Research suggests that better feedback from quality and safety indicators leads to enhanced capability of clinicians and departments to improve care and change behaviour. The aim of the current study was to investigate the characteristics of feedback perceived by clinicians to be of most value.
Methods
Data were collected using a survey designed as part of a wider evaluation of a data feedback initiative in anaesthesia. Eighty-nine consultant anaesthetists from two English NHS acute Trusts completed the survey. Multiple linear regression with hierarchical variable entry was used to investigate which characteristics of feedback predict its perceived usefulness for monitoring variation and improving care.
Results
The final model demonstrated that the relevance of the quality indicators to the specific service area (β = 0.64, p = 0.01) and the credibility of the data as coming from a trustworthy, unbiased source (β = 0.55, p = 0.01) were the significant predictors, having controlled for all other covariates.
Conclusion
For clinicians to engage with effective quality monitoring and feedback, the perceived local relevance of indicators and trust in the credibility of the resulting data are paramount.
FrancisR. Independent inquiry into care provided by Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust January 2005—March 2009, London: The Stationary Office, 2010.
2.
MoonesingheSTomlinsonA. Quality improvement and revalidation: two goals, same strategy?Brit J Anaesth2011; 106: 447–450.
3.
WollersheimHHermensRHulscherM. Clinical indicators: development and applications. Neth J Med2007; 65: 15–22.
4.
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 6, CD000259.
5.
WrightJDugdaleBHammondI. Learning from death: a hospital mortality reduction programme. JRSM2006; 99: 303–308.
6.
O’ReillyMTalsmaAVanRiperS. An anesthesia information system designed to provide physician-specific feedback improves timely administration of prophylactic antibiotics. Anesth Analg2006; 103: 908–912.
7.
AlveroAMBucklinBRAustinJ. An objective review of the effectiveness and essential characteristics of performance feedback in organizational settings (1985–1998). J Organ Behav Manage2001; 21: 3–29.
8.
ChailletNDubeEDugasM. Evidence-based strategies for implementing guidelines in obstetrics: a systematic review. Obstet Gynecol2006; 108: 1234–1245.
9.
van der VeerSde KeizerNRavelliA. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform2010; 79: 305–323.
10.
VeloskiJBoexJRGrasbergerMJ. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians’ clinical performance*: BEME Guide No 7. Med Teach2006; 28: 117–128.
11.
De VosMGraafmansWKooistraM. Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the literature. Int J Qual Health Care2009; 21: 119–129.
12.
HysongS. Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality. Med Care2009; 47: 356–356.
13.
AitaMZanierLRijavecE. Toward incident reporting (IR) systems: a safety culture survey within the oncology network of a northern Italian region. J Clin Oncol2009; 1: e17527– e17527.
14.
OvretveitJCShekellePGDyS. How does context affect interventions to improve patient safety?BMJ Qual Saf2011; 20: 604–610.
15.
KaplanHCProvostLPFroehleCM. The Model for Understanding Success in Quality (MUSIQ): building a theory of context in healthcare quality improvement. BMJ Qual Saf2012; 21: 13–20.
16.
BennJArnoldGWeiI. Using quality indicators in anaesthesia: feeding back data to improve care. Brit J Anaesth2012; 109: 80–91.
17.
BradleyEHolmboeEMatteraJ. Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals. Qual Safety Health Care2004; 13: 26–26.
18.
SargeantJMannKSinclairD. Challenges in multisource feedback: intended and unintended outcomes. Med Educ2007; 41: 583–591.
19.
BurfordBIllingJKergonC. User perceptions of multi-source feedback tools for junior doctors. Med Educ2010; 44: 165–176.
20.
ViolatoCLockyerJMFidlerH. Changes in performance: a 5-year longitudinal study of participants in a multi-source feedback programme. Med Educ2008; 42: 1007–1013.
21.
OvereemKWollersheimHDriessenE. Doctors’ perceptions of why 360-degree feedback does (not) work: a qualitative study. Med Educ2009; 43: 874–882.
22.
BoyceMBBrowneJPGreenhalghJ. Surgeon’s experiences of receiving peer benchmarked feedback using patient-reported outcome measures: a qualitative study. Implement Sci2014; 9: 84–84.
23.
IversNMSalesAColquhounH. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci2014; 9: 14–14.
MylesPWeitkampBJonesK. Validity and reliability of a postoperative quality of recovery score: the QoR-40. Brit J Anaesth2000; 84: 11–15.
26.
HallerGStoelwinderJMylesP. Quality and safety indicators in anesthesia: a systematic review. Anesthesiology2009; 110: 1158–1175.
27.
CastanelliDKittoS. Perceptions, attitudes, and beliefs of staff anaesthetists related to multi-source feedback used for their performance appraisal. Brit J Anaesth2011; 107: 372–377.
28.
The Royal College of Anaesthetists. The use of perioperative quality indicators in NHS services: A national survey. In Press.
29.
CohenJCohenPWestS. Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences, 3rd ed. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2003.
30.
PronovostPNeedhamDBerenholtzS. An intervention to decrease catheter-related bloodstream infections in the ICU. N Engl J Med2006; 355: 2725–2732.
31.
IlgenDRFisherCDTaylorMS. Consequences of individual feedback on behavior in organizations. J Appl Psychol1979; 64: 349–349.
