Cargando…

‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a valuable quality improvement strategy, which can contribute to de-implementation of low-value care. In the Netherlands, all health insurers collaboratively provide A&F to general practitioners (GPs), the ‘Primary Care Practice Report’ (PCPR). Unfortu...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: de Bekker, P J G M, de Weerdt, V, Vink, M D H, van der Kolk, A B, Donker, M H, van der Hijden, E J E
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36375859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002006
_version_ 1784831069584883712
author de Bekker, P J G M
de Weerdt, V
Vink, M D H
van der Kolk, A B
Donker, M H
van der Hijden, E J E
author_facet de Bekker, P J G M
de Weerdt, V
Vink, M D H
van der Kolk, A B
Donker, M H
van der Hijden, E J E
author_sort de Bekker, P J G M
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a valuable quality improvement strategy, which can contribute to de-implementation of low-value care. In the Netherlands, all health insurers collaboratively provide A&F to general practitioners (GPs), the ‘Primary Care Practice Report’ (PCPR). Unfortunately, the use of this report by GPs is limited. This study examined the thoughts of GPs on the usability of the PCPR and GPs recommendations for improving the PCPR. METHOD: We used an interpretative qualitative design, with think-aloud tasks to uncover thoughts of GPs on the usability of the PCPR and semistructured interview questions to ask GPs’ recommendations for improvement of the PCPR. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed ad verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We identified two main themes: ‘poor usability of the PCPR’, and ‘minimal motivation to change based on the PCPR’. The GPs found the usability of the PCPR poor due to the feedback not being clinically meaningful, the data not being recent, individual and reliable, the performance comparators offer insufficient guidance to assess clinical performance, the results are not discussed with peers and the definitions and visuals are unclear. The GPs recommended improving these issues. The GPs motivation to change based on the PCPR was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs evaluated the PCPR as poorly usable and were minimally motivated to change. The PCPR seems developed from the perspective of the reports’ commissioners, health insurers, and does not meet known criteria for effective A&F design and user-centred design. Importantly, the GPs did state that well-designed feedback could contribute to their motivation to improve clinical performance. Furthermore, the GPs stated that they receive a multitude of A&F reports, which they hardly use. Thus, we see a need for policy makers to invest in less, but more usable A&F reports.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9664288
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96642882022-11-15 ‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study de Bekker, P J G M de Weerdt, V Vink, M D H van der Kolk, A B Donker, M H van der Hijden, E J E BMJ Open Qual Original Research BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a valuable quality improvement strategy, which can contribute to de-implementation of low-value care. In the Netherlands, all health insurers collaboratively provide A&F to general practitioners (GPs), the ‘Primary Care Practice Report’ (PCPR). Unfortunately, the use of this report by GPs is limited. This study examined the thoughts of GPs on the usability of the PCPR and GPs recommendations for improving the PCPR. METHOD: We used an interpretative qualitative design, with think-aloud tasks to uncover thoughts of GPs on the usability of the PCPR and semistructured interview questions to ask GPs’ recommendations for improvement of the PCPR. Interviews were audiorecorded and transcribed ad verbatim. Data were analysed using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: We identified two main themes: ‘poor usability of the PCPR’, and ‘minimal motivation to change based on the PCPR’. The GPs found the usability of the PCPR poor due to the feedback not being clinically meaningful, the data not being recent, individual and reliable, the performance comparators offer insufficient guidance to assess clinical performance, the results are not discussed with peers and the definitions and visuals are unclear. The GPs recommended improving these issues. The GPs motivation to change based on the PCPR was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: The GPs evaluated the PCPR as poorly usable and were minimally motivated to change. The PCPR seems developed from the perspective of the reports’ commissioners, health insurers, and does not meet known criteria for effective A&F design and user-centred design. Importantly, the GPs did state that well-designed feedback could contribute to their motivation to improve clinical performance. Furthermore, the GPs stated that they receive a multitude of A&F reports, which they hardly use. Thus, we see a need for policy makers to invest in less, but more usable A&F reports. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-11-14 /pmc/articles/PMC9664288/ /pubmed/36375859 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002006 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research
de Bekker, P J G M
de Weerdt, V
Vink, M D H
van der Kolk, A B
Donker, M H
van der Hijden, E J E
‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
title ‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
title_full ‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
title_fullStr ‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
title_full_unstemmed ‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
title_short ‘Give me something meaningful’: GPs perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
title_sort ‘give me something meaningful’: gps perspectives on how to improve an audit and feedback report provided by health insurers – an exploratory qualitative study
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9664288/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36375859
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjoq-2022-002006
work_keys_str_mv AT debekkerpjgm givemesomethingmeaningfulgpsperspectivesonhowtoimproveanauditandfeedbackreportprovidedbyhealthinsurersanexploratoryqualitativestudy
AT deweerdtv givemesomethingmeaningfulgpsperspectivesonhowtoimproveanauditandfeedbackreportprovidedbyhealthinsurersanexploratoryqualitativestudy
AT vinkmdh givemesomethingmeaningfulgpsperspectivesonhowtoimproveanauditandfeedbackreportprovidedbyhealthinsurersanexploratoryqualitativestudy
AT vanderkolkab givemesomethingmeaningfulgpsperspectivesonhowtoimproveanauditandfeedbackreportprovidedbyhealthinsurersanexploratoryqualitativestudy
AT donkermh givemesomethingmeaningfulgpsperspectivesonhowtoimproveanauditandfeedbackreportprovidedbyhealthinsurersanexploratoryqualitativestudy
AT vanderhijdeneje givemesomethingmeaningfulgpsperspectivesonhowtoimproveanauditandfeedbackreportprovidedbyhealthinsurersanexploratoryqualitativestudy