Literature DB >> 27288054

Theory-based and evidence-based design of audit and feedback programmes: examples from two clinical intervention studies.

Sylvia J Hysong1,2, Harrison J Kell3, Laura A Petersen1,2, Bryan A Campbell4, Barbara W Trautner1,2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a common intervention used to change healthcare provider behaviour and, thus, improve healthcare quality. Although A&F can be effective its effectiveness varies, often due to the details of how A&F interventions are implemented. Some have suggested that a suitable conceptual framework is needed to organise the elements of A&F and also explain any observed differences in effectiveness. Through two examples from applied research studies, this article demonstrates how a suitable explanatory theory (in this case Kluger & DeNisi's Feedback Intervention Theory (FIT)) can be systematically applied to design better feedback interventions in healthcare settings.
METHODS: Case 1: this study's objective was to reduce inappropriate diagnosis of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) in inpatient wards. Learning to identify the correct clinical course of action from the case details was central to this study; consequently, the feedback intervention featured feedback elements that FIT predicts would best activate learning processes (framing feedback in terms of group performance and providing of correct solution information). We designed a highly personalised, interactive, one-on-one intervention with healthcare providers to improve their capacity to distinguish between CAUTI and asymptomatic bacteruria (ASB) and treat ASB appropriately. Case 2: Simplicity and scalability drove this study's intervention design, employing elements that FIT predicted positively impacted effectiveness yet still facilitated deployment and scalability (eg, delivered via computer, delivered in writing). We designed a web-based, report-style feedback intervention to help primary care physicians improve their care of patients with hypertension.
RESULTS: Both studies exhibited significant improvements in their desired outcome and in both cases interventions were received positively by feedback recipients.
SUMMARY: A&F has been a popular, yet inconsistently implemented and variably effective tool for changing healthcare provider behaviour and, improving healthcare quality. Through the systematic use of theory such as FIT, robust feedback interventions can be designed that yield greater effectiveness. Future work should look to comparative effectiveness of specific design elements and contextual factors that identify A&F as the optimal intervention to effectuate healthcare provider behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01052545, NCT00302718; post-results. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Audit and feedback; Health services research; Quality improvement methodologies

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27288054     DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004796

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ Qual Saf        ISSN: 2044-5415            Impact factor:   7.035


  15 in total

Review 1.  Implementing risk-aligned bladder cancer surveillance care.

Authors:  Florian R Schroeck; Nicholas Smith; Jeremy B Shelton
Journal:  Urol Oncol       Date:  2018-02-13       Impact factor: 3.498

2.  Who Wants Feedback? Effects of Transformational Leadership and Leader-Member Exchange on Mental Health Practitioners' Attitudes Toward Feedback.

Authors:  Karissa M Fenwick; Kim C Brimhall; Michael Hurlburt; Gregory Aarons
Journal:  Psychiatr Serv       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 3.084

3.  Feasibility of peer assessment and clinical audit to self-regulate the quality of physiotherapy services: a mixed methods study.

Authors:  Marjo J M Maas; Maria W G Nijhuis-van der Sanden; Femke Driehuis; Yvonne F Heerkens; Cees P M van der Vleuten; Philip J van der Wees
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 2.692

Review 4.  Trials need participants but not their feedback? A scoping review of published papers on the measurement of participant experience of taking part in clinical trials.

Authors:  Claire Planner; Peter Bower; Ailsa Donnelly; K Gillies; Katrina Turner; Bridget Young
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2019-06-24       Impact factor: 2.279

5.  Audit-and-Feedback and Workflow Changes Improve Emergency Department Care of Critically Ill Children.

Authors:  Sandra P Spencer; Todd Karsies
Journal:  Pediatr Qual Saf       Date:  2019-01-09

6.  Case-based audit and feedback around a decision aid improved antibiotic choice and duration for uncomplicated cystitis in primary care clinics.

Authors:  Larissa Grigoryan; Roger Zoorob; George Germanos; Mohamad Sidani; Matthew Horsfield; Fareed Khan; Mohammad Zare; Melanie Goebel; Robert Atmar; Barbara Trautner
Journal:  Fam Med Community Health       Date:  2021-07

7.  Mystery shopping and coaching as a form of audit and feedback to improve community pharmacy management of non-prescription medicine requests: an intervention study.

Authors:  Jack Charles Collins; Carl Richard Schneider; Clare Louise Naughtin; Frances Wilson; Abilio Cesar de Almeida Neto; Rebekah Jane Moles
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-12-14       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Beyond quality improvement: exploring why primary care teams engage in a voluntary audit and feedback program.

Authors:  Daniel J Wagner; Janet Durbin; Jan Barnsley; Noah M Ivers
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2017-12-02       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Audit and feedback in mental healthcare: staff experiences.

Authors:  Monica Stolt Pedersen; Anne Landheim; Merete Møller; Lars Lien
Journal:  Int J Health Care Qual Assur       Date:  2018-08-13

10.  Empowering Implementation Teams with a Learning Health System Approach: Leveraging Data to Improve Quality of Care for Transient Ischemic Attack.

Authors:  Nicholas A Rattray; Teresa M Damush; Edward J Miech; Barbara Homoya; Laura J Myers; Lauren S Penney; Jared Ferguson; Brenna Giacherio; Meetesh Kumar; Dawn M Bravata
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-01       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.