Developing an Audit and Feedback Dashboard for Family Physicians: User-Centered Design Process.
audit
audit and feedback
care
clinical performance
dashboard
design
development
family physician
feedback
implementation
primary care
user-centered
users
Journal
JMIR human factors
ISSN: 2292-9495
Titre abrégé: JMIR Hum Factors
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 101666561
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Nov 2023
09 Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
29
03
2023
accepted:
22
07
2023
revised:
29
06
2023
medline:
10
11
2023
pubmed:
9
11
2023
entrez:
9
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Audit and feedback (A&F), the summary and provision of clinical performance data, is a common quality improvement strategy. Successful design and implementation of A&F-or any quality improvement strategy-should incorporate evidence-informed best practices as well as context-specific end user input. We used A&F theory and user-centered design to inform the development of a web-based primary care A&F dashboard. We describe the design process and how it influenced the design of the dashboard. Our design process included 3 phases: prototype development based on A&F theory and input from clinical improvement leaders; workshop with family physician quality improvement leaders to develop personas (ie, fictional users that represent an archetype character representative of our key users) and application of those personas to design decisions; and user-centered interviews with family physicians to learn about the physician's reactions to the revised dashboard. The team applied A&F best practices to the dashboard prototype. Personas were used to identify target groups with challenges and behaviors as a tool for informed design decision-making. Our workshop produced 3 user personas, Dr Skeptic, Frazzled Physician, and Eager Implementer, representing common users based on the team's experience of A&F. Interviews were conducted to further validate findings from the persona workshop and found that (1) physicians were interested in how they compare with peers; however, if performance was above average, they were not motivated to improve even if gaps compared to other standards in their care remained; (2) burnout levels were high as physicians are trying to catch up on missed care during the pandemic and are therefore less motivated to act on the data; and (3) additional desired features included integration within the electronic medical record, and more up-to-date and accurate data. We found that carefully incorporating data from user interviews helped operationalize generic best practices for A&F to achieve an acceptable dashboard that could meet the needs and goals of physicians. We demonstrate such a design process in this paper. A&F dashboards should address physicians' data skepticism, present data in a way that spurs action, and support physicians to have the time and capacity to engage in quality improvement work; the steps we followed may help those responsible for quality improvement strategy implementation achieve these aims.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Audit and feedback (A&F), the summary and provision of clinical performance data, is a common quality improvement strategy. Successful design and implementation of A&F-or any quality improvement strategy-should incorporate evidence-informed best practices as well as context-specific end user input.
OBJECTIVE
OBJECTIVE
We used A&F theory and user-centered design to inform the development of a web-based primary care A&F dashboard. We describe the design process and how it influenced the design of the dashboard.
METHODS
METHODS
Our design process included 3 phases: prototype development based on A&F theory and input from clinical improvement leaders; workshop with family physician quality improvement leaders to develop personas (ie, fictional users that represent an archetype character representative of our key users) and application of those personas to design decisions; and user-centered interviews with family physicians to learn about the physician's reactions to the revised dashboard.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The team applied A&F best practices to the dashboard prototype. Personas were used to identify target groups with challenges and behaviors as a tool for informed design decision-making. Our workshop produced 3 user personas, Dr Skeptic, Frazzled Physician, and Eager Implementer, representing common users based on the team's experience of A&F. Interviews were conducted to further validate findings from the persona workshop and found that (1) physicians were interested in how they compare with peers; however, if performance was above average, they were not motivated to improve even if gaps compared to other standards in their care remained; (2) burnout levels were high as physicians are trying to catch up on missed care during the pandemic and are therefore less motivated to act on the data; and (3) additional desired features included integration within the electronic medical record, and more up-to-date and accurate data.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
We found that carefully incorporating data from user interviews helped operationalize generic best practices for A&F to achieve an acceptable dashboard that could meet the needs and goals of physicians. We demonstrate such a design process in this paper. A&F dashboards should address physicians' data skepticism, present data in a way that spurs action, and support physicians to have the time and capacity to engage in quality improvement work; the steps we followed may help those responsible for quality improvement strategy implementation achieve these aims.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37943586
pii: v10i1e47718
doi: 10.2196/47718
pmc: PMC10667970
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e47718Informations de copyright
©Jennifer Shuldiner, Tara Kiran, Payal Agarwal, Maryam Daneshvarfard, Kirsten Eldridge, Susie Kim, Michelle Greiver, Iffat Jokhio, Noah Ivers. Originally published in JMIR Human Factors (https://humanfactors.jmir.org), 09.11.2023.
Références
J Biomed Inform. 2005 Feb;38(1):75-87
pubmed: 15694887
JMIR Hum Factors. 2023 Jan 6;10:e38736
pubmed: 36607715
BMJ. 2015 Feb 10;350:g7714
pubmed: 25670179
JMIR Res Protoc. 2018 Feb 16;7(2):e11
pubmed: 29453190
Implement Sci. 2017 May 12;12(1):61
pubmed: 28494799
Harv Bus Rev. 2008 Jun;86(6):84-92, 141
pubmed: 18605031
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 17;9:14
pubmed: 24438584
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jun 24;19(1):419
pubmed: 31234916
J Fam Pract. 2001 Mar;50(3):W242-9
pubmed: 11252222
Qual Saf Health Care. 2003 Jun;12(3):215-20
pubmed: 12792013
Healthc (Amst). 2016 Mar;4(1):11-4
pubmed: 27001093
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 26;14(1):40
pubmed: 31027495
JMIR Hum Factors. 2018 Sep 04;5(3):e25
pubmed: 30181108
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 15;164(6):435-41
pubmed: 26903136
Implement Sci. 2020 Jan 21;15(1):7
pubmed: 31964414
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Apr 29;19(1):270
pubmed: 31035992
J Med Internet Res. 2021 Mar 16;23(3):e15032
pubmed: 33724194
Implement Sci. 2021 Feb 17;16(1):19
pubmed: 33596946
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
Int J Med Inform. 2016 Oct;94:191-206
pubmed: 27573327