Dataset Information

Unregulated provider perceptions of audit and feedback reports in long-term care: cross-sectional survey findings from a quality improvement intervention.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Audit with feedback is a moderately effective approach for improving professional practice in other health care settings. Although unregulated caregivers give the majority of direct care in long-term care settings, little is known about how they understand and perceive feedback reports because unregulated providers have not been directly targeted to receive audit with feedback in quality improvement interventions in long-term care. The purpose of this paper is to describe unregulated care providers' perceptions of usefulness of a feedback report in four Canadian long-term care facilities.

Methods

We delivered monthly feedback reports to unregulated care providers for 13 months in 2009-2010. The feedback reports described a unit's performance in relation to falls, depression, and pain as compared to eight other units in the study. Follow-up surveys captured participant perceptions of the feedback report. We conducted descriptive analyses of the variables related to participant perceptions and multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between perceived usefulness of the feedback report and a set of independent variables.

Results

The vast majority (80%) of unregulated care providers (n = 171) who responded said they understood the reports. Those who discussed the report with others and were interested in other forms of data were more likely to find the feedback report useful for making changes in resident care.

Conclusions

This work suggests that unregulated care providers can understand and feel positively about using audit with feedback reports to make changes to resident care. Further research should explore ways to promote fuller engagement of unregulated care providers in decision-making to improve quality of care in long-term care settings.

SUBMITTER: Fraser KD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3598638 | biostudies-literature | 2013 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unregulated provider perceptions of audit and feedback reports in long-term care: cross-sectional survey findings from a quality improvement intervention.

Fraser Kimberly D KD O'Rourke Hannah M HM Baylon Melba Andrea B MA Boström Anne-Marie AM Sales Anne E AE

BMC geriatrics 20130213

<h4>Background</h4>Audit with feedback is a moderately effective approach for improving professional practice in other health care settings. Although unregulated caregivers give the majority of direct care in long-term care settings, little is known about how they understand and perceive feedback reports because unregulated providers have not been directly targeted to receive audit with feedback in quality improvement interventions in long-term care. The purpose of this paper is to describe unre ...[more]

PMID: 23402382

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThere is considerable evidence about the effectiveness of audit coupled with feedback, although few audit with feedback interventions have been conducted in long-term care (LTC) settings to date. In general, the effects have been found to be modest at best, although in settings where there has been little history of audit and feedback, the effects may be greater, at least initially. The primary purpose of the Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence (DICE) Long-Term Care project is to assess the effects of an audit with feedback intervention delivered monthly over 13 months in four LTC facilities. The research questions we addressed are:1. What effects do feedback reports have on processes and outcomes over time?2. How do different provider groups in LTC and home care respond to feedback reports based on data targeted at improving quality of care?Methods/designThe research team conducting this study comprises researchers and decision makers in continuing care in the province of Alberta, Canada. The intervention consists of monthly feedback reports in nine LTC units in four facilities in Edmonton, Alberta. Data for the feedback reports comes from the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set (RAI) version 2.0, a standardized instrument mandated for use in LTC facilities throughout Alberta. Feedback reports consist of one page, front and back, presenting both graphic and textual information. Reports are delivered to all staff working in the four LTC facilities. The primary evaluation uses a controlled interrupted time series design both adjusted and unadjusted for covariates. The concurrent process evaluation uses observation and self-report to assess uptake of the feedback reports. Following the project phase described in this protocol, a similar intervention will be conducted in home care settings in Alberta. Depending on project findings, if they are judged useful by decision makers participating in this research team, we plan dissemination and spread of the feedback report approach throughout Alberta.

Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in the impact of national clinical audit programmes on the quality of healthcare. There is also an evolving evidence-base for enhancing the design and delivery of audit and feedback. We assessed the extent to which a sample of UK national clinical audit feedback reports met a set of good practice criteria over three time points.MethodsWe undertook three cross-sectional content analyses. We developed good practice criteria for the content and delivery of feedback based upon evidence, behavioural theory and expert opinion. We applied these to a feedback reports from 23 national audits listed on the Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP) website in November 2015. We repeated our assessments in January 2017 for 20 repeat feedback reports, after HQIP had published reporting guidance for national audits, and in August 2019 for a further 14 repeat feedback reports. We verified our assessments, where possible, with audit leads.ResultsFeedback reports consistently included strengths at baseline, including past or planned repeated audit cycles (21; 91%), stating the importance of the topic in relation to patient care (22; 93%), using multi-modal data presentation (23; 100%), and summarising key findings (23; 100%). We observed improvements over subsequent assessments, so that by 2019, at least 13 out of 14 (93%) feedback reports presented easily identifiable key findings and recommendations, linked recommendations to audit standards, and proposed easily identifiable action plans. Whilst the use of regional comparators did not improve, audit leads highlighted that programmes now provide local data via additional means. The main shortcoming was the time lag between data collection and feedback; none of the 14 reports assessed in 2019 presented performance data less than 6 months old. Audit leads highlighted that some of these data might be available via programme websites.ConclusionWe identified increased adherence to good practice in feedback by national clinical audit programmes that may enhance their impact on service delivery and outcomes. There is scope for improvement, especially in the recency of performance data. With further refinements, a criterion-based assessment offers an efficient means of monitoring the quality of national clinical audit feedback reports.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Although considerable evidence exists about the effectiveness of audit coupled with feedback, very few audit-with-feedback interventions have been done in either home care or supportive living settings to date. With little history of audit and feedback in home care or supportive living there is potential for greater effects, at least initially. This study extends the work of an earlier study designed to assess the effects of an audit-with-feedback intervention. It will be delivered quarterly over a one-year period in seven home care offices and 11 supportive living sites. The research questions are the same as in the first study but in a different environment. They are as follows: 1. What effects do feedback reports have on processes and outcomes over time? 2. How do different provider groups in home care and supportive living sites respond to feedback reports based on quality indicator data? METHODS: The research team conducting this study includes researchers and decision makers in continuing care in the province of Alberta, Canada. The intervention consists of quarterly feedback reports in 19 home care offices and supportive living sites across Alberta. Data for the feedback reports are based on the Resident Assessment Instrument Home Care tool, a standardized instrument mandated for use in home care and supportive living environments throughout Alberta. The feedback reports consist of one page, printed front and back, presenting both graphic and textual information. Reports are delivered to all employees working in each site. The primary evaluation uses a controlled interrupted time-series design, both adjusted and unadjusted for covariates. The concurrent process evaluation includes observation, focus groups, and self-reports to assess uptake of the feedback reports. The project described in this protocol follows a similar intervention conducted in our previous study, Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence--Long-Term Care. We will offer dissemination strategies and spread of the feedback report approach in several ways suited to various audiences and stakeholders throughout Alberta. SIGNIFICANCE: This study will generate knowledge about the effects of an audit with feedback intervention in home care and supportive living settings. Our dissemination activities will focus on supporting sites to continue to use the Resident Assessment Instrument data in their quality improvement activities.

Project description:BackgroundVirtual reality (VR), a simulated experience that can be similar to or completely different from the real world, has become increasingly useful within the psychiatric and medical fields. This VR technology has been applied in medical school trainings, exposure therapy for individuals with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and reminiscence therapy associated with mood disorders for older adults. Perceptions of VR through the lens of the health care provider require further exploration. VR has grown in popularity; however, this modality continues to be underused in most Veterans Affairs (VA) hospitals.ObjectiveA web-based survey was used to explore health care provider perceptions of immersive VR availability and use for older adults and identify potential barriers for immersive VR use in older adults with cognitive impairment.MethodsAn 8-item web-based survey was developed to obtain health care provider feedback. This survey was disseminated throughout a single Veterans Integrated Services Network (VISN). The VR survey was developed via the Survey Monkey platform and distributed through the secure VA email network. Providers were asked to voluntarily participate in the brief, anonymous survey and offer their perceptions of immersive VR use within their patient population. Survey data were reviewed and interpreted using descriptive statistics.ResultsA total of 49 respondents completed the survey over a 15-day period. Of them, 36 respondents (73%) had heard of a VR device, though the majority (n=44, 90%) had never used or prescribed a VR device. Respondents identified several potential barriers to immersive VR use in older adults with cognitive impairment (eg, hearing difficulties, perceptions of technology, cognitive concerns, access to resources, and visual impairment). Despite the barriers identified, providers (n=48, 98%) still reported that they would feel comfortable prescribing immersive VR as an intervention for their patient population.ConclusionsSurvey findings revealed that health care providers within this VISN for VAs have heard of VR, although they may not have actively engaged in its use. Most of the providers reported that they would prescribe the use of an immersive VR intervention for their older adult patients. This key point highlights the desire to implement VR strategies for patient use by their providers. If underlying barriers can be addressed and relatively resolved, this technological intervention has the potential to create substantial breakthroughs in clinical care.

