Dataset Information

Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality.

ABSTRACT: Audit and feedback (A&F) has long been used to improve quality of care, albeit with variable results. This meta-analytic study tested whether Feedback Intervention Theory, a framework from industrial/organizational psychology, explains the observed variability in health care A&F research.studies cited by Jamtvedt's 2006 Cochrane systematic review of A&F, followed by database searches using the Cochrane review's search strategy to identify more recent studies.Cochrane review criteria, plus: presence of a treatment group receiving only A & F; a control group receiving no intervention; a quantitatively measurable outcome; minimum n of 10 per arm; sufficient statistics for effect size calculations. Moderators: presence of discouragement and praise; correct solution, attainment level, velocity, frequency, and normative information; feedback format (verbal, textual, graphic, public, computerized, group vs. individual); goal setting activity.meta-analytic procedures using the Hedges-Olkin method.Of 519 studies initially identified, 19 met all inclusion criteria. Studies were most often excluded due to the lack of a feedback-only arm. A&F has a modest, though significant positive effect on quality outcomes (d = 0.40, 95% confidence interval = +/-0.20); providing specific suggestions for improvement, written, and more frequent feedback strengthened this effect, whereas graphical and verbal feedback attenuated this effect.A&F effectiveness is improved when feedback is delivered with specific suggestions for improvement, in writing, and frequently. Other feedback characteristics could also potentially improve effectiveness; however, research with stricter experimental controls is needed to identify the specific feedback characteristics that maximize its effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Hysong SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4170834 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality.

Hysong Sylvia J SJ

Medical care 20090301 3

<h4>Background</h4>Audit and feedback (A&F) has long been used to improve quality of care, albeit with variable results. This meta-analytic study tested whether Feedback Intervention Theory, a framework from industrial/organizational psychology, explains the observed variability in health care A&F research.<h4>Method</h4><h4>Data source</h4>studies cited by Jamtvedt's 2006 Cochrane systematic review of A&F, followed by database searches using the Cochrane review's search strategy to identify mor ...[more]

PMID: 19194332

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the industry in measuring facility performance as a critical element in improving quality of care, investing substantial resources to develop and maintain valid and cost-effective measures. The External Peer Review Program (EPRP) of the VA is the official data source for monitoring facility performance, used to prioritize the quality areas needing most attention. Facility performance measurement has significantly improved preventive and chronic care, as well as overall quality; however, much variability still exists in levels of performance across measures and facilities. Audit and feedback (A&F), an important component of effective performance measurement, can help reduce this variability and improve overall performance. Previous research suggests that VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high EPRP performance scores tend to use EPRP data as a feedback source. However, the manner in which EPRP data are used as a feedback source by individual providers as well as service line, facility, and network leadership is not well understood. An in-depth understanding of mental models, strategies, and specific feedback process characteristics adopted by high-performing facilities is thus urgently needed.This research compares how leaders of high, low, and moderately performing VAMCs use clinical performance data from the EPRP as a feedback tool to maintain and improve quality of care.MethodsWe will conduct a qualitative, grounded theory analysis of up to 64 interviews using a novel method of sampling primary care, facility, and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) leadership at high-, moderate-, and low-performing facilities. We will analyze interviews for evidence of cross-facility differences in perceptions of performance data usefulness and strategies for disseminating performance data evaluating performance, with particular attention to timeliness, individualization, and punitiveness of feedback delivery.DiscussionMost research examining feedback to improve provider and facility performance lacks a detailed understanding of the elements of effective feedback. This research will highlight the elements most commonly used at high-performing facilities and identify additional features of their successful feedback strategies not previously identified. Armed with this information, practices can implement more effective A&F interventions to improve quality of care.

