본문으로 건너뛰기
← 뒤로

Clinician feedback for bi-annual quality improvement reports generated by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Australia and New Zealand.

1/5 보강
The New Zealand medical journal 📖 저널 OA 2.9% 2022: 0/2 OA 2023: 1/1 OA 2025: 0/6 OA 2026: 0/9 OA 2022~2026 2025 Vol.138(1616) p. 13-19
Retraction 확인
출처

PICO 자동 추출 (휴리스틱, conf 2/4)

유사 논문
P · Population 대상 환자/모집단
추출되지 않음
I · Intervention 중재 / 시술
notifications for new QI reports, 42% (n=14) finding them too lengthy
C · Comparison 대조 / 비교
추출되지 않음
O · Outcome 결과 / 결론
A revision of the items included in QI reports would be beneficial to reflect modern practice. There is demand for a pathway to allow clinicians to contact others for peer review and advice.

Nicolaou AS, Toh EA, Clarke J, Mark S, Hider P

📝 환자 설명용 한 줄

[AIM] This study aims to 1) assess clinician perspectives on methods of report distribution, 2) assess the clinical value and utility of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR) Quality Indicator

🔬 핵심 임상 통계 (초록에서 자동 추출 — 원문 검증 권장)
  • 표본수 (n) 33

이 논문을 인용하기

↓ .bib ↓ .ris
APA Nicolaou AS, Toh EA, et al. (2025). Clinician feedback for bi-annual quality improvement reports generated by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Australia and New Zealand.. The New Zealand medical journal, 138(1616), 13-19. https://doi.org/10.26635/6965.6721
MLA Nicolaou AS, et al.. "Clinician feedback for bi-annual quality improvement reports generated by the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry Australia and New Zealand.." The New Zealand medical journal, vol. 138, no. 1616, 2025, pp. 13-19.
PMID 40472358 ↗
DOI 10.26635/6965.6721

Abstract

[AIM] This study aims to 1) assess clinician perspectives on methods of report distribution, 2) assess the clinical value and utility of the Prostate Cancer Outcomes Registry (PCOR) Quality Indicator (QI) reports for New Zealand urologists, and 3) identify barriers impacting engagement with these reports.

[METHODS] PCOR-ANZ provides 6-monthly QI reports to participating clinicians and hospitals. New Zealand urologists receiving scheduled reports were surveyed digitally. Interviews were conducted for qualitative feedback.

[RESULTS] Thirty-three of 49 (67%) eligible urologists participated in this study. One hundred percent (n=33) of clinicians received notifications for new QI reports, 42% (n=14) finding them too lengthy. Seventy-six percent (n=25) and 70% (n=23) found the reports valuable for auditing and improving their practice, respectively.

[CONCLUSION] Report distribution and data presentation are effective. PDFs are preferred by clinicians, but proposed interactive mediums were received positively. Reports are valued for auditing and improving practice. Report length and clinician time constraints are key barriers affecting engagement. A revision of the items included in QI reports would be beneficial to reflect modern practice. There is demand for a pathway to allow clinicians to contact others for peer review and advice.

🏷️ 키워드 / MeSH 📖 같은 키워드 OA만

🏷️ 같은 키워드 · 무료전문 — 이 논문 MeSH/keyword 기반