Literature DB >> 25472987

Developing effective feedback on quality of anaesthetic care: what are its most valuable characteristics from a clinical perspective?

Danielle M D'Lima1, Joanna Moore2, Alex Bottle3, Stephen J Brett4, Glenn M Arnold5, Jonathan Benn6.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Research suggests that better feedback from quality and safety indicators leads to enhanced capability of clinicians and departments to improve care and change behaviour. The aim of the current study was to investigate the characteristics of feedback perceived by clinicians to be of most value.
METHODS: Data were collected using a survey designed as part of a wider evaluation of a data feedback initiative in anaesthesia. Eighty-nine consultant anaesthetists from two English NHS acute Trusts completed the survey. Multiple linear regression with hierarchical variable entry was used to investigate which characteristics of feedback predict its perceived usefulness for monitoring variation and improving care.
RESULTS: The final model demonstrated that the relevance of the quality indicators to the specific service area (β=0.64, p=0.01) and the credibility of the data as coming from a trustworthy, unbiased source (β=0.55, p=0.01) were the significant predictors, having controlled for all other covariates.
CONCLUSION: For clinicians to engage with effective quality monitoring and feedback, the perceived local relevance of indicators and trust in the credibility of the resulting data are paramount.
© The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav.

Entities:  

Keywords:  feedback; patient safety; quality indicator

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25472987     DOI: 10.1177/1355819614557299

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Health Serv Res Policy        ISSN: 1355-8196


  3 in total

1.  Using audit and feedback to increase clinician adherence to clinical practice guidelines in brain injury rehabilitation: A before and after study.

Authors:  Laura Jolliffe; Jacqui Morarty; Tammy Hoffmann; Maria Crotty; Peter Hunter; Ian D Cameron; Xia Li; Natasha A Lannin
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-03-13       Impact factor: 3.240

Review 2.  Improving feedback on junior doctors' prescribing errors: mixed-methods evaluation of a quality improvement project.

Authors:  Matthew Reynolds; Seetal Jheeta; Jonathan Benn; Inderjit Sanghera; Ann Jacklin; Digby Ingle; Bryony Dean Franklin
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2016-04-04       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation.

Authors:  Natalie J Gould; Fabiana Lorencatto; Camilla During; Megan Rowley; Liz Glidewell; Rebecca Walwyn; Susan Michie; Robbie Foy; Simon J Stanworth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Jill J Francis
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-11-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.