Project description:BackgroundThe use of clinical performance feedback to support quality improvement (QI) activities is based on the sound rationale that measurement is necessary to improve quality of care. However, concerns persist about the reliability of this strategy, known as Audit and Feedback (A&F) to support QI. If successfully implemented, A&F should reflect an iterative, self-regulating QI process. Whether and how real-world A&F initiatives result in this type of feedback loop are scarcely reported. This study aimed to identify barriers or facilitators to implementation in a team-based primary care context.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from team-based primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. At the time of data collection, practices could have received up to three iterations of the voluntary A&F initiative. Interviews explored whether, how, and why practices used the feedback to guide their QI activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to code transcripts and the resulting frameworks were analyzed inductively to generate key themes.ResultsTwenty-five individuals representing 18 primary care teams participated in the study. Analysis of how the A&F intervention was used revealed that implementation reflected an incomplete feedback loop. Participation was facilitated by the reliance on an external resource to facilitate the practice audit. The frequency of feedback, concerns with data validity, the design of the feedback report, the resource requirements to participate, and the team relationship were all identified as barriers to implementation of A&F.ConclusionsThe implementation of a real-world, voluntary A&F initiative did not lead to desired QI activities despite substantial investments in performance measurement. In small primary care teams, it may take long periods of time to develop capacity for QI and future evaluations may reveal shifts in the implementation state of the initiative. Findings from the present study demonstrate that the potential mechanism of action of A&F may be deceptively clear; in practice, moving from measurement to action can be complex.

Project description:BackgroundUsing patient audio recordings of medical visits to provide clinicians with feedback on their attention to patient life context in care planning can improve health care delivery and outcomes, and reduce costs. However, such an initiative can raise concerns across stakeholders about surveillance, intrusiveness and merit. This study examined the perspectives of patients, physicians and other clinical staff, and facility leaders over 3 years at six sites during the implementation of a patient-collected audio quality improvement program designed to improve patient-centered care in a non-threatening manner and with minimal effort required of patients and clinicians.MethodsPatients were invited during the first and third year to complete exit surveys when they returned their audio recorders following visits, and clinicians to complete surveys annually. Clinicians were invited to participate in focus groups in the first and third years. Facility leaders were interviewed individually during the last 6 months of the study.ResultsThere were a total of 12 focus groups with 89 participants, and 30 leadership interviews. Two hundred fourteen clinicians and 800 patients completed surveys. In a qualitative analysis of focus group data employing NVivo, clinicians initially expressed concerns that the program could be disruptive and/or burdensome, but these diminished with program exposure and were substantially replaced by an appreciation for the value of low stakes constructive feedback. They were also significantly more confident in the value of the intervention in the final year (p = .008), more likely to agree that leadership supports continuous improvement of patient care and gives feedback on outcomes (p = .02), and at a time that is convenient (p = .04). Patients who volunteered sometimes expressed concerns they were "spying" on their doctors, but most saw it as an opportunity to improve care. Leaders were supportive of the program but not yet prepared to commit to funding it exclusively with facility resources.ConclusionsA patient-collected audio program can be implemented when it is perceived as safe, not disruptive or burdensome, and as contributing to better health care.

Dataset Information

Unregulated provider perceptions of audit and feedback reports in long-term care: cross-sectional survey findings from a quality improvement intervention.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Unregulated provider perceptions of audit and feedback reports in long-term care: cross-sectional survey findings from a quality improvement intervention.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets