ArticleBMJ open2024
Do medical specialists accept claims-based Audit and Feedback for quality improvement? A focus group study.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- The role of guideline organizations in nationwide guideline implementation: a qualitative study.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesAudit and Feedback (A&F) is a widely used quality improvement (QI) intervention in healthcare. However, not all feedback is accepted by professionals. While claims-based feedback has been previously used for A&F interventions, its acceptance by medical specialists is largely unknown. This study examined medical specialists' acceptance of claims-based A&F for QI.
designQualitative design, with focus group discussions. Transcripts were analysed using discourse analysis. SETTING AND
participantsA total of five online focus group discussions were conducted between April 2021 and September 2022 with 21 medical specialists from varying specialties (urology; paediatric surgery; gynaecology; vascular surgery; orthopaedics and trauma surgery) working in academic or regional hospitals in the Netherlands.
resultsParticipants described mixed views on using claims-based A&F for QI. Arguments mentioned in favour were (1) A&F stimulates reflective learning and improvement and (2) claims-based A&F is more reliable than other A&F. Arguments in opposition were that (1) A&F is insufficient to create behavioural change; (2) A&F lacks clinically meaningful interpretation; (3) claims data are invalid for feedback on QI; (4) claims-based A&F is unreliable and (5) A&F may be misused by health insurers. Furthermore, participants described several conditions for the implementation of A&F which shape their acceptance.
conclusionsUsing claims-based A&F for QI is, for some clinical topics and under certain conditions, accepted by medical specialists. Acceptance of claims-based A&F can be shaped by how A&F is implemented into clinical practice. When designing A&F for QI, it should be considered whether claims data, as the most resource-efficient data source, can be used or whether it is necessary to collect more specific data.
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.