Table 1 Study characteristics, quality improvement methods and/or outcome

Boyce et al. [28]

To assess whether peer-benchmarked feedback is effective in improving patient outcomes

Randomized

Orthopaedics

N = 21 surgeons

Ireland

Oxford Hip Score (DS)

Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS)

EuroQol 5D (G)

Peer-benchmarked feedback and educational intervention

(−) No effect from peer-benchmarked feedback was found on patient-reported outcomes

Weingarten et al. [24]

To determine whether providing physicians with peer-comparison feedback can improve patient functional status

Randomized

Primary care

N = 48 surgeons

United States

Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project chart

Peer-comparison feedback and educational intervention

(−) No improvement in patient functional status

Varagunam et al. [34]

To determine the impact of introduction of PROMs on the selection of patients and on outcome

Non-randomized

General surgery

N = 409 surgeons

United Kingdom

Oxford Hip Score (DS)

Oxford Knee Score (DS)

Aberdeen varicose vein questionnaire (DS)

EuroQol 5D

Peer-benchmarked feedback

(±) No to minimal impact of routine use and feedback of PROMs was found

Kumar et al. [36]

To determine whether providing surgical report cards to surgeons resulted in improved patient outcomes

Non-randomized

Urologic surgery

N = 8 surgeons

Canada

Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (DS)

EuroQol 5D (G)

Peer-benchmarked feedback

(−) No improvement in functional or oncologic outcomes

Van Veghel et al. [33]

To assess patient-relevant outcomes of delivered cardiovascular care, to establish and share best practices by comparing outcomes and to embed value-based decision-making to improve quality and efficiency

Non-randomized

Cardiac surgery

N = 12 centres Netherlands

Short Form Health Survey 36 (G)

Short Form Health Survey 12 (G)

PDSA cycle and benchmarking

Not applicable

Bronserüd et al. [29]

To propose a model for the use of PROMs as quality indicators, enabling comparison across surgical departments

Non-randomized

Thoracic surgery

N = 4 departments

Denmark

EORTC-QLQ-C30 (DS)

Benchmarking surgical departments

Not applicable

Van Zijl et al. [25]

To present a method to measure and evaluate data-based performance

Non-randomized

Rhinologic surgery

N = 1 surgeon

Netherlands

Nasal Obstruction Symptom Evaluation (DS)

Utrecht Questionnaire (DS)

Visual analogue scale (DS)

Information technology (IT) application

Dashboarding

Not applicable

Reilly et al. [26]

To develop a novel approach to consistently and pragmatically measure the value of total knee and hip arthroplasty

Non-randomized

Orthopaedics

N = 6 surgeons

Physical function domain from the PROMIS-10 (G)

Hip Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS)

Knee Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS)

IT application

Dashboarding

Not applicable

Lucas et al. [27]

To report on the establishment of a web-based collection system and measure variability in outcome among practice groups

Non-randomized

Urologic surgery

N > 40 centres

United States

Symptom Tracking and Reporting (DS)

Benchmarked reports for individual surgeons

Not applicable

Gutacker et al. 2013 [30]

To measure the extent to which treatment impact varies across hospitals

Non-randomized

Orthopaedics

N > 153 hospitals

United Kingdom

EuroQol 5D (G)

Hospital benchmarking

Not applicable

Partridge et al. [32]

To improve PROMs after implementation of evidence-based change in practice

Descriptive

Orthopaedics

N = 14 surgeons

United Kingdom

Oxford Knee Score (DS)

EuroQol 5D (G)

PDSA cycle

(+) Significant improvement on the Oxford Knee Score and EQ-5D

Lundström et al. [31]

To analyse three models enabling data connection between PROMs and clinical data in order to identify opportunities for improvement of quality of care

Descriptive

Ophthalmology

N = 41 surgeons

Sweden

Catquest-9SF (DS)

Aggregated internal analyses

Not applicable

Zheng et al. [35]

To present the design and implementation of a website which is able to return comparative patient-reported outcome reports for participating surgeons in order to monitor and improve quality and health outcomes

Descriptive

Orthopaedics

N > 130 surgeons

United States

Short Form Health Survey 36 (G)

Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (DS)

Site, practice and individual benchmarking

Not applicable