Audit and feedback to reduce unwarranted clinical variation at scale: a realist study of implementation strategy mechanisms.
Clinical audit
Clinical competence
Evidence-based practice
Implementation science
Low-value care
Medical audit
Nursing audit
Practice guideline
Quality of health care
Realist evaluation
Journal
Implementation science : IS
ISSN: 1748-5908
Titre abrégé: Implement Sci
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101258411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
11 Dec 2023
11 Dec 2023
Historique:
received:
15
06
2023
accepted:
22
11
2023
medline:
12
12
2023
pubmed:
12
12
2023
entrez:
12
12
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Unwarranted 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. Realist 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. The 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. Audit 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Unwarranted 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.
METHODS
METHODS
Realist 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.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The 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.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Audit 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38082301
doi: 10.1186/s13012-023-01324-w
pii: 10.1186/s13012-023-01324-w
pmc: PMC10714549
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
71Subventions
Organisme : Medical Research Future Fund
ID : APP1178554
Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s).
Références
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):178-190
pubmed: 28077235
Qual Health Care. 1997 Mar;6(1):29-34
pubmed: 10166600
BMC Med. 2018 Apr 30;16(1):63
pubmed: 29706132
Med Decis Making. 2009 Sep-Oct;29(5):606-18
pubmed: 19470719
Lancet. 2017 Jul 8;390(10090):105-107
pubmed: 28077230
Br J Sports Med. 2016 Oct;50(20):1230-1231
pubmed: 26511005
N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 26;321(17):1168-73
pubmed: 2677726
Annu Rev Public Health. 2019 Apr 1;40:361-372
pubmed: 30633712
J Eval Clin Pract. 2020 Jun;26(3):687-696
pubmed: 31136047
BMJ Open. 2022 May 19;12(5):e058158
pubmed: 35589340
Implement Sci. 2020 Oct 21;15(1):91
pubmed: 33087147
Med Care. 2014 Feb;52(2):157-63
pubmed: 24374418
BMJ Open. 2017 Aug 28;7(8):e014825
pubmed: 28851769
BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 22;10(12):e044049
pubmed: 33371049
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022 Jun 25;22(1):178
pubmed: 35752754
J Am Coll Surg. 2012 Dec;215(6):850-7
pubmed: 23164141
Transl Behav Med. 2011 Dec;1(4):523-9
pubmed: 24073074
Med J Aust. 2012 Nov 19;197(10):556-60
pubmed: 23163685
Med Care. 2018 Apr;56(4):350-357
pubmed: 29419707
Med J Aust. 2020 Feb;212(3):104-106.e1
pubmed: 31909479
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2015 Feb 21;15:42
pubmed: 25885706
PLoS One. 2017 Jul 19;12(7):e0180090
pubmed: 28723917
PLoS Med. 2017 Oct 31;14(10):e1002412
pubmed: 29088237
Lancet. 2013 Sep 28;382(9898):1121-9
pubmed: 24075052
Science. 1973 Dec 14;182(4117):1102-8
pubmed: 4750608
J Eval Clin Pract. 2016 Oct;22(5):792-8
pubmed: 27291891
Implement Sci. 2017 Sep 29;12(1):117
pubmed: 28962632
J Clin Epidemiol. 2002 Jul;55(7):717-22
pubmed: 12160920
Lancet. 1987 May 23;1(8543):1185-9
pubmed: 2883497
N Engl J Med. 1994 Oct 13;331(15):989-95
pubmed: 8084356
BMC Health Serv Res. 2020 Mar 30;20(1):261
pubmed: 32228574
Am Psychol. 2002 Sep;57(9):705-17
pubmed: 12237980
Am J Med Qual. 2011 Mar-Apr;26(2):120-6
pubmed: 20935275
J Gen Intern Med. 2006 Feb;21 Suppl 2:S43-9
pubmed: 16637960
BMJ Open. 2014 Jan 21;4(1):e004153
pubmed: 24448848
BMC Public Health. 2011 Apr 10;11:222
pubmed: 21477347
Implement Sci. 2006 Apr 28;1:9
pubmed: 16722539
Am Econ J Econ Policy. 2019 Feb;11(1):192-221
pubmed: 32843911
Med J Aust. 2012 Jul 16;197(2):100-5
pubmed: 22794056
BMC Med. 2019 May 7;17(1):88
pubmed: 31064388
Implement Sci. 2020 Apr 16;15(1):21
pubmed: 32299461
BMC Med. 2016 Jun 24;14(1):96
pubmed: 27342217
Aust Health Rev. 2016 Feb;40(1):54-62
pubmed: 26164160
Med Educ. 2010 Dec;44(12):1166-74
pubmed: 21091758
Health Serv Res. 2006 Apr;41(2):374-94
pubmed: 16584454
Implement Sci. 2014 Sep 05;9:115
pubmed: 25190100
BMJ. 2002 Oct 26;325(7370):961-4
pubmed: 12399352
Implement Sci. 2019 Dec 5;14(1):102
pubmed: 31806037
Implement Sci. 2019 Apr 26;14(1):40
pubmed: 31027495
Implement Sci. 2013 Jun 10;8:66
pubmed: 23759034
N Engl J Med. 2003 Jun 26;348(26):2635-45
pubmed: 12826639
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
Implement Sci. 2015 Oct 30;10:153
pubmed: 26519291
BMC Med. 2020 May 4;18(1):102
pubmed: 32362273
JAMA. 2001 Jun 13;285(22):2871-9
pubmed: 11401608
J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Jul;29 Suppl 2:S667-74
pubmed: 24715398
Implement Sci. 2016 Oct 19;11(1):141
pubmed: 27756414
J Eval Clin Pract. 1999 Aug;5(3):269-81
pubmed: 10461579
BMJ Qual Saf. 2018 May;27(5):340-346
pubmed: 28912198