Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31234916›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2019

Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams.

Daniel J Wagner, Janet Durbin, Jan Barnsley, Noah M Ivers

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Audit as a Tool for Improving the Quality of Stroke Care: A Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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 at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Daniel J WagnerDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, 3280 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4Z6, Canada. dwagner@ucalgary.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8095-3519
Janet DurbinCentre for Addiction and Mental Health, 33 Russell Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5S 2S1, Canada.
Jan BarnsleyInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Suite 425, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
Noah M IversInstitute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Suite 425, 155 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 3M6, Canada.
University of Toronto · CACentre for Addiction and Mental Health · CAUniversity of Calgary · CA

Funding

Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care Ontario Strategy for Patient Oriented ResearchOntario Ministry of Innovation Early Researcher Award
6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical AuditFeedbackPatient Care TeamPrimary Health CareHumansOntarioQualitative ResearchQuality ImprovementReproducibility of ResultsVoluntary ProgramsAudit and feedbackImplementationPerformance measurementPrimary careQuality improvement

Identifiers

PMID31234916
PMCPMC6591867
OpenAlexW2953016251

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.