Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30376848›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2018

The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework: a practical, evidence-informed approach for the design and implementation of socially constructed learning interventions using audit and group feedback.

Lara J Cooke, Diane Duncan, Laura Rivera, Shawn K Dowling, Christopher Symonds, Heather Armson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Navigating discourses of feedback: developing a pattern system of feedback.Advances in health sciences education : theory and practice · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Lara J CookeDepartment of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, UCMC Area 3, 3350 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada. lcooke@ucalgary.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-5417-571X
Diane DuncanCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Laura RiveraCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Shawn K DowlingPhysician Learning Program, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, HSC G302, 3330 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Christopher SymondsDivision of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada.
Heather ArmsonDepartment of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB, T2N 4N1, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAudit and feedback interventions may be strengthened using social interaction. The Calgary office of the Alberta Physician Learning Program (CPLP) developed a process for audit and group feedback for physicians. This paper extends previous work in which we developed a conceptual model of physician responses to audit and group feedback based on a qualitative analysis of six audit and group feedback sessions. The present study explored the mediating factors for successfully engaging physician groups in change planning through audit and group feedback.

methodsTo understand why some groups were more interactive than others, we completed a comparative case analysis of the six audit and group feedback projects from the prior study. We used framework analysis to build the case studies, triangulated our observations across data sources to validate findings, compared the case studies for similarities and differences that influenced social interaction (mediating factors), and thematically categorized mediating factors into an organizing framework.

resultsMediating factors for socially interactive AGFS were a pre-existing relationship between the program team and the physician group, projects addressing important, actionable questions, easily interpretable data visualization in the reports, and facilitation of the groups that included reflective questioning. When these factors were in place (cases 1, 2A, 3), the audit and group feedback sessions were dynamic, with physicians sharing and comparing practices, and raising change cues (such as declaring commitments to de-prescribing, planning educational interventions, and improving documentation). In cases 2C-D, the mediating factors were less well established and in these cases, the sessions showed little physician reflection or change planning. We organized the mediating factors into a framework linking the factors for successful sessions to the conceptual model of physician behaviors which these mediating factors drive.

conclusionsWe propose the Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework as a practical tool to help foster socially constructed learning in audit and group feedback sessions. Ensuring that the four factors, relationship, question choice, data visualization, and facilitation, are considered for design and implementation of audit and group feedback will help physicians move from reactions to their data towards planning for change.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackInterpersonal RelationsAlbertaHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansImplementation ScienceLearningMedical AuditPhysiciansProgram EvaluationTranslational Research, BiomedicalAudit and feedbackComparative case studyFeedbackFrameworkImplementationKnowledge translationPhysician learningPractice improvementProfessional developmentSocial learning theory

Identifiers

PMID30376848
PMCPMC6208022

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.