Project description:BackgroundFeedback tools for clinical audit data that compare site-specific results to average performance over all sites can be useful for quality improvement. Proposed tools should be simple and clearly benchmark the site's performance, so that a relevant action plan can be directly implemented to improve patient care services. We aimed to develop such a tool in order to feedback data to UK HIV clinics participating in the 2015 British HIV Association (BHIVA) audit assessing compliance with the 2011 guidelines for routine investigation and monitoring of adult HIV-1- infected individuals.MethodsHIV clinic sites were asked to provide data on a random sample of 50-100 adult patients attending for HIV care during 2014 and/or 2015 by completing a self-audit spreadsheet. Outcomes audited included the proportion of patients with recorded resistance testing, viral load monitoring, adherence assessment, medications, hepatitis testing, vaccination management, risk assessments, and sexual health screening. For each outcome we benchmarked the proportion for a specific site against the average performance. We produced performance charts for each site using boxplots for the outcomes. We also used the mean and differences from the mean performance to produce a dashboard for each site. We used principal components analysis to group correlated outcomes and simplify the dashboard.ResultsThe 106 sites included in the study provided information on a total of 7768 patients. Outcomes capturing monitoring of treatment of HIV-infection showed high performance across the sites, whereas testing for hepatitis, and risk assessment for cardiovascular disease and smoking, management of flu vaccination, sexual health screening, and cervical cytology for women were very variable across sites. The principal components analysis reduced the original 12 outcomes to four factors that represented HIV care, hepatitis testing, other screening tests, and resistance testing. These provided simplified measures of adherence to guidelines which were presented as a 4 bar dashboard of performance.ConclusionOur dashboard performance charts provide easily digestible visual summaries of locally relevant audit data that are benchmarked against the overall mean and can be used to improve feedback to HIV services. Feedback from clinicians indicated that they found these charts acceptable and useful.

Project description:BackgroundMeaningful variations in physician performance are not always discernible from the medical record.ObjectiveWe used unannounced standardized patients to measure and provide feedback on care quality and fidelity of documentation, and examined downstream effects on reimbursement claims.DesignStatic group pre-post comparison study conducted between 2017 and 2019.SettingFourteen New Jersey primary care practice groups (22 practices) enrolled in Horizon BCBS's value-based program received the intervention. For claims analyses, we identified 14 additional comparison practice groups matched on county, practice size, and claims activity.ParticipantsFifty-nine of 64 providers volunteered to participate.InterventionUnannounced standardized patients (USPs) made 217 visits portraying patients with 1-2 focal conditions (diabetes, depression, back pain, smoking, or preventive cancer screening). After two baseline visits to a provider, we delivered feedback and conducted two follow-up visits.MeasurementsUSP-completed checklists of guideline-based provider care behaviors, visit audio recordings, and provider notes were used to measure behaviors performed and documentation errors pre- and post-feedback. We also compared changes in 3-month office-based claims by actual patients between the intervention and comparison practice groups before and after feedback.ResultsExpected clinical behaviors increased from 46% to 56% (OR = 1.53, 95% CI 1.29-1.83, p < 0.0001), with significant improvements in smoking cessation, back pain, and depression screening. Providers were less likely to document unperformed tasks after (16%) than before feedback (18%; OR = 0.74, 95% CI 0.62 to 0.90, p = 0.002). Actual claim costs increased significantly less in the study than comparison group for diabetes and depression but significantly more for smoking cessation, cancer screening, and low back pain.LimitationsSelf-selection of participating practices and lack of access to prescription claims.ConclusionDirect observation of care identifies hidden deficits in practice and documentation, and with feedback can improve both, with concomitant effects on costs.

Project description:BackgroundTuberculosis screening of people living with HIV (PLHIV) can contribute to early tuberculosis diagnosis and improved patient outcomes. Evidence-based guidelines for tuberculosis screening are available, but literature assessing their implementation and the quality of clinical practice is scarce.ObjectivesTo assess tuberculosis screening practices and the effectiveness of audit and performance feedback to improve quality of tuberculosis screening at HIV care clinics in Ghana.DesignHealthcare providers at 10 large HIV care clinics prospectively registered patient consultations during May and October 2014, before and after a performance feedback intervention in August 2014. The outcomes of interest were overall tuberculosis suspicion rate during consultations and provider adherence to the International Standards for Tuberculosis Care and the World Health Organizations' guidelines for symptom-based tuberculosis screening among PLHIV.ResultsTwenty-one healthcare providers registered a total of 2,666 consultations; 1,368 consultations before and 1,298 consultations after the feedback intervention. Tuberculosis suspicion rate during consultation increased from 12.6 to 20.9% after feedback (odds ratio, OR 1.83; 95% confidence interval, CI: 1.09-3.09). Before feedback, sputum smear microscopy was requested for 58.7% of patients with suspected tuberculosis, for 47.2% of patients with cough ?2 weeks, and for 27.5% of patients with a positive World Health Organization (WHO) symptom screen (any of current cough, fever, weight loss or night sweats). After feedback, patients with a positive WHO symptom screen were more likely to be suspected of tuberculosis (OR 2.21; 95% CI: 1.19-4.09) and referred for microscopy (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.25-5.86).ConclusionsA simple prospective audit tool identified flaws in clinical practices for tuberculosis screening of PLHIV. There was no systematic identification of people with suspected active tuberculosis. We found low initial tuberculosis suspicion rate compounded by low referral rates of relevant patients for sputum smear microscopy. Adherence to recommended standards and guidelines for tuberculosis screening improved after performance feedback.

