Continuous monitoring and feedback of quality of recovery indicators for anaesthetists: A qualitative investigation of reported effects on professional behaviour
File(s)D'Lima et al BJA accepted version 190417.pdf (255.87 KB)
Accepted version
Author(s)
Type
Journal Article
Abstract
Background: Research suggests that providing clinicians with feedback on their performance can result in professional behaviour change and improved clinical outcomes. Departments would benefit from understanding which characteristics of feedback support effective quality monitoring, professional behaviour change and service improvement. This study aimed to report the experience of anaesthetists participating in a long-term initiative to provide comprehensive personalized feedback to consultants on patient-reported quality of recovery indicators in a large London teaching hospital.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 consultant anaesthetists, six surgical nursing leads, the theatre manager and the clinical coordinator for recovery. Transcripts were qualitatively analysed for themes linked to the perceived value of the initiative, its acceptability and its effects upon professional practice.
Results: Analysis of qualitative data from participant interviews suggested that effective quality indicators must address areas that are within the control of the anaesthetist. Graphical data presentation, both longitudinal (personal variation over time) and comparative (peer-group distributions), was found to be preferable to summary statistics and provided useful and complementary perspectives for improvement. Developing trust in the reliability and credibility of the data through co-development of data reports with clinical input into areas such as case-mix adjustment was important for engagement. Making feedback specifically relevant to the recipient supported professional learning within a supportive and open collaborative environment.
Conclusions: This study investigated the requirements for effective feedback on quality of anaesthetic care for anaesthetists, highlighting the mechanisms by which feedback may translate into improvements in practice at the individual and peer-group level.
Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 consultant anaesthetists, six surgical nursing leads, the theatre manager and the clinical coordinator for recovery. Transcripts were qualitatively analysed for themes linked to the perceived value of the initiative, its acceptability and its effects upon professional practice.
Results: Analysis of qualitative data from participant interviews suggested that effective quality indicators must address areas that are within the control of the anaesthetist. Graphical data presentation, both longitudinal (personal variation over time) and comparative (peer-group distributions), was found to be preferable to summary statistics and provided useful and complementary perspectives for improvement. Developing trust in the reliability and credibility of the data through co-development of data reports with clinical input into areas such as case-mix adjustment was important for engagement. Making feedback specifically relevant to the recipient supported professional learning within a supportive and open collaborative environment.
Conclusions: This study investigated the requirements for effective feedback on quality of anaesthetic care for anaesthetists, highlighting the mechanisms by which feedback may translate into improvements in practice at the individual and peer-group level.
Date Issued
2017-06-28
Date Acceptance
2017-04-19
Citation
British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2017, 119 (1), pp.115-124
ISSN
1471-6771
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Start Page
115
End Page
124
Journal / Book Title
British Journal of Anaesthesia
Volume
119
Issue
1
Copyright Statement
© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved.
Sponsor
Chelsea & Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
National Institute for Health Research
Grant Number
n/a
11/1015/21
Subjects
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Anesthesiology
perioperative care
patient safety
quality improvement
quality indicators
quality of recovery
patient-reported outcomes
patient satisfaction
OF-THE-LITERATURE
HEALTH-CARE
PERFORMANCE FEEDBACK
CLINICAL-PRACTICE
ANESTHESIA
IMPROVEMENT
PROGRAM
PERSPECTIVE
EXCELLENCE
GUIDELINES
1103 Clinical Sciences
Publication Status
Published