Literature DB >> 26262085

Inside the Black Box of Audit and Feedback: a Laboratory Study to Explore Determinants of Improvement Target Selection by Healthcare Professionals in Cardiac Rehabilitation.

Wouter T Gude1, Sabine N van der Veer2, Mariëtte M van Engen-Verheul1, Nicolette F de Keizer1, Niels Peek2.   

Abstract

Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used to aid healthcare professionals in improving clinical performance, but there is little understanding of the underlying mechanism that determines its effectiveness. The aim of this paper is to investigate the process by which healthcare professionals select indicators as improvement targets based on A&F. We performed a laboratory study among 41 healthcare professionals in the context of a web-based A&F intervention designed to improve the quality of cardiac rehabilitation care in the Netherlands. Feedback was provided on eighteen quality indicators, including a score and a colour (representing a recommendation for selection (red and yellow) or non-selection (green)). Indicators with more room for improvement were more likely to be selected, although this varied substantially between participants. In more than a quarter of the cases, participants did not select indicators with obvious room for improvement (yellow or red colour), or selected indicators without apparent room for improvement (green colour). We conclude that personal preferences and beliefs concerning quality and performance targets may dilute the efficiency of A&F.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26262085

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stud Health Technol Inform        ISSN: 0926-9630


  6 in total

1.  Electronic audit and feedback intervention with action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care: protocol for a laboratory experiment and cluster randomised trial.

Authors:  Wouter T Gude; Marie-José Roos-Blom; Sabine N van der Veer; Evert de Jonge; Niels Peek; Dave A Dongelmans; Nicolette F de Keizer
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2017-05-25       Impact factor: 7.327

2.  Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback.

Authors:  J M Grimshaw; Noah Ivers; Stefanie Linklater; Robbie Foy; Jill J Francis; Wouter T Gude; Sylvia J Hysong
Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf       Date:  2019-03-09       Impact factor: 7.035

3.  Health professionals' perceptions about their clinical performance and the influence of audit and feedback on their intentions to improve practice: a theory-based study in Dutch intensive care units.

Authors:  Wouter T Gude; Marie-José Roos-Blom; Sabine N van der Veer; Dave A Dongelmans; Evert de Jonge; Jill J Francis; Niels Peek; Nicolette F de Keizer
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2018-02-17       Impact factor: 7.327

4.  Does audit and feedback improve the adoption of recommended practices? Evidence from a longitudinal observational study of an emerging clinical network in Kenya.

Authors:  Jacqiue Oliwa; Susan Gachau; Philip Ayieko; David Gathara; Paul Mwaniki; Morris Ogero; Samuel Akech; Michuki Maina; Ambrose Agweyu; Jacquie Oliwa; Thomas Julius; Lucas Malla; James Wafula; George Mbevi; Grace Irimu; Mike English
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2017-10-23

5.  Factors hindering the adherence to clinical practice guideline for diabetes mellitus in the Palestinian primary healthcare clinics: a qualitative study.

Authors:  Mahmoud Radwan; Ali Akbari Sari; Arash Rashidian; Amirhossein Takian; Aymen Elsous; Sanaa Abou-Dagga
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2018-09-05       Impact factor: 2.692

6.  Systematic review and narrative synthesis of computerized audit and feedback systems in healthcare.

Authors:  Jung Yin Tsang; Niels Peek; Iain Buchan; Sabine N van der Veer; Benjamin Brown
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2022-05-11       Impact factor: 7.942

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.