Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22607640›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2012

Improving quality of care through improved audit and feedback.

Sylvia J Hysong, Cayla R Teal, Myrna J Khan, Paul Haidet

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04356274 (Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback), which is not on this map. Cited by 38 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
38citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT04356274 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback: A Cluster Randomized Trial of Mechanisms of Implementation Change to Expand Reach of Evidence-based Addiction and Mental Health Care

TypeinterventionalSponsorPalo Alto Veterans Institute for ResearchRan2019 to 2027Enrolled720ConditionsPTSD, Depression, Alcohol Use Disorder, Opioid Use DisorderArmsParticipatory System Dynamics (PSD), Audit and Feedback (AF)
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

38 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Observational
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sylvia J HysongHouston VA Health Services Research & Development Center of Excellence, Michael E, DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. hysong@bcm.edu
Cayla R Teal
Myrna J Khan
Paul Haidet

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has led the industry in measuring facility performance as a critical element in improving quality of care, investing substantial resources to develop and maintain valid and cost-effective measures. The External Peer Review Program (EPRP) of the VA is the official data source for monitoring facility performance, used to prioritize the quality areas needing most attention. Facility performance measurement has significantly improved preventive and chronic care, as well as overall quality; however, much variability still exists in levels of performance across measures and facilities. Audit and feedback (A&F), an important component of effective performance measurement, can help reduce this variability and improve overall performance. Previous research suggests that VA Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high EPRP performance scores tend to use EPRP data as a feedback source. However, the manner in which EPRP data are used as a feedback source by individual providers as well as service line, facility, and network leadership is not well understood. An in-depth understanding of mental models, strategies, and specific feedback process characteristics adopted by high-performing facilities is thus urgently needed.This research compares how leaders of high, low, and moderately performing VAMCs use clinical performance data from the EPRP as a feedback tool to maintain and improve quality of care.

methodsWe will conduct a qualitative, grounded theory analysis of up to 64 interviews using a novel method of sampling primary care, facility, and Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) leadership at high-, moderate-, and low-performing facilities. We will analyze interviews for evidence of cross-facility differences in perceptions of performance data usefulness and strategies for disseminating performance data evaluating performance, with particular attention to timeliness, individualization, and punitiveness of feedback delivery. DISCUSSION: Most research examining feedback to improve provider and facility performance lacks a detailed understanding of the elements of effective feedback. This research will highlight the elements most commonly used at high-performing facilities and identify additional features of their successful feedback strategies not previously identified. Armed with this information, practices can implement more effective A&F interventions to improve quality of care.

Indexed as

FeedbackInformation DisseminationMedical AuditPeer Review, Health CareQuality ImprovementHealth Services ResearchHumansModels, TheoreticalMotivationPsychology, IndustrialResearch DesignUnited StatesUnited States Department of Veterans Affairs

Identifiers

PMID22607640
PMCPMC3462705

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.