Interventions to optimise the outputs of national clinical audits to improve the quality of health care: a multi-method study including RCT

Author:

Willis Thomas A1ORCID,Wright-Hughes Alexandra2ORCID,Weller Ana3ORCID,Alderson Sarah L1ORCID,Wilson Stephanie3ORCID,Walwyn Rebecca2ORCID,Wood Su1ORCID,Lorencatto Fabiana4ORCID,Farrin Amanda2ORCID,Hartley Suzanne2ORCID,Francis Jillian5ORCID,Seymour Valentine5ORCID,Brehaut Jamie6ORCID,Colquhoun Heather7ORCID,Grimshaw Jeremy6ORCID,Ivers Noah8ORCID,Feltbower Richard9ORCID,Keen Justin1ORCID,Brown Benjamin C1011ORCID,Presseau Justin612ORCID,Gale Chris P91314ORCID,Stanworth Simon J15161718ORCID,Foy Robbie1ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

2. Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

3. Centre for Human-Computer Interaction Design, City, University of London, London, UK

4. Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, London, UK

5. School of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK

6. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada

7. Department of Occupational Science and Occupational Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

8. Women’s College Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada

9. Leeds Institute for Data Analytics, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

10. Centre for Health Informatics, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

11. Centre for Primary Care, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

12. School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

13. Leeds Institute of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK

14. Department of Cardiology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK

15. Transfusion Medicine, NHS Blood and Transplant (NHSBT), Oxford, UK

16. Department of Haematology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK

17. Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK

18. NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Oxford, UK

Abstract

Background National clinical audit programmes aim to improve patient care by reviewing performance against explicit standards and directing action towards areas not meeting those standards. Their impact can be improved by (1) optimising feedback content and format, (2) strengthening audit cycles and (3) embedding randomised trials evaluating different ways of delivering feedback. Objectives The objectives were to (1) develop and evaluate the effects of modifications to feedback on recipient responses, (2) identify ways of strengthening feedback cycles for two national audits and (3) explore opportunities, costs and benefits of national audit participation in a programme of trials. Design An online fractional factorial screening experiment (objective 1) and qualitative interviews (objectives 2 and 3). Setting and participants Participants were clinicians and managers involved in five national clinical audits – the National Comparative Audit of Blood Transfusions, the Paediatric Intensive Care Audit Network, the Myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project, the Trauma Audit & Research Network and the National Diabetes Audit – (objective 1); and clinicians, members of the public and researchers (objectives 2 and 3). Interventions We selected and developed six online feedback modifications through three rounds of user testing. We randomised participants to one of 32 combinations of the following recommended specific actions: comparators reinforcing desired behaviour change; multimodal feedback; minimised extraneous cognitive load for feedback recipients; short, actionable messages followed by optional detail; and incorporating ‘the patient voice’ (objective 1). Main outcome measures The outcomes were intended actions, including enactment of audit standards (primary outcome), comprehension, user experience and engagement (objective 1). Results For objective 1, the primary analysis included 638 randomised participants, of whom 566 completed the outcome questionnaire. No modification independently increased intended enactment of audit standards. Minimised cognitive load improved comprehension (+0.1; p = 0.014) and plans to bring audit findings to colleagues’ attention (+0.13, on a –3 to +3 scale; p = 0.016). We observed important cumulative synergistic and antagonistic interactions between modifications, participant role and national audit. The analysis in objective 2 included 19 interviews assessing the Trauma Audit Research Network and the National Diabetes Audit. The identified ways of strengthening audit cycles included making performance data easier to understand and guiding action planning. The analysis in objective 3 identified four conditions for effective collaboration from 31 interviews: compromise – recognising capacity and constraints; logistics – enabling data sharing, audit quality and funding; leadership – engaging local stakeholders; and relationships – agreeing shared priorities and needs. The perceived benefits of collaboration outweighed the risks. Limitations The online experiment assessed intended enactment as a predictor of actual clinical behaviour. Interviews and surveys were subject to social desirability bias. Conclusions National audit impacts may be enhanced by strengthening all aspects of feedback cycles, particularly effective feedback, and considering how different ways of reinforcing feedback act together. Future work Embedded randomised trials evaluating different ways of delivering feedback within national clinical audits are acceptable and may offer efficient, evidence-based and cumulative improvements in outcomes. Trial registration This trial is registered as ISRCTN41584028. Funding details This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme and will be published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 10, No. 15. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Funder

Health and Social Care Delivery Research (HSDR) Programme

Publisher

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR)

Cited by 2 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3