Snakes and ladders: A qualitative study understanding the active ingredients of social interaction around the use of audit and feedback.

Explore characteristics of the facilitator, group, and interaction that influence whether a group discussion about data leads to the identification of a clearly specified action plan. Peer-facilitated group discussions among primary care physicians were carried out and recorded. A follow-up focus group was conducted with peer facilitators to explore which aspects of the discussion promoted action planning. Qualitative data was analyzed using an inductive-deductive thematic analysis approach using the conceptual model developed by Cooke et al. Group discussions were coded case-specifically and then analyzed to identify which themes influenced action planning as it relates to performance improvement. Physicians were more likely to interact with practice-level data and explore actions for performance improvement when the group facilitator focused the discussion on action planning. Only one of the three sites (Site C) converged on an action plan following the peer-facilitated group discussion. At Site A, physicians shared skepticism of the data, were defensive about performance, and explained performance as a product of factors beyond their control. Site B identified several potential actions but had trouble focusing on a single indicator or deciding between physician- and group-level actions. None of the groups discussed variation in physician-level performance indicators, or how physician actions might contribute to the reported outcomes. Peer facilitators can support data interpretation and practice change; however their success depends on their personal beliefs about the data and their ability to identify and leverage change cues that arise in conversation. Further research is needed to understand how to create a psychologically safe environment that welcomes open discussion of physician variation.

Family doctors have access to a lot of data on their practice. However, doctors report difficulties in thinking of ways to use this data to improve their practice. Group discussions among doctors may be one way to support practice improvements. This study analyzed discussions among three groups of doctors to see which aspects of the discussions helped the doctors come up with new ways to improve their practices. The ability of the person leading the discussion to continually re-focus the conversation on the goal of making a change was key to whether the group made any progress. The first group was skeptical of the data and felt that its findings were beyond their control; the second group had trouble focusing on a single outcome; and the third group successfully identified an action. None of the groups discussed how their actions might contribute to the outcomes.

Economic evaluations of audit and feedback interventions: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The effectiveness of audit and feedback (A&F) interventions to improve compliance to healthcare guidelines is supported by randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses of RCTs. However, there is currently a knowledge gap on their cost-effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess whether A&F interventions targeting improvements in compliance to recommended care are economically favourable. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review including experimental, observational and simulation-based economic evaluation studies of A&F interventions targeting healthcare providers. Comparators were a 'do nothing' strategy, or any other intervention not involving A&F or involving a subset of A&F intervention components. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Econlit, EMBASE, Health Technology Assessment Database, MEDLINE, NHS Economic Evaluation Database, ABI/INFORM, Web of Science, ProQuest and websites of healthcare quality associations to December 2021. Outcomes were incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, incremental cost-utility ratios, incremental net benefit and incremental cost-benefit ratios. Pairs of reviewers independently selected eligible studies and extracted relevant data. Reporting quality was evaluated using CHEERS (Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards). Results were synthesised using permutation matrices for all studies and predefined subgroups. RESULTS: Of 13 221 unique citations, 35 studies met our inclusion criteria. The A&F intervention was dominant (ie, at least as effective with lower cost) in 7 studies, potentially cost-effective in 26 and was dominated (ie, the same or less effectiveness and higher costs) in 2 studies. A&F interventions were more likely to be economically favourable in studies based on health outcomes rather than compliance to recommended practice, considering medical costs in addition to intervention costs, published since 2010, and with high reporting quality. DISCUSSION: Results suggest that A&F interventions may have a high potential to be cost-effective. However, as is common in systematic reviews of economic evaluations, publication bias could have led to an overestimation of their economic value.

