Dataset Information

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementation laboratories have been proposed as a way of improving population healthcare while generating robust evidence on feedback effects. However, there is limited experience in their design and delivery.

Aim

To explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.

Design and setting

Two-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.

Method

Participants initially scored statements relating to priorities, feasibility, and ethical considerations for an implementation laboratory. These covered current feedback practice, priority topics for feedback, usefulness of feedback in improving prescribing and different types of prescribing data, acceptability and desirability of different organization levels of randomization, options for trial consent, different methods of delivering feedback, and interest in finding out how effective different ways of presenting feedback would be. After receiving collated results, participants then scored the items again. The consensus was defined using the GRADE criteria. The results were analyzed by group and overall score.

Results

Fourteen participants reached consensus for 38 out of 55 statements. Addressing antibiotic and opioid prescribing emerged as the highest priorities for action. The panel supported statements around addressing high-priority prescribing issues, taking an "opt-out" approach to practice consent if waiving consent was not permitted, and randomizing at lower rather than higher organizational levels. Participants supported patient-level prescribing data and further research evaluating most of the different feedback methods we presented them with.

Conclusions

There is a good level of support for evaluating a wide range of potential enhancements to improve the effects of feedback on prescribing. The successful design and delivery of a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory depend on identifying shared priorities and addressing practical and ethical considerations.

SUBMITTER: Alderson SL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7792204 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study.

Alderson Sarah L SL Bald Alexander A Carder Paul P Farrin Amanda A Foy Robbie R

Implementation science communications 20210107 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is a significant variation among individual primary care providers in prescribing of potentially problematic, low-value medicines which cause avoidable patient harm. Audit and feedback is generally effective at improving prescribing. However, progress has been hindered by research waste, leading to unanswered questions about how to include audit and feedback for specific problems and circumstances. Trials of different ways of providing audit and feedback in implementatio ...[more]

PMID: 33413700

Similar Datasets

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:BackgroundLaboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting.MethodsFive databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria.ResultsWe identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group.ConclusionsOur review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016051941.

Project description:Audit and feedback is often used as a strategy to improve quality of care, however, its effects are variable and often marginal. In order to learn how to design and deliver effective feedback, we need to understand their mechanisms of action. This theory-informed study will investigate how electronic audit and feedback affects improvement intentions (i.e. information-intention gap), and whether an action implementation toolbox with suggested actions and materials helps translating those intentions into action (i.e. intention-behaviour gap). The study will be executed in Dutch intensive care units (ICUs) and will be focused on pain management.We will conduct a laboratory experiment with individual ICU professionals to assess the impact of feedback on their intentions to improve practice. Next, we will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial with ICUs allocated to feedback without or feedback with action implementation toolbox group. Participants will not be told explicitly what aspect of the intervention is randomised; they will only be aware that there are two variations of providing feedback. ICUs are eligible for participation if they submit indicator data to the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) quality registry and agree to allocate a quality improvement team that spends 4 h per month on the intervention. All participating ICUs will receive access to an online quality dashboard that provides two functionalities: gaining insight into clinical performance on pain management indicators and developing action plans. ICUs with access to the toolbox can develop their action plans guided by a list of potential barriers in the care process, associated suggested actions, and supporting materials to facilitate implementation of the actions. The primary outcome measure for the laboratory experiment is the proportion of improvement intentions set by participants that are consistent with recommendations based on peer comparisons; for the randomised trial it is the proportion of patient shifts during which pain has been adequately managed. We will also conduct a process evaluation to understand how the intervention is implemented and used in clinical practice, and how implementation and use affect the intervention's impact.The results of this study will inform care providers and managers in ICU and other clinical settings how to use indicator-based performance feedback in conjunction with an action implementation toolbox to improve quality of care. Within the ICU context, this study will produce concrete and directly applicable knowledge with respect to what is or is not effective for improving pain management, and under which circumstances. The results will further guide future research that aims to understand the mechanisms behind audit and feedback and contribute to identifying the active ingredients of successful interventions.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922101 . Registered 26 September 2016.

