Literature DB >> 14757796

Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals.

E H Bradley1, E S Holmboe, J A Mattera, S A Roumanis, M J Radford, H M Krumholz.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Data feedback is a fundamental component of quality improvement efforts, but previous studies provide mixed results on its effectiveness. This study illustrates the diversity of hospital based efforts at data feedback and highlights successful strategies and common pitfalls in designing and implementing data feedback to support performance improvement.
METHODS: Open ended interviews with 45 clinical and administrative staff in eight US hospitals in 2000 concerning their perceptions about the effectiveness of data feedback in supporting performance improvement efforts were analysed. The hospitals were chosen to represent a range of sizes, geographical regions, and beta blocker improvement rates over a 3 year period. Data were organized and analyzed in NUD-IST 4 using the constant comparative method of qualitative data analysis.
RESULTS: Although the data feedback efforts at the hospitals were diverse, the interviews suggested that seven key themes may be important: (1) data must be perceived by physicians as valid to motivate change; (2) it takes time to develop the credibility of data within a hospital; (3) the source and timeliness of data are critical to perceived validity; (4) benchmarking improves the meaningfulness of data feedback; (5) physician leaders can enhance the effectiveness of data feedback; (6) data feedback that profiles an individual physician's practices can be effective but may be perceived as punitive; (7) data feedback must persist to sustain improved performance. Embedded in several themes was the view that the effectiveness of data feedback depends not only on the quality and timeliness of the data, but also on the organizational context in which such efforts are implemented.
CONCLUSIONS: Data feedback is a complex and textured concept. Data feedback strategies that might be most effective are suggested, as well as potential pitfalls in using data to promote performance improvement.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14757796      PMCID: PMC1758048          DOI: 10.1136/qhc.13.1.26

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care        ISSN: 1475-3898


  28 in total

1.  Impact of published clinical outcomes data: case study in NHS hospital trusts.

Authors:  R Mannion; M Goddard
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-08-04

Review 2.  Checklists for improving rigour in qualitative research: a case of the tail wagging the dog?

Authors:  R S Barbour
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2001-05-05

3.  When does information change practitioners' behavior?

Authors:  D E Kanouse; I Jacoby
Journal:  Int J Technol Assess Health Care       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.188

Review 4.  Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review.

Authors:  M Mugford; P Banfield; M O'Hanlon
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1991-08-17

Review 5.  Physician utilization. The state of research about physicians' practice patterns.

Authors:  J M Eisenberg
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  1985-05       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Beta blockade during and after myocardial infarction: an overview of the randomized trials.

Authors:  S Yusuf; R Peto; J Lewis; R Collins; P Sleight
Journal:  Prog Cardiovasc Dis       Date:  1985 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 8.194

7.  Cost containment and changing physicians' practice behavior. Can the fox learn to guard the chicken coop?

Authors:  J M Eisenberg; S V Williams
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1981-11-13       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  A qualitative study of increasing beta-blocker use after myocardial infarction: Why do some hospitals succeed?

Authors:  E H Bradley; E S Holmboe; J A Mattera; S A Roumanis; M J Radford; H M Krumholz
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001 May 23-30       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Effect on mortality of metoprolol in acute myocardial infarction. A double-blind randomised trial.

Authors:  A Hjalmarson; D Elmfeldt; J Herlitz; S Holmberg; I Málek; G Nyberg; L Rydén; K Swedberg; A Vedin; F Waagstein; A Waldenström; J Waldenström; H Wedel; L Wilhelmsen; C Wilhelmsson
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1981-10-17       Impact factor: 79.321

10.  Change in the quality of care delivered to Medicare beneficiaries, 1998-1999 to 2000-2001.

Authors:  Stephen F Jencks; Edwin D Huff; Timothy Cuerdon
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2003-01-15       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  40 in total

1.  How do you know if you are any good? A surgeon performance feedback system for the outcomes of radical prostatectomy.

Authors:  Andrew J Vickers; Daniel Sjoberg; Ethan Basch; Frank Sculli; Marwan Shouery; Vincent Laudone; Karim Touijer; James Eastham; Peter T Scardino
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2011-11-04       Impact factor: 20.096

2.  The problem of appraising qualitative research.

Authors:  M Dixon-Woods; R L Shaw; S Agarwal; J A Smith
Journal:  Qual Saf Health Care       Date:  2004-06

3.  Data feedback reduces door-to-balloon time in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention.

Authors:  Jeng-Feng Lin; Shun-Yi Hsu; Semon Wu; Chiau-Suong Liau; Heng-Chia Chang; Chih-Jen Liu; Hsuan-Li Huang; Yao-Tsan Ho; Shu-Li Weng; Yu-Lin Ko
Journal:  Heart Vessels       Date:  2010-10-27       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Improving quality and safety of care using "technovigilance": an ethnographic case study of secondary use of data from an electronic prescribing and decision support system.

Authors:  Mary Dixon-Woods; Sabi Redwood; Myles Leslie; Joel Minion; Graham P Martin; Jamie J Coleman
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 4.911

5.  From adversary to partner: have quality improvement organizations made the transition?

Authors:  Elizabeth H Bradley; Melissa D A Carlson; William T Gallo; Jeanne Scinto; Miriam K Campbell; Harlan M Krumholz
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 3.402

Review 6.  Development of quality indicators for colorectal cancer surgery, using a 3-step modified Delphi approach.

Authors:  Anna R Gagliardi; Marko Simunovic; Bernard Langer; Hartley Stern; Adalsteinn D Brown
Journal:  Can J Surg       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 2.089

7.  Impact of laws aimed at healthcare-associated infection reduction: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Patricia W Stone; Monika Pogorzelska-Maziarz; Julie Reagan; Jacqueline A Merrill; Brad Sperber; Catherine Cairns; Matthew Penn; Tara Ramanathan; Elizabeth Mothershed; Elizabeth Skillen
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 7.035

8.  Point-of-care testing: High time for a dedicated National Adverse Event Monitoring System.

Authors:  Samarina M A Musaad; Shoukat Ali Khan; Geoff Herd
Journal:  Clin Biochem Rev       Date:  2015-02

9.  Determining the interviewer effect on CQ Index outcomes: a multilevel approach.

Authors:  Sjenny Winters; Mathilde H Strating; Niek S Klazinga; Rudolf B Kool; Robbert Huijsman
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2010-08-19       Impact factor: 4.615

10.  An effectiveness analysis of healthcare systems using a systems theoretic approach.

Authors:  Sheuwen Chuang; Kerry Inder
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2009-10-24       Impact factor: 2.655

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.