Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40860174›Full record

ArticleHealth services insights2025

Development of a Best Practice Guide to Optimise the Reporting of Patient Reported Measures by Clinical Quality Registries for Quality Improvement Purposes.

Rasa Ruseckaite, Chethana Mudunna, Ilana Ackerman, Belinda Gabbe, Susannah Ahern

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health services insights, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

5 authors.

Rasa RuseckaiteSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9078-2696
Chethana MudunnaSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Ilana AckermanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Belinda GabbeSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Susannah AhernSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Clinical quality registries (CQRs) systematically monitor the quality of healthcare by routinely collecting and reporting health-related information. The collection of patient reported measures (PRMs) by CQRs provides a personal perspective on the expectations and impacts of treatment. Reporting of CQR-collected PRMs for quality improvement (QI) is highly variable. Objectives: To develop a best practice guide (BPG) for CQRs, clinicians and health services to support high-quality and transparent reporting of PRM data for QI purposes. Methods: The project comprised four stages. The first sought to describe how PRMs were reported for QI purposes in Australia and internationally. The second stage included seven focus groups with 20 Australian CQRs to identify existing practices, issues and impacts regarding PRMs reporting. During stage 3, findings from the literature and focus groups were used to draft a preliminary BPG. Finally, expert workshops involving PRMs experts, consumers, clinicians and representatives from CQRs were convened to refine a preliminary BPG. Results: We identified 61 international and 45 Australian CQRs that reported PRMs for QI purposes. PRMs were used for shared decision-making in clinical encounters, for developing clinical decision aids, to revise treatment guidelines and to monitor complications after hospital discharge. Several themes emerged from the focus groups. These included: purpose and context, funding and resource requirements, consumer involvement, clinician training, instrument selection and administration, outlier identification, visualisation and interpretation of the data. A preliminary BPG was refined during the workshop discussions. Conclusion: An increasing number of CQRs use PRMs to enhance QI reporting, however there are no published guidelines currently to support this. Through identifying existing practices, methods and techniques that CQRs use to report PRMs, we developed a practical guideline to support CQRs and standardise their PRMs reporting for QI purposes, with the overarching goal of optimising the value of PRM data within CQRs.

Indexed as

clinical quality registryhealthcarepatient outcomespatient reported outcomesquality improvementrecommendations

Identifiers

PMID40860174
PMCPMC12374099

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.