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: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:ImportanceAntibiotics are commonly prescribed in primary care, increasing the risk of antimicrobial resistance in the population.ObjectiveTo investigate the effect of quarterly audit and feedback on antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.Design, setting, and participantsThis pragmatic randomized clinical trial was conducted from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2019, among 3426 registered primary care physicians and pediatricians in single or small practices in Switzerland who were among the top 75% prescribers of antibiotics. Intention-to-treat analysis was performed using analysis of covariance models and conducted from September 1, 2021, to January 31, 2022.InterventionsPrimary care physicians were randomized in a 1:1 fashion to undergo quarterly antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback with peer benchmarking vs no intervention for 2 years, with 2017 used as the baseline year. Anonymized patient-level claims data from 3 health insurers serving roughly 50% of insurees in Switzerland were used for audit and feedback. The intervention group also received evidence-based guidelines for respiratory tract and urinary tract infection management and community antibiotic resistance information. Physicians in the intervention group were blinded regarding the nature of the trial, and physicians in the control group were not informed of the trial.Main outcomes and measuresThe claims data used for audit and feedback were analyzed to assess outcomes. Primary outcome was the antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations during the second year of the intervention. Secondary end points included overall antibiotic use in the first year and over 2 years, use of quinolones and oral cephalosporins, all-cause hospitalizations, and antibiotic use in 3 age groups.ResultsA total of 3426 physicians were randomized to the intervention (n = 1713) and control groups (n = 1713) serving 629 825 and 622 344 patients, respectively, with a total of 4 790 525 consultations in the baseline year of 2017. In the entire cohort, a 4.2% (95% CI, 3.9%-4.6%) relative increase in the antibiotic prescribing rate was noted during the second year of the intervention compared with 2017. In the intervention group, the median annual antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations was 8.2 (IQR, 6.1-11.4) in the second year of the intervention and was 8.4 (IQR, 6.0-11.8) in the control group. Relative to the overall increase, a -0.1% (95% CI, -1.2% to 1.0%) lower antibiotic prescribing rate per 100 consultations was found in the intervention group compared with the control group. No relevant reductions in specific antibiotic prescribing rates were noted between groups except for quinolones in the second year of the intervention (-0.9% [95% CI, -1.5% to -0.4%]).Conclusions and relevanceThis randomized clinical trial found that quarterly personalized antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback with peer benchmarking did not reduce antibiotic prescribing among primary care physicians in Switzerland with medium to high antibiotic prescription rates.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03379194.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Audit and feedback to physicians is commonly used alone or as part of multifaceted interventions. While it can play an important role in quality improvement, the optimal design of audit and feedback is unknown. This study explores how feedback can be improved to increase acceptability and usability in primary care. The trial seeks to determine whether a theory-informed worksheet appended to feedback reports can help family physicians improve quality of care for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease. METHODS:Two-arm cluster trial was conducted with participating primary care practices allocated using minimization to simple feedback or enhanced feedback group. The simple feedback group receives performance feedback reports every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease who are meeting quality targets. The enhanced feedback group receives these same reports as well as a theory-informed worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Participants are family physicians from across Ontario who use electronic medical records; data for rostered patients are used to produce the feedback reports and for analysis. OUTCOMES:The primary disease outcomes are the blood pressure (BP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels. The primary process measure is a composite score indicating the number of recommended activities (e.g., tests and prescriptions) conducted by the family physicians for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease within the appropriate timeframe. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients whose results meet targets for glucose, LDL, and BP as well as the percent of patients receiving relevant prescriptions. A qualitative process evaluation using semi-structured interviews will explore perceived barriers to behaviour change in response to feedback reports and preferences with regard to feedback design. ANALYSIS:Intention-to-treat approach will be used to analyze the trial. Analysis will be performed on patient-level variables using generalized estimating equation models to adjust for covariates and account for the clustered nature of the data. The trial is powered to show small, but clinically important differences of 7 mmHG in systolic BP and 0.32 mmol/L in LDL. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645.

Dataset Information

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study.

Background

Aim

Design and setting

Method

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Establishing a primary care audit and feedback implementation laboratory: a consensus study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets