Search

Background: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a common quality improvement strategy with highly variable effects on patient care. It is unclear how A&F effectiveness can be maximised. Since the core mechanism of action of A&F depends on drawing attention to a discrepancy between actual and desired performance, we aimed to understand current and best practices in the choice of performance comparator., Methods: We described current choices for performance comparators by conducting a secondary review of randomised trials of A&F interventions and identifying the associated mechanisms that might have implications for effective A&F by reviewing theories and empirical studies from a recent qualitative evidence synthesis., Results: We found across 146 trials that feedback recipients' performance was most frequently compared against the performance of others (benchmarks; 60.3%). Other comparators included recipients' own performance over time (trends; 9.6%) and target standards (explicit targets; 11.0%), and 13% of trials used a combination of these options. In studies featuring benchmarks, 42% compared against mean performance. Eight (5.5%) trials provided a rationale for using a specific comparator. We distilled mechanisms of each comparator from 12 behavioural theories, 5 randomised trials, and 42 qualitative A&F studies., Conclusion: Clinical performance comparators in published literature were poorly informed by theory and did not explicitly account for mechanisms reported in qualitative studies. Based on our review, we argue that there is considerable opportunity to improve the design of performance comparators by (1) providing tailored comparisons rather than benchmarking everyone against the mean, (2) limiting the amount of comparators being displayed while providing more comparative information upon request to balance the feedback's credibility and actionability, (3) providing performance trends but not trends alone, and (4) encouraging feedback recipients to set personal, explicit targets guided by relevant information.

Background: Health care organizations increasingly depend on business intelligence tools, including "dashboards," to capture, analyze, and present data on performance metrics. Ideally, dashboards allow users to quickly visualize actionable data to inform and optimize clinical and organizational performance. In reality, dashboards are typically embedded in complex health care organizations with massive data streams and end users with distinct needs. Thus, designing effective dashboards is a challenging task and theoretical underpinnings of health care dashboards are poorly characterized; even the concept of the dashboard remains ill-defined. Researchers, informaticists, clinical managers, and health care administrators will benefit from a clearer understanding of how dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated, and how the design, end user, and context influence their uptake and effectiveness. Objective: This scoping review first aims to survey the vast published literature of "dashboards" to describe where, why, and for whom they are used in health care settings, as well as how they are developed, implemented, and evaluated. Further, we will examine how dashboard design and content is informed by intended purpose and end users. Methods: In July 2020, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for peer-reviewed literature using a targeted strategy developed with a research librarian and retrieved 5188 results. Following deduplication, 3306 studies were screened in duplicate for title and abstract. Any abstracts mentioning a health care dashboard were retrieved in full text and are undergoing duplicate review for eligibility. Articles will be included for data extraction and analysis if they describe the development, implementation, or evaluation of a dashboard that was successfully used in routine workflow. Articles will be excluded if they were published before 2015, the full text is unavailable, they are in a non-English language, or they describe dashboards used for public health tracking, in settings where direct patient care is not provided, or in undergraduate medical education. Any discrepancies in eligibility determination will be adjudicated by a third reviewer. We chose to focus on articles published after 2015 and those that describe dashboards that were successfully used in routine practice to identify the most recent and relevant literature to support future dashboard development in the rapidly evolving field of health care informatics. Results: All articles have undergone dual review for title and abstract, with a total of 2019 articles mentioning use of a health care dashboard retrieved in full text for further review. We are currently reviewing all full-text articles in duplicate. We aim to publish findings by mid-2022. Findings will be reported following guidance from the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist. Conclusions: This scoping review will provide stakeholders with an overview of existing dashboard tools, highlighting the ways in which dashboards have been developed, implemented, and evaluated in different settings and for different end user groups, and identify potential research gaps. Findings will guide efforts to design and use dashboards in the health care sector more effectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: National guidelines recommend that maternity systems provide patient-centered access to immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception (ie, insertion of an intrauterine device or implant during the delivery hospitalization). Hospitals face significant barriers to offering these services, and efforts to improve peripartum contraception care quality have met with mixed success. Implementation toolkits-packages of resources and strategies to facilitate the implementation of new services-are a promising approach for guiding clinical practice change.Objective: This study aimed to develop a theory-informed toolkit, evaluate the feasibility of toolkit-based implementation of immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception care in a single site, and refine the toolkit and implementation process for future effectiveness testing.Study Design: We conducted a single-site feasibility study of the toolkit-based implementation of immediate postpartum contraception services at a large academic medical center in 2017 to 2020. Based on previous qualitative work, we developed a theory-informed implementation toolkit. A stakeholder panel selected toolkit resources to use in a multicomponent implementation intervention at the study site. These resources included tools and strategies designed to optimize implementation conditions (ie, implementation leadership, planning, and evaluation; the financial environment; engagement of key stakeholders; patient needs; compatibility with workflow; and clinician and staff knowledge, skills, and attitudes). The implementation intervention was executed from January 2018 to April 2019. Study outcomes included implementation outcomes (ie, provider perceptions of the implementation process and implementation tools [assessed via online provider survey]) and healthcare quality outcomes (ie, trends in prenatal contraceptive counseling, trends in immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptive utilization [both ascertained by institutional administrative data], and the patient experience of contraceptive care [assessed via serial, cross-sectional, online patient survey items adapted from the National Quality Forum-endorsed, validated Person-Centered Contraceptive Counseling measure]).Results: In the implementation process, among 172 of 401 eligible clinicians (43%) participating in surveys, 70% were "extremely" or "somewhat" satisfied with the implementation process overall. In the prenatal contraceptive counseling, among 4960 individuals undergoing childbirth at the study site in 2019, 1789 (36.1%) had documented prenatal counseling about postpartum contraception. Documented counseling rates increased overall throughout 2019 (Q1, 12.5%; Q4, 51.0%) but varied significantly by clinic site (Q4, range 30%-79%). Immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraception utilization increased throughout the study period (before implementation, 5.46% of deliveries; during implementation, 8.95%; after implementation, 8.58%). In the patient experience of contraceptive care, patient survey respondents (response rate, 15%-29%) were largely White (344/425 [81%]) and highly educated (309/425 [73%] with at least a 4-year college degree), reflecting the study site population. Scores were poor across settings, with modest improvements in the hospital setting from 2018 to 2020 (prenatal visits, 67%-63%; hospitalization, 45%-58%; outpatient after delivery, 69%-65%). Based on these findings, toolkit refinements included additional resources designed to routinize prenatal contraceptive counseling and support a more patient-centered experience of contraceptive care.Conclusion: A toolkit-based process to implement immediate postpartum long-acting reversible contraceptive services at a single academic center was associated with high acceptability but mixed healthcare quality outcomes. Toolkit resources were added to optimize counseling rates and the patient experience of contraceptive care. Future research should formally test the effectiveness of the refined toolkit in a multisite, prospective trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]