Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33504331›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2021

Benchmarking experience to improve paediatric healthcare: listening to the voices of families from two European Children's University Hospitals.

Ilaria Corazza, Kendall Jamieson Gilmore, Francesca Menegazzo, Valts Abols

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. The role of patient-reported outcome and experience measures in cardio-thoracic surgery.Interdisciplinary cardiovascular and thoracic surgery · 2022
    Article
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

4 authors.

Ilaria CorazzaManagement and Healthcare Laboratory (MeS Lab), Institute of Management and EMbeDS, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy. ilaria.corazza@santannapisa.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1798-8348
Kendall Jamieson GilmoreManagement and Healthcare Laboratory (MeS Lab), Institute of Management and EMbeDS, Sant'Anna School of Advanced Studies, Piazza Martiri della Libertà 33, 56127, Pisa, Italy.
Francesca MenegazzoAzienda Ospedaliero Universitaria Meyer, Viale Pieraccini 24, 50139, Florence, Italy.
Valts AbolsChildren's Clinical University Hospital, Vienības gatve 45, Rīga, LV-1004, Latvia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) are recognized as an important indicator of high quality care and person-centeredness. PREMs are increasingly adopted for paediatric care, but there is little published evidence on how to administer, collect, and report paediatric PREMs at scale.

methodsThis paper describes the development of a PREMs questionnaire and administration system for the Meyer Children's University Hospital in Florence (Meyer) and the Children's Clinical University Hospital in Riga (CCUH). The system continuously recruits participants into the electronic administration model, with surveys completed by caregivers or adolescents at their convenience, post-discharge. We analyse 1661 responses from Meyer and 6585 from CCUH, collected from 1st December 2018 to 21st January 2020. Quantitative and qualitative experience analyses are included, using Pearson chi-square tests, Fisher's exact tests and narrative evidence from free text responses.

resultsThe large populations reached in both countries suggest the continuous, digital collection of paediatric PREMs described is feasible for collecting paediatric PREMs at scale. Overall response rates were 59% in Meyer and 45% in CCUH. There was very low variation in mean scores between the hospitals, with greater clustering of Likert scores around the mean in CCUH and a wider spread in Meyer for a number of items. The significant majority of responses represent the carers' point of view or the perspective of children and adolescents expressed through proxy reporting by carers.

conclusionsVery similar reported scores may reflect broadly shared preferences among children, adolescents and carers in the two countries, and the ability of both hospitals in this study to meet their expectations. The model has several interesting features: inclusion of a narrative element; electronic administration and completion after discharge from hospital, with high completion rates and easy data management; access for staff and researchers through an online platform, with real time analysis and visualization; dual implementation in two sites in different settings, with comparison and shared learning. These bring new opportunities for the utilization of PREMs for more person-centered and better quality care, although further research is needed in order to access direct reporting by children and adolescents.

Indexed as

AftercareBenchmarkingAdolescentChildDelivery of Health CareHospitals, UniversityHumansPatient DischargeBenchmarkingPaediatric carePatient reported experience measures

Identifiers

PMID33504331
PMCPMC7839229

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.