BRADFORD SCHOLARS

    • Sign in
    View Item 
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Health Studies
    • Health Studies Publications
    • View Item
    •   Bradford Scholars
    • Health Studies
    • Health Studies Publications
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of Bradford ScholarsCommunitiesAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication DateThis CollectionAuthorsTitlesSubjectsPublication Date

    My Account

    Sign in

    HELP

    Bradford Scholars FAQsCopyright Fact SheetPolicies Fact SheetDeposit Terms and ConditionsDigital Preservation Policy

    Statistics

    Most Popular ItemsStatistics by CountryMost Popular Authors

    Exploring variation in the use of feedback from national clinical audits: a realist investigation

    • CSV
    • RefMan
    • EndNote
    • BibTex
    • RefWorks
    Thumbnail
    View/Open
    Main article (762.4Kb)
    Download
    Publication date
    2020
    Author
    Alvarado, Natasha
    McVey, Lynn
    Greenhalgh, J.
    Dowding, D.
    Mamas, M.
    Gale, C.
    Doherty, P.
    Randell, Rebecca
    Keyword
    Audit
    Feedback
    Realist evaluation
    Programme theory
    Quality improvement
    National Clinical Audits (NCAs)
    Rights
    © 2020 BioMed Central. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
    Peer-Reviewed
    yes
    
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    Background National Clinical Audits (NCAs) are a well-established quality improvement strategy used in healthcare settings. Significant resources, including clinicians’ time, are invested in participating in NCAs, yet there is variation in the extent to which the resulting feedback stimulates quality improvement. The aim of this study was to explore the reasons behind this variation. Methods We used realist evaluation to interrogate how context shapes the mechanisms through which NCAs work (or not) to stimulate quality improvement. Fifty-four interviews were conducted with doctors, nurses, audit clerks and other staff working with NCAs across five healthcare providers in England. In line with realist principles we scrutinised the data to identify how and why providers responded to NCA feedback (mechanisms), the circumstances that supported or constrained provider responses (context), and what happened as a result of the interactions between mechanisms and context (outcomes). We summarised our findings as Context+Mechanism=Outcome configurations. Results We identified five mechanisms that explained interactions between providers and NCA feedback: reputation, professionalism, competition, incentives, and professional development. Underpinned by the mechanisms professionalism and incentives, feedback was used most routinely within clinical services resourced to maintain local databases, where data were stored before upload to NCA suppliers. Local databases enabled staff to access data easily, customise reports and integrate them within governance processes. Use of feedback generated in this way was further supported where staff supporting audit participation were trusted to collect timely and accurate data. Feedback produced by NCA suppliers, which included national comparator data, was used in a more limited capacity. Challenges accessing data from NCA supplier databases, concerns about the quality of data across participating organisations and timeliness were reported to constrain the perceived usefulness of this type of feedback as a tool for stimulating quality improvement. Conclusion The findings suggest that there are a number of mechanisms through which healthcare providers, in particular staff within clinical services, engage with NCA feedback, but that there is variation in the mode, frequency and impact of these interactions. Feedback was used most routinely within clinical services resourced to maintain local databases, where data were considered timely, trusted as accurate and could be easily accessed to customise reports for the needs of the service.
    URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10454/18002
    Version
    Published version
    Citation
    Alvarado N, McVey L, Greenhalgh J, Dowding D, Mamas M, Gale C, Doherty P and Randell R (2020) Exploring variation in the use of feedback from national clinical audits: a realist investigation. BMC Health Services Research. 20, Article No: 859.
    Link to publisher’s version
    https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05661-0
    Type
    Article
    Collections
    Health Studies Publications

    entitlement

     
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2023)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.