Unpacking the intention to action gap: a qualitative study understanding how physicians engage with audit and feedback

Laura Desveaux, Noah Michael Ivers, Kim Devotta, Noor Ramji, Karen Weyman, Tara Kiran, Laura Desveaux, Noah Michael Ivers, Kim Devotta, Noor Ramji, Karen Weyman, Tara Kiran

Abstract

Background: Audit and feedback (A&F) often successfully enhances health professionals' intentions to improve quality of care but does not consistently lead to practice changes. Recipients often cite data credibility and limited resources as barriers impeding their ability to act upon A&F, suggesting the intention-to-action gap manifests while recipients are interacting with their data. While attention has been paid to the role feedback and contextual variables play in contributing to (or impeding) success, we lack a nuanced understanding of how healthcare professionals interact with and process clinical performance data.

Methods: We used qualitative, semi-structured interviews guided by Normalization Process Theory (NPT). Questions explored the role of data in quality improvement, experiences with the A&F report, perceptions of the data, and interpretations and reflections. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data were analyzed using a combination of inductive and deductive strategies using reflexive thematic analysis informed by a constructivist paradigm.

Results: Healthcare professional characteristics (individual quality improvement capabilities and beliefs about data) seem to influence engagement with A&F to a greater degree than feedback variables (i.e., delivered by peers) and observed contextual factors (i.e., strong quality improvement culture). Most participants lacked the capabilities to interpret practice-level data in an actionable way despite a motivation to engage meaningfully. Reasons for the intention-to-action gap included challenges interpreting longitudinal data, appreciating the nuances of common data sources, understanding how aggregate data provides insights into individualized care, and identifying practice-level actions to improve quality. These factors limited effective cognitive participation and collective action, as outlined in NPT.

Conclusions: A well-designed A&F intervention is necessary but not sufficient to inform practice changes. A&F initiatives must include co-interventions to address recipient characteristics (i.e., beliefs and capabilities) and context to optimize impact. Effective strategies to overcome the intention-to-action gap may include modelling how to use A&F to inform practice change, providing opportunities for social interaction relating to the A&F, and circulating examples of effective actions taken in response to A&F. More broadly, undergraduate medical education and post-graduate training must ensure physicians are equipped with QI capabilities, with an emphasis on the skills required to interpret and act on practice-level data.

Keywords: Audit and feedback; Implementation; Physician learning; Practice improvement; Primary care.

Conflict of interest statement

Drs. Kiran, Ramji, and Weyman were all in physician leadership roles with the St. Michael’s Hospital Academic Family Health Team during the study period. The authors declare no other conflicts of interest.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Results summary as it relates to the NPT domains. NPT = Normalization Process Theory

