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

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.