BACKGROUND: This mixed methods study was designed to explore the acceptability and impact of feedback of team performance data to primary care interdisciplinary teams. METHODS: Seven interdisciplinary teams were offered a one-hour, facilitated performance feedback session presenting data from a comprehensive, previously-conducted evaluation, selecting highlights such as performance on chronic disease management, access, patient satisfaction and team function. RESULTS: Several recurrent themes emerged from participants' surveys and two rounds of interviews within three months of the feedback session. Team performance measurement and feedback was welcomed across teams and disciplines. This feedback could build the team, the culture, and the capacity for quality improvement. However, existing performance indicators do not equally reflect the role of different disciplines within an interdisciplinary team. Finally, the effect of team performance feedback on intentions to improve performance was hindered by a poor understanding of how the team could use the data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings further our understanding of how performance feedback may engage interdisciplinary team members in improving the quality of primary care and the unique challenges specific to these settings. There is a need to develop a shared sense of responsibility and agenda for quality improvement. Therefore, more efforts to develop flexible and interactive performance-reporting structures (that better reflect contributions from all team members) in which teams could specify the information and audience may assist in promoting quality improvement.
BACKGROUND: This mixed methods study was designed to explore the acceptability and impact of feedback of team performance data to primary care interdisciplinary teams. METHODS: Seven interdisciplinary teams were offered a one-hour, facilitated performance feedback session presenting data from a comprehensive, previously-conducted evaluation, selecting highlights such as performance on chronic disease management, access, patient satisfaction and team function. RESULTS: Several recurrent themes emerged from participants' surveys and two rounds of interviews within three months of the feedback session. Team performance measurement and feedback was welcomed across teams and disciplines. This feedback could build the team, the culture, and the capacity for quality improvement. However, existing performance indicators do not equally reflect the role of different disciplines within an interdisciplinary team. Finally, the effect of team performance feedback on intentions to improve performance was hindered by a poor understanding of how the team could use the data. CONCLUSIONS: The findings further our understanding of how performance feedback may engage interdisciplinary team members in improving the quality of primary care and the unique challenges specific to these settings. There is a need to develop a shared sense of responsibility and agenda for quality improvement. Therefore, more efforts to develop flexible and interactive performance-reporting structures (that better reflect contributions from all team members) in which teams could specify the information and audience may assist in promoting quality improvement.
Authors: J M Grimshaw; L Shirran; R Thomas; G Mowatt; C Fraser; L Bero; R Grilli; E Harvey; A Oxman; M A O'Brien Journal: Med Care Date: 2001-08 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: T K Gandhi; A L Puopolo; P Dasse; J S Haas; H R Burstin; E F Cook; T A Brennan Journal: Int J Qual Health Care Date: 2000-04 Impact factor: 2.038
Authors: Deborah Cohen; Reuben R McDaniel; Benjamin F Crabtree; Mary C Ruhe; Sharon M Weyer; Alfred Tallia; William L Miller; Meredith A Goodwin; Paul Nutting; Leif I Solberg; Stephen J Zyzanski; Carlos R Jaén; Valerie Gilchrist; Kurt C Stange Journal: J Healthc Manag Date: 2004 May-Jun
Authors: Noah M Ivers; Monica Taljaard; Vasily Giannakeas; Catherine Reis; Cara L Mulhall; Jonathan M C Lam; Ann N Burchell; Gerald Lebovic; Susan E Bronskill Journal: Implement Sci Commun Date: 2020-02-25
Authors: Michael E Green; William Hogg; Colleen Savage; Sharon Johnston; Grant Russell; R Liisa Jaakkimainen; Richard H Glazier; Janet Barnsley; Richard Birtwhistle Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-07-23 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Theresa M Lee; Noah M Ivers; Sacha Bhatia; Debra A Butt; Paul Dorian; Liisa Jaakkimainen; Kori Leblanc; Dan Legge; Dante Morra; Alissia Valentinis; Laura Wing; Jacqueline Young; Karen Tu Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-12-03 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Wouter T Gude; Benjamin Brown; Sabine N van der Veer; Heather L Colquhoun; Noah M Ivers; Jamie C Brehaut; Zach Landis-Lewis; Christopher J Armitage; Nicolette F de Keizer; Niels Peek Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2019-04-24 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Catherine Donnelly; Rachelle Ashcroft; Amanda Mofina; Nicole Bobbette; Carol Mulder Journal: Prim Health Care Res Dev Date: 2019-08-28 Impact factor: 1.458