References

    1. Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, O’Brien MA, French SD, et al. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(11):1534–1541. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2913-y.
    1. Brehaut JC, Colquhoun HL, Eva KW, Carroll K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(6):435–441. doi: 10.7326/M15-2248.
    1. Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014;9:14. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-9-14.
    1. Gude WT, van Engen-Verheul MM, van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Peek N. How does audit and feedback influence intentions of health professionals to improve practice? A laboratory experiment and field study in cardiac rehabilitation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(4):279–287. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2015-004795.
    1. Ivers N, Barnsley J, Upshur R, Tu K, Shah B, Grimshaw J, et al. “My approach to this job is...one person at a time”: perceived discordance between population-level quality targets and patient-centred care. Can Fam Physician. 2014;60(3):258–266.
    1. Brown B, Gude WT, Blakeman T, van der Veer SN, Ivers N, Francis JJ, et al. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):40. doi: 10.1186/s13012-019-0883-5.
    1. Hysong SJ, Smitham K, SoRelle R, Amspoker A, Hughes AM, Haidet P. Mental models of audit and feedback in primary care settings. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):73. doi: 10.1186/s13012-018-0764-3.
    1. Linderbaum BA, Levy PE. The Development and Validation of the Feedback Orientation Scale (FOS) J Manag. 2010;36(6):1372–1405.
    1. May C, Finch T. Implementing, embedding, and integrating practices: an outline of Normalization Process Theory. Sociology. 2009;43(3):535–554. doi: 10.1177/0038038509103208.
    1. Murray E, Treweek S, Pope C, MacFarlane A, Ballini L, Dowrick C, et al. Normalisation process theory: a framework for developing, evaluating and implementing complex interventions. BMC Med. 2010;8:63. doi: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-63.
    1. Glazier RH, Redelmeier DA. Building the patient-centered medical home in Ontario. Jama. 2010;303(21):2186–2187. doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.753.
    1. Kiran T, Ramji N, Derocher MB, Girdhari R, Davie S, Lam-Antoniades M. Ten tips for advancing a culture of improvement in primary care. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;28:582–587. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2018-008451.
    1. Davie S, Kiran T. Partnering with patients to improve access to primary care. BMJ Open Quality. 2020;9.
    1. Feldman J, Davie S, Kiran T. Measuring and improving cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening rates in a multi-site urban practice in Toronto. Canada. BMJ Qual Improve Rep. 2017;6(6):1–7.
    1. Tilli T, Hunchuck J, Dewhurst N, Kiran T. Opioid stewardship: implementing a proactive, pharmacist-led intervention for patients coprescribed opioids and benzodiazepines at an urban academic primary care centre. BMJ Open Quality. 2020;9.
    1. May C, Finch T, Mair F, Ballini L, Dowrick C, Eccles M, et al. Understanding the implementation of complex interventions in health care: the normalization process model. BMC Health Serv Res. 2007;7:148. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-7-148.
    1. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006;3(2):77–101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.
    1. Guba E, Lincoln Y. Competing paradigms in qualitative research. In: Denzin N, Lincoln Y, editors. Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 1995. pp. 105–117.
    1. Thorne S. Data analysis in qualitative research. Evid Based Nurs. 2000;3:68–70. doi: 10.1136/ebn.3.3.68.
    1. Shea CM, Turner K, Albritton J, Reiter KL. Contextual factors that influence quality improvement implementation in primary care: the role of organizations, teams, and individuals. Health Care Manag Rev. 2018;43(3):261–269. doi: 10.1097/HMR.0000000000000194.
    1. Campbell C, Sisler J, Committee obotFCS . Supporting learning and continuous practice improvement for physicians in Canada: a new way forward. 2019.
    1. Bevan H. How can we build skills to transform the healthcare system? J Res Nurs. 2010;15:139–148. doi: 10.1177/1744987109357812.
    1. Livorsi DJ, Goedken CC, Sauder M, Vander Weg MW, Perencevich EN, Reisinger HS. Evaluation of barriers to audit-and-feedback programs that used direct observation of hand hygiene compliance: a qualitative study. JAMA Netw Open. 2018;1(6):e183344. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.3344.
    1. Exworthy M, Wilkinson EK, McColl A, Moore M, Roderick P, Smith H, et al. The role of performance indicators in changing the autonomy of the general practice profession in the UK. Soc Sci Med. 2003;56(7):1493–1504. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(02)00151-X.
    1. Wagner DJ, Durbin J, Barnsley J, Ivers NM. Beyond quality improvement: exploring why primary care teams engage in a voluntary audit and feedback program. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;17(1):803. doi: 10.1186/s12913-017-2765-3.
    1. Payne VL, Hysong SJ. Model depicting aspects of audit and feedback that impact physicians' acceptance of clinical performance feedback. BMC Health Serv Res. 2016;16:260. doi: 10.1186/s12913-016-1486-3.
    1. Strandberg EL, Ovhed I, Håkansson A, Troein M. The meaning of quality work from the general practitioner's perspective: an interview study. BMC Fam Pract. 2006;7:60. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-60.
    1. Bodenheimer T, Sinsky C. From triple to quadruple aim: care of the patient requires care of the provider. Ann Fam Med. 2014;12(6):573–576. doi: 10.1370/afm.1713.
    1. Aarons GA, Sommerfeld DH. Leadership, innovation climate, and attitudes toward evidence-based practice during a statewide implementation. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2012;51(4):423–431. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2012.01.018.
    1. Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA, Moore FI. Not of one mind: mental models of clinical practice guidelines in the Veterans Health Administration. Health Serv Res. 2005;40(3):829–847. doi: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2005.00387.x.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorit ja yhteistyökumppanit

Sairaudet

Huumeiden interventiot

3
Tilaa