Anna H Glenngård1, Anders Anell2. 1. Department of Business Administration, Lund University School of Economics and Management, Box 7080, 2SE-220 07, Lund, Sweden. anna.glenngard@fek.lu.se. 2. Department of Business Administration, Lund University School of Economics and Management, Box 7080, 2SE-220 07, Lund, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This article addresses the role of audit and feedback (A&F) to support change behaviour and quality improvement work in healthcare organisations. It contributes to the sparse literature on primary care centre (PCC) managers´ views on A&F practices, taking into account the broad scope of primary care. The purpose was to explore if and how different types of A&F support change behaviour by influencing different forms of motivation and learning, and what contextual facilitators and barriers enable or obstruct change behaviour in primary care. METHODS: A qualitative research approach was used. We explored views about the impact of A&F across managers of 27 PCCs, in five Swedish regions, through semi-structured interviews. A purposeful sampling was used to identify both regions and PCC managers, in order to explore multiple perspectives. We used the COM-B framework, which describes how Capability, Opportunity and Motivation interact and generate change behaviour and how different factors might act as facilitators or barriers, when collecting and analysing data. RESULTS: Existing forms of A&F were perceived as coercive top-down interventions to secure adherence to contractual obligations, financial targets and clinical guidelines. Support to bottom-up approaches and more complex change at team and organisational levels was perceived as limited. We identified five contextual factors that matter for the impact of A&F on change behaviour and quality improvement work: performance of organisations, continuity in staff, size of organisations, flexibility in leadership and management, and flexibility offered by the external environment. CONCLUSIONS: External A&F, perceived as coercive by recipients of feedback, can have an impact on change behaviour through 'know-what' and 'know-why' types of knowledge and 'have-to' commitment but provide limited support to complex change. 'Want-to' commitment and bottom-up driven processes are important for more complex change. Similar to previous research, identified facilitators and barriers of change consisted of factors that are difficult to influence by A&F activities. Future research is needed on how to ensure co-development of A&F models that are perceived as legitimate by health care professionals and useful to support more complex change.
BACKGROUND: This article addresses the role of audit and feedback (A&F) to support change behaviour and quality improvement work in healthcare organisations. It contributes to the sparse literature on primary care centre (PCC) managers´ views on A&F practices, taking into account the broad scope of primary care. The purpose was to explore if and how different types of A&F support change behaviour by influencing different forms of motivation and learning, and what contextual facilitators and barriers enable or obstruct change behaviour in primary care. METHODS: A qualitative research approach was used. We explored views about the impact of A&F across managers of 27 PCCs, in five Swedish regions, through semi-structured interviews. A purposeful sampling was used to identify both regions and PCC managers, in order to explore multiple perspectives. We used the COM-B framework, which describes how Capability, Opportunity and Motivation interact and generate change behaviour and how different factors might act as facilitators or barriers, when collecting and analysing data. RESULTS: Existing forms of A&F were perceived as coercive top-down interventions to secure adherence to contractual obligations, financial targets and clinical guidelines. Support to bottom-up approaches and more complex change at team and organisational levels was perceived as limited. We identified five contextual factors that matter for the impact of A&F on change behaviour and quality improvement work: performance of organisations, continuity in staff, size of organisations, flexibility in leadership and management, and flexibility offered by the external environment. CONCLUSIONS: External A&F, perceived as coercive by recipients of feedback, can have an impact on change behaviour through 'know-what' and 'know-why' types of knowledge and 'have-to' commitment but provide limited support to complex change. 'Want-to' commitment and bottom-up driven processes are important for more complex change. Similar to previous research, identified facilitators and barriers of change consisted of factors that are difficult to influence by A&F activities. Future research is needed on how to ensure co-development of A&F models that are perceived as legitimate by health care professionals and useful to support more complex change.
Entities:
Keywords:
Audit and feedback; COM-B; Capability; Change behaviour; Motivation; Opportunity; Primary care
Authors: Heather Colquhoun; Susan Michie; Anne Sales; Noah Ivers; J M Grimshaw; Kelly Carroll; Mathieu Chalifoux; Kevin Eva; Jamie Brehaut Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2016-01-25 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Jamie C Brehaut; Heather L Colquhoun; Kevin W Eva; Kelly Carroll; Anne Sales; Susan Michie; Noah Ivers; Jeremy M Grimshaw Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-02-23 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Wouter T Gude; Mariëtte M van Engen-Verheul; Sabine N van der Veer; Nicolette F de Keizer; Niels Peek Journal: BMJ Qual Saf Date: 2016-04-11 Impact factor: 7.035
Authors: Heather L Colquhoun; Jamie C Brehaut; Anne Sales; Noah Ivers; Jeremy Grimshaw; Susan Michie; Kelly Carroll; Mathieu Chalifoux; Kevin W Eva Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2013-06-10 Impact factor: 7.327
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