Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38082301›Full record

ArticleImplementation science : IS2023

Audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted clinical variation at scale: a realist study of implementation strategy mechanisms.

Mitchell Sarkies, Emilie Francis-Auton, Janet Long, Natalie Roberts, Johanna Westbrook, Jean-Frederic Levesque, Diane E Watson, Rebecca Hardwick, Kim Sutherland, Gary Disher and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science : IS, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

12 authors.

Mitchell SarkiesAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia. mitchell.sarkies@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7318-3598
Emilie Francis-AutonAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Janet LongAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Natalie RobertsAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Johanna WestbrookAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Jean-Frederic LevesqueCentre for Primary Health Care and Equity, University of New South Wales, Kensington, NSW, Australia.
Diane E WatsonBureau of Health Information, St Leonards, NSW, Australia.
Rebecca HardwickPeninsula Medical School, Faculty of Health, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, UK.
Kim SutherlandNSW Agency for Clinical Innovation, Sydney, Australia.
Gary DisherNSW Ministry of Health, Sydney, Australia.
Peter HibbertAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.
Jeffrey BraithwaiteAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Future Fund APP1178554
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnwarranted clinical variation in hospital care includes the underuse, overuse, or misuse of services. Audit and feedback is a common strategy to reduce unwarranted variation, but its effectiveness varies widely across contexts. We aimed to identify implementation strategies, mechanisms, and contextual circumstances contributing to the impact of audit and feedback on unwarranted clinical variation.

methodsRealist study examining a state-wide value-based healthcare program implemented between 2017 and 2021 in New South Wales, Australia. Three initiatives within the program included audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted variation in inpatient care for different conditions. Multiple data sources were used to formulate the initial audit and feedback program theory: a systematic review, realist review, program document review, and informal discussions with key program stakeholders. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with 56 participants to refute, refine, or confirm the initial program theories. Data were analysed retroductively using a context-mechanism-outcome framework for 11 transcripts which were coded into the audit and feedback program theory. The program theory was validated with three expert panels: senior health leaders (n = 19), Agency for Clinical Innovation (n = 11), and Ministry of Health (n = 21) staff.

resultsThe program's audit and feedback implementation strategy operated through eight mechanistic processes. The strategy worked well when clinicians (1) felt ownership and buy-in, (2) could make sense of the information provided, (3) were motivated by social influence, and (4) accepted responsibility and accountability for proposed changes. The success of the strategy was constrained when the audit process led to (5) rationalising current practice instead of creating a learning opportunity, (6) perceptions of unfairness and concerns about data integrity, 7) development of improvement plans that were not followed, and (8) perceived intrusions on professional autonomy.

conclusionsAudit and feedback strategies may help reduce unwarranted clinical variation in care where there is engagement between auditors and local clinicians, meaningful audit indicators, clear improvement plans, and respect for clinical expertise. We contribute theoretical development for audit and feedback by proposing a Model for Audit and Feedback Implementation at Scale. Recommendations include limiting the number of audit indicators, involving clinical staff and local leaders in feedback, and providing opportunities for reflection.

Indexed as

LearningAustraliaFeedbackHumansNew South WalesSystematic Reviews as TopicClinical auditClinical competenceEvidence-based practiceImplementation scienceLow-value careMedical auditNursing auditPractice guidelineQuality of health careRealist evaluation

Identifiers

PMID38082301
PMCPMC10714549

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.