Improving antibiotic initiation and duration prescribing among nursing home physicians using an audit and feedback intervention: a theory-informed qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: In nursing homes, 25%-75% of antibiotic days of treatment are inappropriate or unnecessary and are often continued for longer durations than necessary. In Ontario, physicians can receive a provincial audit and feedback report that provides individualised, confidential, data about their antibiotic prescribing. Objectives of this study were to explore antibiotic prescribing of nursing home physicians and the influence of the report. METHODS: All physicians who received a personalised MyPractice: Long-Term Care report from Ontario Health (Quality) (OH(Q)) in January 2019 (n=361) were eligible to participate in semistructured telephone interviews that were recorded then transcribed verbatim. Recruitment emails were sent from OH(Q) until saturation of ideas. Analysis was conducted by two team members inductively, then deductively using the theoretical domains framework, a comprehensive, theory-informed framework to classify determinants of specific behaviours. RESULTS: Interviews were conducted with n=18 physicians; 78% (n=14) were men, practising for an average of 27 years, with 18 years of experience working in nursing homes. Physicians worked in a median of 2 facilities (range 1-6), with 72% (n=13) in an urban setting. 56% (n=10) were medical directors for at least one home. Professional role and identity impacted all aspects of antibiotic prescribing. Key roles included being an 'Appropriate prescriber', an 'Educator' and a 'Change driver'. For antibiotic initiation, these roles interacted with Knowledge, Skills, Beliefs about consequence, Beliefs about capabilities, and Social influence to determine the resulting prescribing behaviour. When considering the impact of interacting with the report, participants' perceived roles interacted with Reinforcement, Social influence, and Intention. Environmental context and resources was an overarching domain. CONCLUSION: This theory-informed approach is being used to inform upcoming versions of existing audit and feedback initiatives. Appealing to the role that prescribers see themselves offers a unique opportunity to encourage desired changes, such as providing tools for physicians to be Educators and facilitating, particularly medical directors, to be Change drivers.

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

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.

How and why a multifaceted intervention to improve adherence post-MI worked for some (and could work better for others): an outcome-driven qualitative process evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To explore (1) the extent to which a multicomponent intervention addressed determinants of the desired behaviours (ie, adherence to cardiac rehabilitation (CR) and cardiovascular medications), (2) the associated mechanism(s) of action and (3) how future interventions might be better designed to meet the needs of this patient population. DESIGN: A qualitative evaluation embedded within a multicentre randomised trial, involving purposive semistructured interviews. SETTING: Nine cardiac centres in Ontario, Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Potential participants were stratified according to the trial's primary outcomes of engagement and adherence, resulting in three groups: (1) engaged, adherence outcome positive, (2) engaged, adherence outcome negative and (3) did not engage, adherence outcome negative. Participants who did not engage but had positive adherence outcomes were excluded. Individual domains of the Theoretical Domains Framework were applied as deductive codes and findings were analysed using a framework approach. RESULTS: Thirty-one participants were interviewed. Participants who were engaged with positive adherence outcomes attributed their success to the intervention's ability to activate determinants including behavioural regulation and knowledge, which encouraged an increase in self-monitoring behaviour and awareness of available supports, as well as reinforcement and social influences. The behaviour of those with negative adherence outcomes was driven by beliefs about consequences, emotions and identity. As currently designed, the intervention failed to target these determinants for this subset of participants, resulting in partial engagement and poor adherence outcomes. CONCLUSION: The intervention facilitated CR adherence through reinforcement, behavioural regulation, the provision of knowledge and social influence. To reach a broader and more diverse population, future iterations of the intervention should target aberrant beliefs about consequences, memory and decision-making and emotion. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registry; NCT02382731.

Family Physician Perceptions of Their Role in Managing the Opioid Crisis.

PURPOSE: We examined the perspectives of family physicians (FPs) on opioid prescribing and management of chronic pain to better understand the barriers to safer prescribing in primary care and differences in perspectives that may be potential drivers of practice variation. METHODS: We used an exploratory qualitative study design. Semistructured interviews were conducted in June and July 2017 with 22 FPs in Ontario and coded inductively. Thematic analysis was used to identify themes, and a framework analysis explored the influence of physician demographics on prescribing experience. RESULTS: Three key themes emerged: the discrepancy between FPs' training and current practice, the tension between the FP's role and patient and system expectations, and the influence of length of time in practice and strength of therapeutic relationships on perspectives on opioid prescribing. There was an overarching sentiment among participants that FPs are unsupported in their efforts to manage chronic pain. More years in practice (≥15 years) seems to influence practice patterns by increasing trust in therapeutic relationships and decreasing reliance on emergent guidelines (vs clinical experience). CONCLUSION: Number of years in practice influences FPs' response to emergent evidence, requiring initiatives to include strategies tailored to individual beliefs. Initiatives must move beyond dissemination and education to equip FPs with the skills they need to navigate emotionally charged conversations. External pressures and misaligned system and patient expectations place FPs at the center of a challenging situation, which may result in a higher risk of burnout compared with that of their specialist colleagues.