Cargando…
Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods
BACKGROUND: There 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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691059/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00089-3 |
_version_ | 1783614208080871424 |
---|---|
author | Khan, Tasneem Alderson, Sarah Francis, Jill J. Lorencatto, Fabiana Grant-Casey, John Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie |
author_facet | Khan, Tasneem Alderson, Sarah Francis, Jill J. Lorencatto, Fabiana Grant-Casey, John Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie |
author_sort | Khan, Tasneem |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: There 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Feedback 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. CONCLUSION: We 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-020-00089-3. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7691059 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-76910592020-11-30 Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods Khan, Tasneem Alderson, Sarah Francis, Jill J. Lorencatto, Fabiana Grant-Casey, John Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie Implement Sci Commun Short Report BACKGROUND: There 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: Feedback 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. CONCLUSION: We 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-020-00089-3. BioMed Central 2020-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC7691059/ /pubmed/33292847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00089-3 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. 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 in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Short Report Khan, Tasneem Alderson, Sarah Francis, Jill J. Lorencatto, Fabiana Grant-Casey, John Stanworth, Simon J. Foy, Robbie Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
title | Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
title_full | Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
title_fullStr | Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
title_full_unstemmed | Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
title_short | Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
title_sort | repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods |
topic | Short Report |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7691059/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33292847 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00089-3 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT khantasneem repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods AT aldersonsarah repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods AT francisjillj repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods AT lorencattofabiana repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods AT grantcaseyjohn repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods AT stanworthsimonj repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods AT foyrobbie repeatedanalysesofnationalclinicalauditreportsdemonstrateimprovementsinfeedbackmethods |