Tasnim Sinuff1, John Muscedere2, Linda Rozmovits3, Craig M Dale4, Damon C Scales1. 1. Department of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 2. Department of Medicine and Critical Care Program, Queens University, Kingston General Hospital, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. 3. Independent Qualitative Researcher, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. 4. Lawrence S. Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is integral to performance improvement and behaviour change in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, there remain large gaps in our understanding of the social experience of audit and feedback and the mechanisms whereby it can be optimised as a quality improvement strategy in the ICU setting. METHODS: We conducted a modified grounded theory qualitative study. Seventy-two clinicians from five academic and five community ICUs in Ontario, Canada, were interviewed. Team members reviewed interview transcripts independently. Data analysis used constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Clinicians interviewed experienced audit and feedback as fragmented and variable in its effectiveness. Moreover, clinicians felt disconnected from the process. The audit process was perceived as being insufficiently transparent. Feedback was often untimely, incomplete and not actionable. Specific groups such as respiratory therapists and night-shift clinicians felt marginalised. Suggestions for improvement included improving information sharing about the rationale for change and the audit process, tools and metrics; implementing peer-to-peer quality discussions to avoid a top-down approach (eg, incorporating feedback into discussions at daily rounds); providing effective feedback which contains specific, transparent and actionable information; delivering timely feedback (ie, balancing feedback proximate to events with trends over time) and increasing engagement by senior management. CONCLUSIONS: ICU clinicians experience audit and feedback as fragmented communication with feedback being especially problematic. Attention to improving communication, integration of the process into daily clinical activities and making feedback timely, specific and actionable may increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback to affect desired change. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback is integral to performance improvement and behaviour change in the intensive care unit (ICU). However, there remain large gaps in our understanding of the social experience of audit and feedback and the mechanisms whereby it can be optimised as a quality improvement strategy in the ICU setting. METHODS: We conducted a modified grounded theory qualitative study. Seventy-two clinicians from five academic and five community ICUs in Ontario, Canada, were interviewed. Team members reviewed interview transcripts independently. Data analysis used constant comparative methods. RESULTS: Clinicians interviewed experienced audit and feedback as fragmented and variable in its effectiveness. Moreover, clinicians felt disconnected from the process. The audit process was perceived as being insufficiently transparent. Feedback was often untimely, incomplete and not actionable. Specific groups such as respiratory therapists and night-shift clinicians felt marginalised. Suggestions for improvement included improving information sharing about the rationale for change and the audit process, tools and metrics; implementing peer-to-peer quality discussions to avoid a top-down approach (eg, incorporating feedback into discussions at daily rounds); providing effective feedback which contains specific, transparent and actionable information; delivering timely feedback (ie, balancing feedback proximate to events with trends over time) and increasing engagement by senior management. CONCLUSIONS: ICU clinicians experience audit and feedback as fragmented communication with feedback being especially problematic. Attention to improving communication, integration of the process into daily clinical activities and making feedback timely, specific and actionable may increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback to affect desired change. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audit and feedback; Implementation science; Qualitative research; Quality improvement
Authors: Jason Zucker; Lawrence Purpura; Fereshteh Sani; Simian Huang; Aaron Schluger; Kenneth Ruperto; Jacek Slowkowski; Susan Olender; Matt Scherer; Delivette Castor; Peter Gordon Journal: AIDS Patient Care STDS Date: 2022-03 Impact factor: 5.944
Authors: Nicola Mackintosh; Marius Terblanche; Ritesh Maharaj; Andreas Xyrichis; Karen Franklin; Jamie Keddie; Emily Larkins; Anna Maslen; James Skinner; Samuel Newman; Joana Hiew De Sousa Magalhaes; Jane Sandall Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2016-10-18
Authors: Wouter T Gude; Mariëtte M van Engen-Verheul; Sabine N van der Veer; Hareld M C Kemps; Monique W M Jaspers; Nicolette F de Keizer; Niels Peek Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2016-12-09 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Brita Skodvin; June U Høgli; Kirsten Gravningen; Marion I Neteland; Stig Harthug; Per E Akselsen Journal: JAC Antimicrob Resist Date: 2021-05-17