How is feedback from national clinical audits used? Views from English National Health Service trust audit leads

Journal of Health Services Research and Policy

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2016, Pages 91-100

  Taylor, Angelina ^a   Neuburger, Jenny ^b   Walker, Kate ^b   Cromwell, David ^b   Groene, Oliver ^b,c  

^a Health Foundation   (United Kingdom)

^b LONDON SCHOOL OF HYGIENE AND TROPICAL MEDICINE   (United Kingdom)

^c OptiMedis AG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Effectiveness; Hospitals; National clinical audit; Quality improvement

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CANCER RESEARCH; CLINICAL PRACTICE; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH CARE SURVEY; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; MALE; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; PATIENT CARE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROGRAM EVALUATION; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUESTIONNAIRE; UNITED KINGDOM; VALIDATION STUDY; BENCHMARKING; CLINICAL AUDIT; CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK; ENGLAND; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; NEOPLASMS; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PUBLIC HEALTH; STANDARDS; TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT;

BENCHMARKING; CLINICAL AUDIT; DATA ACCURACY; ENGLAND; FEMALE; FORMATIVE FEEDBACK; HUMANS; MALE; NATIONAL HEALTH PROGRAMS; NEOPLASMS; QUALITY IMPROVEMENT;

EID: 84964036710     PISSN: 13558196     EISSN: 17581060     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1355819615612826     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership (HQIP). Programme list for the national clinical audit and patient outcome programme (NCAPOP), http: //www. hqip. org. uk/ncapop-information-contact-and-publications-detailsfor-each-project/ (accessed 15 September 2015).
2. Kluger AN and DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull 1996; 119: 254-284.
3. Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership. Principles of quality in national clinical audit. London: Healthcare Quality Improvement Partnership, 2011, http: //hqip. org. uk/assets/ Guidance/HQIP-Principles-of-Quality-in-NCA-FINALJuly-2012new. pdf (accessed 3 October 2014).
4. Larsson S, Lawyer P, Garellick G, et al. Use of 13 disease registries in 5 countries demonstrates the potential to use outcome data to improve health care's value. Health Aff 2012; 31: 220-227.
5. Torjesen I. National audit shows improvements in hospital care of hip fracture patients. BMJ 2011; 343.
6. Bridgewater B, Grayson AD, Brooks N, et al. Has the publication of cardiac surgery outcome data been associated with changes in practice in northwest England: an analysis of 25, 730 patients undergoing CABG surgery under 30 surgeons over eight years. Heart 2007; 93: 744-748.
7. Birkhead JS, Walker L, Pearson M, et al. Improving care for patients with acute coronary syndromes: initial results from the National Audit of Myocardial Infarction Project (MINAP). Heart 2004; 90: 1004-1009.
8. van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli AC, et al. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform 2010; 79: 305-323.
9. Ivankova NV, Creswell JW and Stick SL. Using mixedmethods sequential explanatory design: from theory to practice. Field Methods 2006; 18: 3-20.
10. Chadwick G, Groene O, Cromwell D, et al. National oesophago-gastric cancer audit London: The Royal College of Surgeons of England, http: //www. hscic. gov. uk/catalogue/PUB11093/clin-audi-supp-prog-oeso-gast-2013-rep. pdf (2013, accessed 3 October 2014).
11. Scott N, Hill J, Smith J, et al. National bowel cancer audit annual report. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre, http: //www. hscic. gov. uk/catalogue/ PUB11105/nati-clin-audi-supp-prog-bowe-canc-2013-rep1. pdf (2013, accessed 11 October 2015).
12. Health and Social Care Information Centre. National head and neck cancer audit. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre, http: //www. hscic. gov. uk/catalogue/ PUB11015/clin-audi-supp-prog-head-neck-dahn-11-12-rep0. pdf (2012, accessed 3 October 2014).
13. Health and Social Care Information Centre. National lung cancer audit report. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre, http: //www. hscic. gov. uk/catalogue/ PUB12719/clin-audi-supp-prog-lung-nlca-2013-rep. pdf (2013, accessed 11 October 2015).
14. NHS Choices. The NHS in England, http: //www. nhs. uk/ NHSEngland/thenhs/about/Pages/authoritiesandtrusts. aspx (2014, accessed 3 October 2014).
15. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012; 13: CD000259.
16. Hysong SJ. Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality. Med Care 2009; 47: 356-363.
17. Retegan C, Russell C, Harris D, et al. Evaluating the value and impact of the Victorian Audit of Surgical Mortality. ANZ J Surg 2013; 83: 724-728.
18. John H, Paskins Z, Hassell A, et al. Eight years' experience of regional audit: an assessment of its value as a clinical governance tool. Clin Med 2010; 10: 20-25.
19. The Royal College of Physicians. The national audit of the management of familial hypercholesterolaemia: national report. London: The Royal College of Physicians, https: //www. rcplondon. ac. uk/sites/default/files/fh-fullaudit-report-2011. pdf (2010, accessed 3 October 2014).
20. Sizmur S, Picker Institute Europe. The reliability of trustlevel survey scores: a comparison of three different scoring models. Oxford: Picker Institute Europe, http: // www. pickereurope. org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/ The-reliability-of-trust-level-survey-scores-. pdf (2012)
21. Ritchie J and Spencer L. Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In: Bryman A and Burgess R (eds) Analysing qualitative data. London: Routledge, 1993, pp. 305-329.
22. Bradley EH, Holmboe ES, Mattera JA, et al. Data feedback efforts in quality improvement: lessons learned from US hospitals. Qual Saf Health Care 2004; 13: 26-31.
23. Dixon-Woods M, Baker R, Charles K, et al. Culture and behaviour in the English National Health Service: overview of lessons from a large multimethod study. BMJ Quality & Safety 2013; 23: 106-115.
24. Berwick DM, James B and Coye MJ. Connections between quality measurement and improvement. Med Care 2003; 41(Suppl 1): I30-I38.
25. Russell GK, Jimenez S, Martin L, et al. A multicentre randomised controlled trial of reciprocal lung cancer peer review and supported quality improvement: results from the improving lung cancer outcomes project. Br J Cancer 2014; 110: 1936-1942.
26. The Health Foundation. Final report for award holders-closing the gap through clinical communities. London: The Health Foundation, http: //www. health. org. uk/media_ manager/public/75/programme_library_docs/CtGtCC% 20ILCOP%20final%20report. pdf (2012, accessed 3 October 2014).