Project description:Audit and feedback to physicians is a commonly used quality improvement strategy, but its optimal design is unknown. This trial tested the effects of a theory-informed worksheet to facilitate goal setting and action planning, appended to feedback reports on chronic disease management, compared to feedback reports provided without these worksheets.A two-arm pragmatic cluster randomized trial was conducted, with allocation at the level of primary care clinics. Participants were family physicians who contributed data from their electronic medical records. The 'usual feedback' arm received feedback every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients meeting quality targets for diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease. The intervention arm received these same reports plus a worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Blood pressure (BP) and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) values were compared after two years as the primary outcomes. Process outcomes measured the proportion of guideline-recommended actions (e.g., testing and prescribing) conducted within the appropriate timeframe. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed.Outcomes were similar across groups at baseline. Final analysis included 20 physicians from seven clinics and 1,832 patients in the intervention arm (15% loss to follow up) and 29 physicians from seven clinics and 2,223 patients in the usual feedback arm (10% loss to follow up). Ten of 20 physicians completed the worksheet at least once during the study. Mean BP was 128/72 in the feedback plus worksheet arm and 128/73 in the feedback alone arm, while LDL was 2.1 and 2.0, respectively. Thus, no significant differences were observed across groups in the primary outcomes, but mean haemoglobin A1c was lower in the feedback plus worksheet arm (7.2% versus 7.4%, p<0.001). Improvements in both arms were noted over time for one-half of the process outcomes.Appending a theory-informed goal setting and action planning worksheet to an externally produced audit and feedback intervention did not lead to improvements in patient outcomes. The results may be explained in part by passive dissemination of the worksheet leading to inadequate engagement with the intervention.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645.

Project description:BackgroundMany primary care sites have implemented models to improve detection, diagnosis, and management of dementia, as per Canadian guidelines. The aim of this study is to describe the responses of clinicians, managers, and staff of sites that have implemented these models when presented with audit results, their insights on the factors that explain their results, their proposed solutions for improvement and how these align to one another.MethodsOne audit and feedback cycle was carried out in eight purposefully sampled sites in Ontario, Canada, that had previously implemented dementia care models. Audit consisted of a) chart review to assess quality of dementia care indicators, b) questionnaire to assess the physicians' knowledge, attitudes and practice toward dementia care, and c) semi-structured interviews to understand barriers and facilitators to implementing these models. Feedback was given to clinicians, managers, and staff in the form of graphic and oral presentations, followed by eight focus groups (one per site). Discussions revolved around: what audit results elicited more discussion from the participants, 2) their insights on the factors that explain their audit results, and 3) solutions they propose to improve dementia care. Deductive content and inductive thematic analyses, grounded in causal pathways models' theory was performed.FindingsThe audit and feedback process allowed the 63 participants to discuss many audit results and share their insights on a) organizational factors (lack of human resources, the importance of organized links with community services, clear roles and support from external memory clinics) and b) clinician factors (perceived competency practice and attitudes on dementia care), that could explain their audit results. Participants also provided solutions to improve dementia care in primary care (financial incentives, having clear pathways, adding tools to improve chart documentation, establish training on dementia care, and the possibility of benchmarking with other institutions). Proposed solutions were well aligned with their insights and further nuanced according to contextual details.ConclusionsThis study provides valuable information on solutions proposed by primary care clinicians, managers, and staff to improve dementia care in primary care. The solutions are grounded in clinical experience and will inform ongoing and future dementia strategies.

