Dataset Information

A step toward understanding the mechanism of action of audit and feedback: a qualitative study of implementation strategies.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a widely used implementation strategy. Understanding mechanisms of action of A&F increases the likelihood that the strategy will lead to implementation of an evidence-based practice. We therefore sought to understand one hospital's experience selecting and implementing an A&F intervention, to determine the implementation strategies that were used by staff and to specify the mechanism of action of those implementation strategies using causal pathway models, with the ultimate goal of improving acute stroke treatment practices.

Methods

We selected an A&F strategy in a hospital, initially based on implementation determinants and staff consideration of their performance on acute stroke treatment measures. After 7 months of A&F, we conducted semi-structured interviews of hospital providers and administrative staff to understand how it contributed to implementing guideline-concordant acute stroke treatment (medication named tissue plasminogen activator). We coded the interviews to identify the implementation strategies that staff used following A&F and to assess their mechanisms of action.

Results

We identified five implementation strategies that staff used following the feedback intervention. These included (1) creating folders containing the acute stroke treatment protocol for the emergency department, (2) educating providers about the protocol for acute stroke, (3) obtaining computed tomography imaging of stroke patients immediately upon emergency department arrival, (4) increasing access to acute stroke medical treatment in the emergency department, and (5) providing additional staff support for implementation of the protocol in the emergency department. We identified enablement, training, and environmental restructuring as mechanisms of action through which the implementation strategies acted to improve guideline-concordant and timely acute stroke treatment.

Conclusions

A&F of a hospital's acute stroke treatment practices generated additional implementation strategies that acted through various mechanisms of action. Future studies should focus on how initial implementation strategies can be amplified through internal mechanisms.

SUBMITTER: Springer MV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8017642 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) often successfully enhances health professionals' intentions to improve quality of care but does not consistently lead to practice changes. Recipients often cite data credibility and limited resources as barriers impeding their ability to act upon A&F, suggesting the intention-to-action gap manifests while recipients are interacting with their data. While attention has been paid to the role feedback and contextual variables play in contributing to (or impeding) success, we lack a nuanced understanding of how healthcare professionals interact with and process clinical performance data.MethodsWe used qualitative, semi-structured interviews guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Questions explored the role of data in quality improvement, experiences with the A&F report, perceptions of the data, and interpretations and reflections. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive strategies using reflexive thematic analysis informed by a constructivist paradigm.ResultsHealthcare professional characteristics (individual quality improvement capabilities and beliefs about data) seem to influence engagement with A&F to a greater degree than feedback variables (i.e., delivered by peers) and observed contextual factors (i.e., strong quality improvement culture). Most participants lacked the capabilities to interpret practice-level data in an actionable way despite a motivation to engage meaningfully. Reasons for the intention-to-action gap included challenges interpreting longitudinal data, appreciating the nuances of common data sources, understanding how aggregate data provides insights into individualized care, and identifying practice-level actions to improve quality. These factors limited effective cognitive participation and collective action, as outlined in NPT.ConclusionsA well-designed A&F intervention is necessary but not sufficient to inform practice changes. A&F initiatives must include co-interventions to address recipient characteristics (i.e., beliefs and capabilities) and context to optimize impact. Effective strategies to overcome the intention-to-action gap may include modelling how to use A&F to inform practice change, providing opportunities for social interaction relating to the A&F, and circulating examples of effective actions taken in response to A&F. More broadly, undergraduate medical education and post-graduate training must ensure physicians are equipped with QI capabilities, with an emphasis on the skills required to interpret and act on practice-level data.

