ArticleBMC health services research2019
Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams.
Article in BMC health services research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Performance measurement systems in primary health care: a systematic literature review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- The engagement equation: a model for understanding what drives voluntary physician engagement with data-driven clinical performance feedback.Implementation science communications · 2025Article
- A realist synthesis of multicentre comparative audit implementation: exploring what works and in which healthcare contexts.BMJ open quality · 2024Review
- Developing an Audit and Feedback Dashboard for Family Physicians: User-Centered Design Process.JMIR human factors · 2023Article
- Article
- Factors influencing family physician engagement in practice-based quality improvement: Qualitative study.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2023Article
- Impact of externally facilitated continuous quality improvement cohorts on Advanced Access to support primary healthcare teams: protocol for a quasi-randomized cluster trial.BMC primary care · 2023Article
- Audit as a Tool for Improving the Quality of Stroke Care: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- The use of postal audit and feedback among Irish General Practitioners for the self - management of antimicrobial prescribing: a qualitative study.BMC primary care · 2022Article
- Are quality improvement plans perceived to improve the quality of primary care in Ontario? Qualitative study.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2021Article
- The current and potential uses of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) data for primary health care performance measurement in the Canadian context: a qualitative analysis.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Use of prescribing safety quality improvement reports in UK general practices: a qualitative assessment.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- A step toward understanding the mechanism of action of audit and feedback: a qualitative study of implementation strategies.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Exploring implementation processes in general practice in a feedback intervention aiming to reduce potentially inappropriate prescribing: a qualitative study among general practitioners.Implementation science communications · 2021Article
- Revitalising audit and feedback to improve patient care.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of clinical performance feedback to support quality improvement (QI) activities is based on the sound rationale that measurement is necessary to improve quality of care. However, concerns persist about the reliability of this strategy, known as Audit and Feedback (A&F) to support QI. If successfully implemented, A&F should reflect an iterative, self-regulating QI process. Whether and how real-world A&F initiatives result in this type of feedback loop are scarcely reported. This study aimed to identify barriers or facilitators to implementation in a team-based primary care context.
methodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from team-based primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. At the time of data collection, practices could have received up to three iterations of the voluntary A&F initiative. Interviews explored whether, how, and why practices used the feedback to guide their QI activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to code transcripts and the resulting frameworks were analyzed inductively to generate key themes.
resultsTwenty-five individuals representing 18 primary care teams participated in the study. Analysis of how the A&F intervention was used revealed that implementation reflected an incomplete feedback loop. Participation was facilitated by the reliance on an external resource to facilitate the practice audit. The frequency of feedback, concerns with data validity, the design of the feedback report, the resource requirements to participate, and the team relationship were all identified as barriers to implementation of A&F.
conclusionsThe implementation of a real-world, voluntary A&F initiative did not lead to desired QI activities despite substantial investments in performance measurement. In small primary care teams, it may take long periods of time to develop capacity for QI and future evaluations may reveal shifts in the implementation state of the initiative. Findings from the present study demonstrate that the potential mechanism of action of A&F may be deceptively clear; in practice, moving from measurement to action can be complex.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.