Audit and Feedback in Clinical Practice Guidelines
Author Information
Author(s): Hysong Sylvia J, Best Richard G, Pugh Jacqueline A
Primary Institution: Houston Center for Quality of Care and Utilization Studies, Michael E. DeBakey VA Medical Center, Houston, Texas, USA
Hypothesis
How do high performing and low performing facilities differ in their use of clinical audit data for feedback purposes?
Conclusion
Facilities with a successful record of guideline adherence tend to deliver more timely, individualized, and non-punitive feedback to providers about their adherence than facilities with a poor record of guideline adherence.
Supporting Evidence
- High performers provided timely, individualized, non-punitive feedback to providers.
- Low performers were more variable in their feedback delivery and relied on standardized reports.
- The concept of actionable feedback emerged as a core category from the data.
Takeaway
Some hospitals give better feedback to doctors about how well they follow guidelines, which helps them do a better job. Others don't give feedback as well, which makes it harder for doctors to improve.
Methodology
Descriptive, qualitative, cross-sectional study with semi-structured interviews of employees involved in outpatient clinical practice guideline implementation.
Potential Biases
Potential bias due to the voluntary nature of participation and the qualitative nature of the data collection.
Limitations
The study's small sample size of six facilities may limit the transferability of results.
Participant Demographics
Employees from three high performing and three low performing Veterans Affairs Medical Centers, including facility leadership, middle management, and outpatient clinic personnel.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website