Cargando…

Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams

BACKGROUND: The 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 sup...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wagner, Daniel J., Durbin, Janet, Barnsley, Jan, Ivers, Noah M.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31234916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4226-7
_version_ 1783429796174233600
author Wagner, Daniel J.
Durbin, Janet
Barnsley, Jan
Ivers, Noah M.
author_facet Wagner, Daniel J.
Durbin, Janet
Barnsley, Jan
Ivers, Noah M.
author_sort Wagner, Daniel J.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Semi-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. RESULTS: Twenty-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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4226-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6591867
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-65918672019-07-08 Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams Wagner, Daniel J. Durbin, Janet Barnsley, Jan Ivers, Noah M. BMC Health Serv Res Research Article BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: Semi-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. RESULTS: Twenty-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. CONCLUSIONS: The 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. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4226-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC6591867/ /pubmed/31234916 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4226-7 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Wagner, Daniel J.
Durbin, Janet
Barnsley, Jan
Ivers, Noah M.
Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
title Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
title_full Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
title_fullStr Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
title_full_unstemmed Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
title_short Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
title_sort measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6591867/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31234916
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12913-019-4226-7
work_keys_str_mv AT wagnerdanielj measurementwithoutmanagementqualitativeevaluationofavoluntaryauditfeedbackinterventionforprimarycareteams
AT durbinjanet measurementwithoutmanagementqualitativeevaluationofavoluntaryauditfeedbackinterventionforprimarycareteams
AT barnsleyjan measurementwithoutmanagementqualitativeevaluationofavoluntaryauditfeedbackinterventionforprimarycareteams
AT iversnoahm measurementwithoutmanagementqualitativeevaluationofavoluntaryauditfeedbackinterventionforprimarycareteams