ArticleBMJ open quality2021
Creating a culture of quality: our experience with providing feedback to frontline hospitalists.
Article in BMJ open quality, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical and economic impact of digital dashboards on hospital inpatient care: a systematic review.JAMIA open · 2025Review
- Acceptability of Components for a Mandatory Quality Improvement Framework: A Survey Among Swiss General Practitioners.Health services insights · 2025Article
- Increasing and sustaining discharges by noon - a multi-year process improvement project.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOne way to provide performance feedback to hospitalists is through the use of dashboards, which deliver data based on agreed-upon standards. Despite the growing trend on feedback performance on quality metrics, there remain limited data on the means, frequency and content of feedback that should be provided to frontline hospitalists.
objectiveThe objective of our research is to report our experience with a comprehensive feedback system for frontline hospitalists, as well as report the change in our quality metrics after implementation. DESIGN, SETTING AND
participantsThis quality improvement project was conducted at a tertiary academic medical centre among our hospitalist group consisting of 46 full-time faculty members. INTERVENTION OR EXPOSURE: A monthly performance feedback report was distributed to provide ongoing feedback to our hospitalist faculty, including an individual dashboard and a peer comparison report, complemented by coaching to incorporate process improvement tactics into providers' daily workflow. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The main outcome of our study is the change in quality metrics after implementation of the monthly performance feedback report
resultsThe dashboard and rank order list were sent to all faculty members every month. An improvement was seen in the following quality metrics: length of stay index, 30-day readmission rate, catheter-associated urinary tract infections, central line-associated bloodstream infections, provider component of Healthcare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems scores, attendance at care coordination rounds and percentage of discharge orders placed by 10:00.
conclusionsImplementation of a monthly performance feedback report for hospitalists, complemented by peer comparison and guidance on tactics to achieve these metrics, created a culture of quality and improvement in the quality of care delivered.
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.