Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32299440›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2020

Using patient-reported measures to drive change in healthcare: the experience of the digital, continuous and systematic PREMs observatory in Italy.

Sabina De Rosis, Domenico Cerasuolo, Sabina Nuti

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. From 'Little Things' to 'Seagulls': A Mixed Methods Exploration of Patients' Experiences of Person-Centred Compassionate Care in General Medical and Surgical Wards.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sabina De RosisManagement and Healthcare Laboratory (MeS), Institute of Management and EMbeDS, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, Italy. s.derosis@santannapisa.it.
Domenico CerasuoloManagement and Healthcare Laboratory (MeS), Institute of Management and EMbeDS, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, Italy.
Sabina NutiManagement and Healthcare Laboratory (MeS), Institute of Management and EMbeDS, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna, piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe use of Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) has great potential in healthcare service improvement, but a limited use. This paper presents an empirical case of PREMs innovation in Italy, to foster patient data use up to the ward level, by keeping strengths and addressing weaknesses of previous PREMs survey experiences. The paper reports key lessons learned in this ongoing experience of action research, directly involving practitioners.

methodsThe aim of this paper is to present the results of an ongoing action research, encompassing the innovation of PREMs collection, reporting and use, currently adopted by 21 hospitals of two Italian regions. The continuous and systematic PREMs collection has been implemented between 2017 and 2019 and includes: a continuous web-based administration, using web-services; an augmented and positive questionnaire matching standard closed-ended questions with narrative sections; the inclusion and benchmarking of patient data within a shared performance evaluation system; public disclosure of aggregated anonymized data; a multi-level and real-time web-platform for reporting PREMs to professionals. The action research was carried out with practitioners in a real-life and complex context. The authors used multiple data sources and methods: observations, feedback of practitioners, collected during several workshops and meetings, and analysis of preliminary data on the survey implementation.

resultsA continuous and systematic PREMs observatory was developed and adopted in two Italian regions. PREMs participation and response rates tend to increase over time, reaching stable percentages after the first months. Narrative feedback provide a 'positive narration' of episodes and behaviours that made the difference to patients and can inform quality improvement actions. Real-time reporting of quantitative and qualitative data is enabling a gratifying process of service improvement and people management at all the hospitals' levels.

conclusionsThe PREMs presented in this paper has been recognized by healthcare professionals and managers as a strategic and positive tool for improving an actual use of PREMs at system and ward levels, by measuring and highlighting positive deviances, such as compassionate behaviours.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHospital AdministrationPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresHealth Care SurveysHumansItalyQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID32299440
PMCPMC7161006

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.