Cargando…
Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers
BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit prog...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8772016/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34886697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13558196211044321 |
_version_ | 1784635751187611648 |
---|---|
author | Alderson, Sarah Willis, Thomas A Wood, Su Lorencatto, Fabiana Francis, Jill Ivers, Noah Grimshaw, Jeremy Foy, Robbie |
author_facet | Alderson, Sarah Willis, Thomas A Wood, Su Lorencatto, Fabiana Francis, Jill Ivers, Noah Grimshaw, Jeremy Foy, Robbie |
author_sort | Alderson, Sarah |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes. METHODS: We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme’s constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner’s needs. CONCLUSION: Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8772016 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87720162022-01-21 Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers Alderson, Sarah Willis, Thomas A Wood, Su Lorencatto, Fabiana Francis, Jill Ivers, Noah Grimshaw, Jeremy Foy, Robbie J Health Serv Res Policy Original Researchs BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes. METHODS: We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed. RESULTS: We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme’s constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner’s needs. CONCLUSION: Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits. SAGE Publications 2021-12-09 2022-01 /pmc/articles/PMC8772016/ /pubmed/34886697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13558196211044321 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access page (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage). |
spellingShingle | Original Researchs Alderson, Sarah Willis, Thomas A Wood, Su Lorencatto, Fabiana Francis, Jill Ivers, Noah Grimshaw, Jeremy Foy, Robbie Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
title | Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
title_full | Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
title_fullStr | Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
title_full_unstemmed | Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
title_short | Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
title_sort | embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: a qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers |
topic | Original Researchs |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8772016/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34886697 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13558196211044321 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT aldersonsarah embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT willisthomasa embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT woodsu embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT lorencattofabiana embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT francisjill embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT iversnoah embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT grimshawjeremy embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers AT foyrobbie embeddedtrialswithinnationalclinicalauditprogrammesaqualitativeinterviewstudyofenablersandbarriers |