Factors predicting doctors' reporting of performance change in response to multisource feedback.

BACKGROUND: Multi-source feedback (MSF) offers doctors feedback on their performance from peers (medical colleagues), coworkers and patients. Researchers increasingly point to the fact that only a small majority of doctors (60-70 percent) benefit from MSF. Building on medical education and social psychology literature, the authors identified several factors that may influence change in response to MSF. Subsequently, they quantitatively studied the factors that advance the use of MSF for practice change. METHODS: This observational study was set in 26 non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. In total, 458 specialists participated in the MSF program. Besides the collation of questionnaires, the Dutch MSF program is composed of a reflective portfolio and a facilitative interview aimed at increasing the acceptance and use of MSF. All specialists who finished a MSF procedure between May 2008 and September 2010 were invited to complete an evaluation form. The dependent variable was self-reported change. Three categories of independent variables (personal characteristics, experiences with the assessments and mean MSF ratings) were included in the analysis. Multivariate regression analysis techniques were used to identify the relation between the independent variables and specialists' reported change in actual practice. RESULTS: In total, 238 medical specialists (response rate 52 percent) returned an evaluation form and participated in the study. A small majority (55 percent) of specialists reported to have changed their professional performance in one or more aspects in response to MSF. Regression analyses revealed that two variables had the most effect on reported change. Perceived quality of mentoring positively influenced reported change (regression coefficient beta = 0.527, p < 0.05) as did negative scores offered by colleagues. (regression coefficient beta = -0.157, p < 0.05). The explained variance of these two variables combined was 34 percent. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived quality of mentoring and MSF ratings from colleagues seem to be the main motivators for the self-reported change in response to MSF by specialists. These insights could leverage in increasing the use of MSF for practice change by investing in the quality of mentors.

Validation of smoking cessation self-reported by patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

PURPOSE: The present study reports on the biochemical validation of the self-reported smoking status of patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The objective is to establish the proportion of overestimation of self-reported success rates. METHODS: A cross-sectional smoking-status validation study including 60 patients with COPD who reported that they had stopped smoking. In the analysis of urine samples, a cut-off point of 50 ng/mL of cotinine was used. RESULTS: At the time of biochemical validation, 55 patients reported that they had quit smoking while five patients resumed smoking. Smoking status was biochemically confirmed for 43 patients (78%) and 12 patients (22%) were classified as smokers. The sensitivity of the self- report of smoking was 29% and the specificity was 100%. CONCLUSION: Many primary care patients with COPD do not provide valid information on their smoking status, which hamper adequate therapeutic interventions. Integration of biochemical validation in daily care could overcome this problem, but may harm the doctor-patient relationship.

Short- and long-term effects of a quality improvement collaborative on diabetes management.

INTRODUCTION: This study examined the short- and long-term effects of a quality improvement collaborative on patient outcomes, professional performance, and structural aspects of chronic care management of type 2 diabetes in an integrated care setting. METHODS: Controlled pre- and post-intervention study assessing patient outcomes (hemoglobin A1c, cholesterol, blood pressure, weight, blood lipid levels, and smoking status), professional performance (guideline adherence), and structural aspects of chronic care management from baseline up to 24 months. Analyses were based on 1,861 patients with diabetes in six intervention and nine control regions representing 37 general practices and 13 outpatient clinics. RESULTS: Modest but significant improvement was seen in mean systolic blood pressure (decrease by 4.0 mm Hg versus 1.6 mm Hg) and mean high density lipoprotein levels (increase by 0.12 versus 0.03 points) at two-year follow up. Positive but insignificant differences were found in hemoglobin A1c (0.3%), cholesterol, and blood lipid levels. The intervention group showed significant improvement in the percentage of patients receiving advice and instruction to examine feet, and smaller reductions in the percentage of patients receiving instruction to monitor blood glucose and visiting a dietician annually. Structural aspects of self-management and decision support also improved significantly. CONCLUSIONS: At a time of heightened national attention toward diabetes care, our results demonstrate a modest benefit of participation in a multi-institutional quality improvement collaborative focusing on integrated, patient-centered care. The effects persisted for at least 12 months after the intervention was completed. TRIAL NUMBER: http://clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT 00160017.

Factors influencing success in quality-improvement collaboratives: development and psychometric testing of an instrument.

BACKGROUND: To increase the effectiveness of quality-improvement collaboratives (QICs), it is important to explore factors that potentially influence their outcomes. For this purpose, we have developed and tested the psychometric properties of an instrument that aims to identify the features that may enhance the quality and impact of collaborative quality-improvement approaches. The instrument can be used as a measurement instrument to retrospectively collect information about perceived determinants of success. In addition, it can be prospectively applied as a checklist to guide initiators, facilitators, and participants of QICs, with information about how to perform or participate in a collaborative with theoretically optimal chances of success. Such information can be used to improve collaboratives. METHODS: We developed an instrument with content validity based on literature and the opinions of QIC experts. We collected data from 144 healthcare professionals in 44 multidisciplinary improvement teams participating in two QICs and used exploratory factor analysis to assess the construct validity. We used Cronbach's alpha to ascertain the internal consistency. RESULTS: The 50-item instrument we developed reflected expert-opinion-based determinants of success in a QIC. We deleted nine items after item reduction. On the basis of the factor analysis results, one item was dropped, which resulted in a 40-item questionnaire. Exploratory factor analysis showed that a three-factor model provided the best fit. The components were labeled 'sufficient expert team support', 'effective multidisciplinary teamwork', and 'helpful collaborative processes'. Internal consistency reliability was excellent (alphas between .85 and .89). CONCLUSIONS: This newly developed instrument seems a promising tool for providing healthcare workers and policy makers with useful information about determinants of success in QICs. The psychometric properties of the instrument are satisfactory and warrant application either as an objective measure or as a checklist.

Exploring the black box of change in improving test-ordering routines.

BACKGROUND: The effects of quality improvement strategies are sometimes limited in spite of a systematic development approach. What elements play a role in the change process is not yet fully understood. OBJECTIVE: To explore this 'black box' of change, by analysing the barriers and facilitators GPs perceive during the change process. METHODS: Qualitative study among GPs who participated in the quality improvement strategy arm of a randomized clinical trial on blood test ordering for unexplained complaints (UCs). The strategy was based on a national guideline that advocates delayed test ordering in patients presenting with UCs. Each GP's change process was assessed by means of a semi-structured interview about barriers to and facilitators of change. RESULTS: Twenty-four interviews were analysed. Important themes identified in the interviews were lack of problem awareness, the time and effort it takes to change, influence of patients and the pros and cons of the changed behaviour. CONCLUSION: The themes can be summarized into one comprehensive issue: the GPs lack a sense of urgency to change. An important explanation seems to be that two questions from the problem analysis prior to the development of the strategy had not been adequately answered: "Is the GPs' current behaviour a problem and does the problem have consequences for patients?" and if so, "What is the extent of the problem?." As a result, insufficient attention was given to applicability issues, such as time investment, costs and patient and practitioner satisfaction and anxiety.