 and 63: Barnason S, Zimmerman L, Nieveen J,
Page 64 and 65: Department of Health, London, March
Page 66 and 67: Höfer S, Lim L, Guyatt GH, Oldridg
Page 68 and 69: Lee GA. Patients reported health-re
Page 70 and 71: Penckofer S, Ferrans CE, Fink N, Ba
Page 72 and 73: Spertus JA, Winder JA, Fihn SD, Dew
Page 74: Zhang Z, Spertus JA, Mahoney EM, Bo
show all

2010 review - Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement - University ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?