Project description:BackgroundIn Ontario, Canada, a government agency known as Ontario Health is responsible for making audit and feedback reports available to all family physicians to encourage ongoing quality improvement. The confidential report provides summary data on 3 key areas of practice: safe prescription, cancer screening, and diabetes management.ObjectiveThis report was redesigned to improve its usability in line with evidence. The objective of this study was to explore how the redesign was perceived, with an emphasis on recipients' understanding of the report and their engagement with it.MethodsWe conducted qualitative semistructured interviews with family physicians who had experience with both versions of the report recruited through purposeful and snowball sampling. We analyzed the transcripts following an emergent and iterative approach.ResultsSaturation was reached after 17 family physicians participated. In total, 2 key themes emerged as factors that affected the perceived usability of the report: alignment between the report and the recipients' expectations and capacity to engage in quality improvement. Family physicians expected the report and its quality indicators to reflect best practices and to be valid and accurate. They also expected the report to offer feedback on the clinical activities they perceived to be within their control to change. Furthermore, family physicians expected the goal of the report to be aligned with their perspective on feasible quality improvement activities. Most of these expectations were not met, limiting the perceived usability of the report. The capacity to engage with audit and feedback was hindered by several organizational and physician-level barriers, including the lack of fit with the existing workflow, competing priorities, time constraints, and insufficient skills for bridging the gaps between their data and the corresponding desired actions.ConclusionsDespite recognized improvements in the design of the report to better align with best practices, it was not perceived as highly usable. Improvements in the presentation of the data could not overcome misalignment with family physicians' expectations or the limited capacity to engage with the report. Integrating iterative evaluations informed by user-centered design can complement evidence-based guidance for implementation strategies. Creating a space for bringing together audit and feedback designers and recipients may help improve usability and effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundAudit and feedback (A&F) is more effective if it facilitates action planning, but little is known about how best to do this. We developed an electronic A&F intervention with an action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care units (ICUs); the toolbox contained suggested actions for improvement. A head-to-head randomised trial demonstrated that the toolbox moderately increased the intervention's effectiveness when compared with A&F only.ObjectiveTo understand the mechanisms through which A&F with action implementation toolbox facilitates action planning by ICUs to increase A&F effectiveness.MethodsWe extracted all individual actions from action plans developed by ICUs that received A&F with (n = 10) and without (n = 11) toolbox for 6 months and classified them using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We held semi-structured interviews with participants during the trial. We compared the number and type of planned and completed actions between study groups and explored barriers and facilitators to effective action planning.ResultsICUs with toolbox planned more actions directly aimed at improving practice (p = 0.037) and targeted a wider range of practice determinants compared to ICUs without toolbox. ICUs with toolbox also completed more actions during the study period, but not significantly (p = 0.142). ICUs without toolbox reported more difficulties in identifying what actions they could take. Regardless of the toolbox, all ICUs still experienced barriers relating to the feedback (low controllability, accuracy) and organisational context (competing priorities, resources, cost).ConclusionsThe toolbox helped health professionals to broaden their mindset about actions they could take to change clinical practice. Without the toolbox, professionals tended to focus more on feedback verification and exploring solutions without developing intentions for actual change. All feedback recipients experienced organisational barriers that inhibited eventual completion of actions.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02922101 . Registered on 26 September 2016.

Project description:IntroductionIn collaboration with the Alberta Medical Association's Physician Learning Program we developed individualized physician reports and held a group feedback session on rheumatoid arthritis (RA) performance measures (PM) to facilitate treat-to-target (T2T) strategies and evaluated physician experiences with this process.Methods5 PMs addressing T2T concepts from an established Canadian quality framework were operationalized for physician practice reports at 2 university-affiliated rheumatology clinics. Rheum4U, a quality improvement and research platform, was the data source. The audit results were reviewed in a facilitated group feedback session. Rheumatologists provided experiential feedback on the process through survey and/or an interview. Transcripts from interviews were analyzed using a 6-step thematic analysis.Results11 of 12 eligible rheumatologists consented to receive practice reports and provided feedback through surveys (n = 5) and interviews (n = 6). The practice reports from Rheum4U (n = 448 patients) revealed high rates of yearly follow-up (> 85%, PM1) and 100% performance on documentation of disease activity at ≥ 50% of visits (PM2). Only 34% of patients were seen within 3 months if not in remission (PM3) with 62% (2017) and 69% (2018) of those with active RA achieving a LDA state within 6 months (PM4). Approximately 70% of patients were in remission at any time point (PM5). All survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed comparison to peers was valuable and helped them reflect on their practice. Several strategies for improvement were identified, including but not limited to, leveraging of electronic records for future audit and feedback reports, providing additional granularity of results, additional stratification of results, and using high-performing peers as the comparator rather than the group mean.ConclusionsAudit and feedback was perceived by clinicians as a useful strategy for evaluating T2T efforts in RA. Future work will focus on longitudinal evaluation of the clinical impact of this quality improvement initiative.

Project description:BackgroundThere 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.AimTo explore priorities, feasibility, and ethical challenges of establishing a primary care prescribing audit and feedback implementation laboratory.Design and settingTwo-stage Delphi consensus process involving primary care pharmacy leads, audit and feedback researchers, and patient and public.MethodParticipants 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.ResultsFourteen 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.ConclusionsThere 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.