» Articles » PMID: 34229678

The Impact of Audit and Feedback to Support Change Behaviour in Healthcare Organisations - a Cross-sectional Qualitative Study of Primary Care Centre Managers

Overview
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Health Services
Date 2021 Jul 7
PMID 34229678
Citations 13
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: This article addresses the role of audit and feedback (A&F) to support change behaviour and quality improvement work in healthcare organisations. It contributes to the sparse literature on primary care centre (PCC) managers´ views on A&F practices, taking into account the broad scope of primary care. The purpose was to explore if and how different types of A&F support change behaviour by influencing different forms of motivation and learning, and what contextual facilitators and barriers enable or obstruct change behaviour in primary care.

Methods: A qualitative research approach was used. We explored views about the impact of A&F across managers of 27 PCCs, in five Swedish regions, through semi-structured interviews. A purposeful sampling was used to identify both regions and PCC managers, in order to explore multiple perspectives. We used the COM-B framework, which describes how Capability, Opportunity and Motivation interact and generate change behaviour and how different factors might act as facilitators or barriers, when collecting and analysing data.

Results: Existing forms of A&F were perceived as coercive top-down interventions to secure adherence to contractual obligations, financial targets and clinical guidelines. Support to bottom-up approaches and more complex change at team and organisational levels was perceived as limited. We identified five contextual factors that matter for the impact of A&F on change behaviour and quality improvement work: performance of organisations, continuity in staff, size of organisations, flexibility in leadership and management, and flexibility offered by the external environment.

Conclusions: External A&F, perceived as coercive by recipients of feedback, can have an impact on change behaviour through 'know-what' and 'know-why' types of knowledge and 'have-to' commitment but provide limited support to complex change. 'Want-to' commitment and bottom-up driven processes are important for more complex change. Similar to previous research, identified facilitators and barriers of change consisted of factors that are difficult to influence by A&F activities. Future research is needed on how to ensure co-development of A&F models that are perceived as legitimate by health care professionals and useful to support more complex change.

Citing Articles

Promoting health information system in guiding decisions for improving performance: an intervention study at the Research Institute of Ophthalmology, Giza, Egypt.

Abdelgawad Y, Abd El Razik M, Saleh D, Abuelela M, Salem M Front Digit Health. 2024; 6:1288776.

PMID: 39360195 PMC: 11444961. DOI: 10.3389/fdgth.2024.1288776.


Health system interventions and responses to anti-microbial resistance: A scoping review of evidence from 15 African countries.

Alhassan J, Abdallah C PLOS Glob Public Health. 2024; 4(9):e0003688.

PMID: 39292696 PMC: 11410274. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0003688.


Comparison of two audit and feedback approaches: descriptive analysis of personal and contextual dynamics.

Pagano M, Cappadona I, Corallo F, Cardile D, Ielo A, DAleo G JBI Evid Implement. 2024; 22(4):384-395.

PMID: 38742868 PMC: 11540272. DOI: 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000428.


Incorporating clinician insight and care plans into an audit and feedback initiative for antipsychotic prescribing to Medicaid-enrolled youth in Philadelphia.

Candon M, Shen S, Rothbard A, Reed A, Everett M, Demp N BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):574.

PMID: 38702737 PMC: 11067128. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-11029-5.


Project ECHO: a global cross-sectional examination of implementation success.

Moss P, Hartley N, Russell T BMC Health Serv Res. 2024; 24(1):583.

PMID: 38702685 PMC: 11069135. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10920-5.


References
1.
Jessup R . Interdisciplinary versus multidisciplinary care teams: do we understand the difference?. Aust Health Rev. 2007; 31(3):330-1. DOI: 10.1071/ah070330. View

2.
Barnett J, Vasileiou K, Djemil F, Brooks L, Young T . Understanding innovators' experiences of barriers and facilitators in implementation and diffusion of healthcare service innovations: a qualitative study. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011; 11:342. PMC: 3265424. DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-342. View

3.
Yarnall K, Ostbye T, Krause K, Pollak K, Gradison M, Michener J . Family physicians as team leaders: "time" to share the care. Prev Chronic Dis. 2009; 6(2):A59. PMC: 2687865. View

4.
Colquhoun H, Michie S, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw J, Carroll K . Reporting and design elements of audit and feedback interventions: a secondary review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016; 26(1):54-60. DOI: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-005004. View

5.
Hsieh H, Shannon S . Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005; 15(9):1277-88. DOI: 10.1177/1049732305276687. View