Using a dark logic model to explore adverse effects in audit and feedback: a qualitative study of gaming in colonoscopy.
audit and feedback
healthcare quality improvement
qualitative research
Journal
BMJ quality & safety
ISSN: 2044-5423
Titre abrégé: BMJ Qual Saf
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101546984
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2022
10 2022
Historique:
received:
25
04
2021
accepted:
17
11
2021
pubmed:
12
12
2021
medline:
23
9
2022
entrez:
11
12
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study. We undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour. Data saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years' experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages' motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient. Our dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence. ISRCTN11126923.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study.
METHODS
We undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour.
RESULTS
Data saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years' experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages' motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient.
CONCLUSION
Our dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER
ISRCTN11126923.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34893545
pii: bmjqs-2021-013588
doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013588
pmc: PMC9510430
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN11126923']
Types de publication
Clinical Trial
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Pagination
704-715Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Psychol Health. 2010 Dec;25(10):1229-45
pubmed: 20204937
BMJ. 2020 Nov 2;371:m4074
pubmed: 33139247
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 17;9:14
pubmed: 24438584
BMJ. 2015 Mar 19;350:h1258
pubmed: 25791983
Implement Sci. 2017 Sep 29;12(1):117
pubmed: 28962632
BMC Gastroenterol. 2013 Aug 06;13:124
pubmed: 23915303
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 Jan;28(1):39-48
pubmed: 29954948
N Engl J Med. 2014 Apr 3;370(14):1298-306
pubmed: 24693890
Am Psychol. 1999 Sep;54(9):755-64
pubmed: 10510665
Eur Psychol. 2019;24(1):7-25
pubmed: 31496632
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2020 Jan 13;11(3):209-217
pubmed: 32419912
BMJ. 2020 May 26;369:m2017
pubmed: 32457043
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2013 Sep 18;13:117
pubmed: 24047204
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2012 Jul;3(3):130-136
pubmed: 28839653
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2015 Jan;69(1):95-8
pubmed: 25403381
Gut. 2016 Dec;65(12):1923-1929
pubmed: 27531829
Prev Sci. 2022 Jul;23(5):751-763
pubmed: 32748164
Prev Med. 1996 Nov-Dec;25(6):692-701
pubmed: 8936571
Implement Sci. 2014 Jul 29;9:92
pubmed: 25070404
BMJ. 2009 Jul 07;339:b2534
pubmed: 19584408
Transl Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2018 Mar 21;3:19
pubmed: 29682626
Gut. 2016 Apr;65(4):616-24
pubmed: 25670810
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Apr;30(4):569-73
pubmed: 21471474
Implement Sci. 2008 Jul 16;3:36
pubmed: 18631386
Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):20-6
pubmed: 23254403
Can J Gastroenterol. 2008 Sep;22(9):767-70
pubmed: 18818791
BMJ. 2001 Jun 16;322(7300):1451-6
pubmed: 11408300
Lancet. 2016 Apr 23;387(10029):1743-52
pubmed: 26898856
J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Apr;31 Suppl 1:28-35
pubmed: 26951275
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2021 May 5;13(1):5-11
pubmed: 34970427
Endoscopy. 2017 Mar;49(3):270-297
pubmed: 28212588
Risk Manag Healthc Policy. 2017 Dec 04;10:177-187
pubmed: 29270036
Endoscopy. 2017 Nov;49(11):1069-1074
pubmed: 28753699
Front Psychol. 2018 Nov 06;9:2180
pubmed: 30459694
Psychol Sci. 2007 May;18(5):429-34
pubmed: 17576283
Psychol Bull. 2006 Mar;132(2):249-68
pubmed: 16536643
Endoscopy. 2016 Mar;48(3):256-62
pubmed: 26808396
Best Pract Res Clin Gastroenterol. 2016 Jun;30(3):473-85
pubmed: 27345652
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Apr;26(4):323-334
pubmed: 27288054
BMJ Qual Saf. 2017 Jan;26(1):81-84
pubmed: 27034339
Int J Nurs Stud. 2010 Nov;47(11):1451-8
pubmed: 20598692
Gastroenterology. 2011 Jan;140(1):65-72
pubmed: 20854818
Gastroenterology. 2008 Dec;135(6):1845-7
pubmed: 19000685
Frontline Gastroenterol. 2016 Jul;7(3):202-206
pubmed: 27429734
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 10;8:66
pubmed: 23759034
Am J Gastroenterol. 2016 Jan;111(1):63-9
pubmed: 26526085
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 26;14(1):40
pubmed: 31027495
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
Gut. 2013 Feb;62(2):242-9
pubmed: 22661458
N Engl J Med. 2010 May 13;362(19):1795-803
pubmed: 20463339
Endosc Int Open. 2020 Nov;8(11):E1545-E1552
pubmed: 33140009
Gastrointest Endosc. 2018 Oct;88(4):737-744.e1
pubmed: 30220302