[A&F: obstacles to implementing interventions in the health system.] / A&F: gli ostacoli nell'implementare interventi nel sistema sanitario.

Understanding how well a clinician or health care team is performing provides an essential foundation for improvement. If done well, Audit and Feedback (A&F) provides data in non-judgemental, motivating insights and leads to changes in clinical processes that benefit patients. This article will explore obstacles to optimizing the potential positive effects of A&F to improve patient care and outcomes by examining three interrelated steps in the process: the audit; the feedback; and the action. The audit requires data that will be perceived as both valid and actionable. Acquiring and using such data properly often requires partnerships. Feedback recipients need to know how to turn data into action. The A&F, therefore, should include components that direct the recipient toward feasible next steps to undertake the change that will lead to improvement. The proposed actions may be individual (learning new diagnostic or therapeutic strategies, trying a more patient-centered approach, etc.) or organizational (more proactive approaches often including the involvement of additional team members). The ability to turn feedback into action will depend on the culture of the recipient-group, and its level of experience with these change processes. Feedback facilitation or coaching may be useful for some groups or certain kinds of desired changes in practice. Inadequate leadership and support for health professionals, as they try to respond to A&F, is also often a barrier. Finally, with the final focus on the challenges of the individual Work Packages (WP) within the Easy-Net network program, the article focuses on what were the facilitating and hindering factors, the obstacles encountered, and the resistance to change overcome, useful considerations in support of the increasingly widespread implementation of A&F activities in our Healthcare System in the future.

[A&F: integrating research into practice and practice into research.] / A&F: integrare la ricerca nella pratica e la pratica nella ricerca.

This article proposes a focus on Audit & Feedback (A&F)'s sustainability. If on one side, it is essential to ask how to bring A&F interventions out of research programs into clinical practices and contexts of care. On the other, it is fundamental to ensure that the experiences gained within care contexts can inform research, helping to define the research objectives and questions whose development can support paths of change. The reflection starts from two research programs on A&F carried out in the United Kingdom, respectively, at the regional level (Aspire) in the field of primary care and at the national level (Affinitie and Enact) in the field of the transfusion system. Aspire raised awareness of the importance of establishing a primary care implementation laboratory, which randomizes practices to different types of feedback to evaluate the effectiveness, also to improve patient care. The national Affinitie and Enact programs served to 'inform' recommendations to improve the conditions for sustainable collaboration between A&F researchers and audit programs. They represent an example to understand how to incorporate research results within a national clinical audit program. Finally, starting from the complex experience of the Easy-Net research program, the reflection moves on to how it was possible to make A&F interventions sustainable in Italy beyond research projects, in clinical-care contexts in which the resources provisions make continuous and structured interventions difficult and impractical. The Easy-Net program envisages different clinical care settings, study designs, interventions, and recipients, which require different actions to adapt research results to the specific realities to which A&F's interventions are addressed.

[Fifteen ways to optimize feedback.] / Quindici modi per ottimizzare il feedback.

This article proposes a series of insights that are drawn from the most up-to-date scientific literature and functional for an optimal implementation of Audit & Feedback (A&F). The focus is on the "feedback" component of the methodology. Some key issues of the feedback are the capability to address changes perceived as priorities for the recipients, recommend actions that bring real improvements, and allow the people to whom recommendations are addressed to manage them. Other suggestions concern how to share the data: it is important to provide feedback as soon as possible, multiple times, starting from individual rather than general data, and including comparisons able to promote the desired change. Other operational indications concern the most effective way to display the feedback, such as tightly linking the graphical representation and the summary message, presenting the feedback in multiple ways, and simplifying the message to minimize cognitive overload. Finally, some suggestions are about how to transmit feedback: tailor interventions according to the specific barriers of a given clinical-organizational context, provide short and easily understandable messages followed by more details, emphasize the credibility of information, increase motivation to change practice, and encourage participatory feedback construction rather than passive delivery. It also proposes an analysis of some of the challenges related to the design of A&F interventions translatable into improvements in practice starting from the context of the Easy-Net network program.

[Audit & Feedback: how it works.] / Audit & Feedback: come funziona.

This article is the first of a series that aims to describe the Audit & Feedback (A&F) methodology. Some key elements focus on what A&F is and how it works. While it is an effective tool for promoting change in professional behaviour and improving the quality of care, there is still substantial uncertainty concerning how to implement A&F interventions to maximize its effects. The article explains how to design effective A&F on relevant issues, considering the available literature and direct experiences conducted in the National Health System (NHS). A&F interventions should aim to achieve clear, attainable, and evaluable objectives, which concern aspects of care for which there is solid evidence of literature and potential space for improvement. Based on data that measure any distance between what is expected and observed in local practice, the feedback must turn to those who can pursue the proposed change and who must trust the data collection and analysis process. Feedback should be provided more than once, in verbal and written form, and might include explicit objectives and an action plan. When planning A&F interventions, it is essential to provide specific data (e.g., aggregated at the level of a team, department, or individual doctor) rather than general, sending them directly to the professional or department involved rather than generically to the healthcare organization involved. In addition, it is essential to simplify the message so that the staff who receives the feedback can quickly understand the quality of the performance addressed and how to change it. Finally, it is necessary to encourage collaboration between the various healthcare professionals responsible for the quality of care and competence for improvement interventions (health professions, health management, quality expert personnel, and methodologists). Networking between staff improves the knowledge and effectiveness of A&F. This article finally proposes practical examples of two main aspects of A&F planning from the context of the EASY-NET program: how to increase the participation and involvement of the recipients of the intervention and the related pros and cons regarding the choice between the use of routinely available data from health information systems (SIS) and data collected ad hoc.

[A&F in EASY-NET: a bridge between clinicians and epidemiologists for a more virtuous exchange of information.] / A&F in EASY-NET: un ponte tra clinici ed epidemiologi per un più virtuoso scambio informativo.

The first of a series of four online meetings entitled "A&F CONNECTIONS. In practice and in response to Covid-19", as part of the EASY-NET network program on the topic of Audit & Feedback (A&F), was an opportunity to present and discuss the first results of a survey carried out by the area working on A&F, to describe the characteristics of A&F interventions in the EASY-NET context. A reflection on the preliminary results of the investigation and on the cultural dimension of the importance of creating a bridge between the world of clinicians and the world of epidemiology, for a real and virtuous exchange of information.

[A&F to monitor and promote quality in healthcare during the COVID-19 emergency: the EASY-NET work]. / A&F per il monitoraggio e la promozione della qualità delle cure in emergenza COVID-19: il lavoro di EASY-NET.

We are presenting here the findings of the reaction to the COVID-19 epidemic during the period March to June 2020 of those centres participating in the research EASY-NET which is on-going in Italy, funded by the Ministry of Health and co-founded by the Regional Health Authorities. The objective of EASY-NET is to evaluate the effectiveness of the audit and feedback (A&F) strategies in different clinical and organizational settings in seven regions. As a negative consequence of the COVID-19 epidemic, the activities of the project have suddenly slowed down; nevertheless, the COVID-19 epidemic represented an opportunity to apply the A&F methodology and support the healthcare within the regional authorities in order to manage and monitor the impact of this new disease. The reaction to the crisis on behalf of EASY-NET was inconsistent across the participating regions for various reasons. Factors which influenced the reaction levels in relation to the rapidity and efficiency of the implementation of the A&F strategies were as follows: the varying epidemiological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic in the various territories, the different clinical and organizational context and availability of expert research teams together with A&F procedures which had already been tested before the start of the epidemic.