Project description:BackgroundHealth care delivery organizations lack evidence-based strategies for using quality measurement data to improve performance. Audit and feedback (A&F), the delivery of clinical performance summaries to providers, demonstrates the potential for large effects on clinical practice but is currently implemented as a blunt one size fits most intervention. Each provider in a care setting typically receives a performance summary of identical metrics in a common format despite the growing recognition that precisionizing interventions hold significant promise in improving their impact. A precision approach to A&F prioritizes the display of information in a single metric that, for each recipient, carries the highest value for performance improvement, such as when the metric's level drops below a peer benchmark or minimum standard for the first time, thereby revealing an actionable performance gap. Furthermore, precision A&F uses an optimal message format (including framing and visual displays) based on what is known about the recipient and the intended gist meaning being communicated to improve message interpretation while reducing the cognitive processing burden. Well-established psychological principles, frameworks, and theories form a feedback intervention knowledge base to achieve precision A&F. From an informatics perspective, precision A&F requires a knowledge-based system that enables mass customization by representing knowledge configurable at the group and individual levels.ObjectiveThis study aims to implement and evaluate a demonstration system for precision A&F in anesthesia care and to assess the effect of precision feedback emails on care quality and outcomes in a national quality improvement consortium.MethodsWe propose to achieve our aims by conducting 3 studies: a requirements analysis and preferences elicitation study using human-centered design and conjoint analysis methods, a software service development and implementation study, and a cluster randomized controlled trial of a precision A&F service with a concurrent process evaluation. This study will be conducted with the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group, a national anesthesia quality improvement consortium with >60 member hospitals in >20 US states. This study will extend the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group quality improvement infrastructure by using existing data and performance measurement processes.ResultsThe proposal was funded in September 2021 with a 4-year timeline. Data collection for Aim 1 began in March 2022. We plan for a 24-month trial timeline, with the intervention period of the trial beginning in March 2024.ConclusionsThe proposed aims will collectively demonstrate a precision feedback service developed using an open-source technical infrastructure for computable knowledge management. By implementing and evaluating a demonstration system for precision feedback, we create the potential to observe the conditions under which feedback interventions are effective.International registered report identifier (irrid)PRR1-10.2196/34990.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback aims to improve patient care by comparing healthcare performance against explicit standards. It is used to monitor and improve patient care, including through National Clinical Audit (NCA) programmes in the UK. Variability in effectiveness of audit and feedback is attributed to intervention design; separate randomised trials to address multiple questions about how to optimise effectiveness would be inefficient. We evaluated different feedback modifications to identify leading candidates for further "real-world" evaluation.MethodsUsing an online fractional factorial screening experiment, we randomised recipients of feedback from five UK NCAs to different combinations of six feedback modifications applied within an audit report excerpt: use effective comparators, provide multimodal feedback, recommend specific actions, provide optional detail, incorporate the patient voice, and minimise cognitive load. Outcomes, assessed immediately after exposure to the online modifications, included intention to enact audit standards (primary outcome, ranked on a scale of -3 to +3, tailored to the NCA), comprehension, user experience, and engagement.ResultsWe randomised 1241 participants (clinicians, managers, and audit staff) between April and October 2019. Inappropriate repeated participant completion occurred; we conservatively excluded participant entries during the relevant period, leaving a primary analysis population of 638 (51.4%) participants. None of the six feedback modifications had an independent effect on intention across the five NCAs. We observed both synergistic and antagonistic effects across outcomes when modifications were combined; the specific NCA and whether recipients had a clinical role had dominant influences on outcome, and there was an antagonistic interaction between multimodal feedback and optional detail. Among clinical participants, predicted intention ranged from 1.22 (95% confidence interval 0.72, 1.72) for the least effective combination in which multimodal feedback, optional detail, and reduced cognitive load were applied within the audit report, up to 2.40 (95% CI 1.88, 2.93) for the most effective combination including multimodal feedback, specific actions, patient voice, and reduced cognitive load.ConclusionPotentially important synergistic and antagonistic effects were identified across combinations of feedback modifications, audit programmes, and recipients, suggesting that feedback designers must explicitly consider how different features of feedback may interact to achieve (or undermine) the desired effects.Trial registrationInternational Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN41584028.

Dataset Information

Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality.

Publications

Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets