Institutional use of National Clinical Audits by healthcare providers.
clinical audit
clinical governance
clinical safety
health services research
Journal
Journal of evaluation in clinical practice
ISSN: 1365-2753
Titre abrégé: J Eval Clin Pract
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9609066
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2021
Feb 2021
Historique:
received:
06
02
2020
revised:
31
03
2020
accepted:
01
04
2020
pubmed:
21
4
2020
medline:
29
7
2021
entrez:
21
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Healthcare systems worldwide devote significant resources towards collecting data to support care quality assurance and improvement. In the United Kingdom, National Clinical Audits are intended to contribute to these objectives by providing public reports of data on healthcare treatment and outcomes, but their potential for quality improvement in particular is not realized fully among healthcare providers. Here, we aim to explore this outcome from the perspective of hospital boards and their quality committees: an under-studied area, given the emphasis in previous research on the audits' use by clinical teams. We carried out semi-structured, qualitative interviews with 54 staff in different clinical and management settings in five English National Health Service hospitals about their use of NCA data, and the circumstances that supported or constrained such use. We used Framework Analysis to identify themes within their responses. We found that members and officers of hospitals' governing bodies perceived an imbalance between the benefits to their institutions from National Clinical Audits and the substantial resources consumed by participating in them. This led some to question the audits' legitimacy, which could limit scope for improvements based on audit data, proposed by clinical teams. Measures to enhance the audits' perceived legitimacy could help address these limitations. These include audit suppliers moving from an emphasis on cumulative, retrospective reports to real-time reporting, clearly presenting the "headline" outcomes important to institutional bodies and staff. Measures may also include further negotiation between hospitals, suppliers and their commissioners about the nature and volume of data the latter are expected to collect; wider use by hospitals of routine clinical data to populate audit data fields; and further development of interactive digital technologies to help staff explore and report audit data in meaningful ways.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
143-150Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : 16/04/06
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Health Services and Delivery Research Programme
ID : 16/04/06
Informations de copyright
© 2020 The Authors. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Peterson ED, Roe MT, Chen AY, et al. The NCDR ACTION registry-GWTG: transforming contemporary acute myocardial infarction clinical care. Heart. 2010;96(22):1798-1802.
Hospital compare retrieved from https://www.medicare.gov/hospitalcompare/search.html
Herrett E, Smeeth L, Walker L, Weston C, on behalf of the MINAP Academic Group. The myocardial Ischaemia National Audit Project (MINAP). Heart. 2010;96:1264-1267.
Allwood D. Engaging Clinicians in Quality Improvement through National Clinical Audit. England: Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership; 2014.
Jones L, Pomeroy L, Robert G, Burnett S, Anderson JE, Fulop NJ. How do hospital boards govern for quality improvement? A mixed methods study of 15 organisations in England. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:978-986.
Dixon-Woods M, Baker R, Charles K, et al. Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(2):106-115.
Birkhead J. Where are we today? Early results from MINAP, the National Audit of myocardial infarction project. Heart. 2003;89(suppl 2):ii13-ii15.
Neuburger J, Currie C, Wakeman R, et al. The impact of a national clinician-led audit initiative on care and mortality after hip fracture in England: an external evaluation using time trends in non-audit data. Med Care. 2015;53(8):686-691.
HQIP. Impact Report. London. 2019.
Larsson S, Lawyer P, Garellick G, Lindahl B, Lundstrom M. Use of 13 disease registries in 5 countries demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care's value. Health Aff. 2012;31(1):220-227.
Husk J. Achieving changes in practice from national audit: national audit of the organization of services for falls and bone health in older people. J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(6):974-978.
Taylor A, Neuburger J, Walker K, Cromwell D, Groene O. How is feedback from national clinical audits used? Views from English National Health Service trust audit leads. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2016;21(2):91-100.
van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli AC, Tenkink S, Jager KJ. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform. 2010;79(5):305-323.
Batty G, Grant R, Aggarwal R, et al. National Clinical Sentinel Audit of evidence-based prescribing for older people. J Eval Clin Pract. 2004;10(2):273-279.
Francis R. Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry. London 2013.
Spencer L, Ritchie J. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. Analyzing Qualitative Data. Routledge; 2002:187-208.
NHS Leadership Academy. The healthy NHS Board 2013: Principles for good governance 2013.
Millar R, Freeman T, Mannion R. Hospital board oversight of quality and safety: a stakeholder analysis exploring the role of trust and intelligence. BMC Health Serv Res. 2015;15:196.
Keen J, Nicklin E, Long A, et al. Quality and safety between ward and board: a biography of artefacts study. Health Serv Deliv Res. 2018;6(22).
Royal College of Physicians. Unlocking the Potential. Supporting Doctors to Use National Clinical Audit to Drive Improvement. London, England: Royal College of Physicians; 2018.
Djulbegovic B, Bennett CL, Guyatt G. Failure to place evidence at the Centre of quality improvement remains a major barrier for advances in quality improvement. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019;25(3):369-372.
Scott RW. Institutions and Organizations. 2nd ed. London, England: Sage; 2001.
Furusten S. Institutional Theory and Organizational Change. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar; 2013.
Oliver C. Strategic responses to institutional processes. Acad Manage Rev. 1991;16(1):145-179.
Emilsson L, Lindahl B, Köster M, Lambe M, Ludvigsson JF. Review of 103 Swedish healthcare quality Registries. J Intern Med. 2015;277(1):94-136.
Randell R, Alvarado, N, McVey, L, Ruddle, RA, Doherty, P, Gale, C, Mamas, M, Dowding, D. Requirements for a quality dashboard: Lessons from National Clinical Audits. Paper presented at: Proceedings of American Medical Informatics Association 2019 Annual Symposium 2019; Washington, DC.