Talk to the Veterans Crisis Line now
U.S. flag
An official website of the United States government

Health Services Research & Development

Go to the ORD website
Go to the QUERI website

HSR&D Citation Abstract

Search | Search by Center | Search by Source | Keywords in Title

Theory-based and evidence-based design of audit and feedback programmes: examples from two clinical intervention studies.

Hysong SJ, Kell HJ, Petersen LA, Campbell BA, Trautner BW. Theory-based and evidence-based design of audit and feedback programmes: examples from two clinical intervention studies. BMJ quality & safety. 2017 Apr 1; 26(4):323-334.

Dimensions for VA is a web-based tool available to VA staff that enables detailed searches of published research and research projects.

If you have VA-Intranet access, click here for more information vaww.hsrd.research.va.gov/dimensions/

VA staff not currently on the VA network can access Dimensions by registering for an account using their VA email address.
   Search Dimensions for VA for this citation
* Don't have VA-internal network access or a VA email address? Try searching the free-to-the-public version of Dimensions



Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (AandF) is a common intervention used to change healthcare provider behaviour and, thus, improve healthcare quality. Although AandF can be effective its effectiveness varies, often due to the details of how AandF interventions are implemented. Some have suggested that a suitable conceptual framework is needed to organise the elements of AandF and also explain any observed differences in effectiveness. Through two examples from applied research studies, this article demonstrates how a suitable explanatory theory (in this case Kluger and DeNisi's Feedback Intervention Theory (FIT)) can be systematically applied to design better feedback interventions in healthcare settings. METHODS: Case 1: this study's objective was to reduce inappropriate diagnosis of catheter-associated urinary tract infections (CAUTI) in inpatient wards. Learning to identify the correct clinical course of action from the case details was central to this study; consequently, the feedback intervention featured feedback elements that FIT predicts would best activate learning processes (framing feedback in terms of group performance and providing of correct solution information). We designed a highly personalised, interactive, one-on-one intervention with healthcare providers to improve their capacity to distinguish between CAUTI and asymptomatic bacteruria (ASB) and treat ASB appropriately. Case 2: Simplicity and scalability drove this study's intervention design, employing elements that FIT predicted positively impacted effectiveness yet still facilitated deployment and scalability (eg, delivered via computer, delivered in writing). We designed a web-based, report-style feedback intervention to help primary care physicians improve their care of patients with hypertension. RESULTS: Both studies exhibited significant improvements in their desired outcome and in both cases interventions were received positively by feedback recipients. SUMMARY: AandF has been a popular, yet inconsistently implemented and variably effective tool for changing healthcare provider behaviour and, improving healthcare quality. Through the systematic use of theory such as FIT, robust feedback interventions can be designed that yield greater effectiveness. Future work should look to comparative effectiveness of specific design elements and contextual factors that identify AandF as the optimal intervention to effectuate healthcare provider behaviour change. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01052545, NCT00302718; post-results.





Questions about the HSR&D website? Email the Web Team.

Any health information on this website is strictly for informational purposes and is not intended as medical advice. It should not be used to diagnose or treat any condition.