Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2017

Open Access 01-12-2017 | Research article

Benchmarked performance charts using principal components analysis to improve the effectiveness of feedback for audit data in HIV care

Authors: Skevi Michael, Mark Gompels, Caroline Sabin, Hilary Curtis, Margaret T. May

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Feedback tools for clinical audit data that compare site-specific results to average performance over all sites can be useful for quality improvement. Proposed tools should be simple and clearly benchmark the site’s performance, so that a relevant action plan can be directly implemented to improve patient care services. We aimed to develop such a tool in order to feedback data to UK HIV clinics participating in the 2015 British HIV Association (BHIVA) audit assessing compliance with the 2011 guidelines for routine investigation and monitoring of adult HIV-1- infected individuals.

Methods

HIV clinic sites were asked to provide data on a random sample of 50–100 adult patients attending for HIV care during 2014 and/or 2015 by completing a self-audit spreadsheet. Outcomes audited included the proportion of patients with recorded resistance testing, viral load monitoring, adherence assessment, medications, hepatitis testing, vaccination management, risk assessments, and sexual health screening. For each outcome we benchmarked the proportion for a specific site against the average performance. We produced performance charts for each site using boxplots for the outcomes. We also used the mean and differences from the mean performance to produce a dashboard for each site. We used principal components analysis to group correlated outcomes and simplify the dashboard.

Results

The 106 sites included in the study provided information on a total of 7768 patients. Outcomes capturing monitoring of treatment of HIV-infection showed high performance across the sites, whereas testing for hepatitis, and risk assessment for cardiovascular disease and smoking, management of flu vaccination, sexual health screening, and cervical cytology for women were very variable across sites. The principal components analysis reduced the original 12 outcomes to four factors that represented HIV care, hepatitis testing, other screening tests, and resistance testing. These provided simplified measures of adherence to guidelines which were presented as a 4 bar dashboard of performance.

Conclusion

Our dashboard performance charts provide easily digestible visual summaries of locally relevant audit data that are benchmarked against the overall mean and can be used to improve feedback to HIV services. Feedback from clinicians indicated that they found these charts acceptable and useful.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA. Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: making feedback actionable. BioMed Central. 2006;1:9. Hysong SJ, Best RG, Pugh JA. Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: making feedback actionable. BioMed Central. 2006;1:9.
3.
go back to reference Hanskamp-Sebregts M, Zegers M, Boeijen W, Westert GP, Gurp PJV, Wollersheim H. Effects of auditing patient safety in hospital care: design of a mixed-method evaluation. BioMed Central Health Serv Res. 2013;13:226.CrossRef Hanskamp-Sebregts M, Zegers M, Boeijen W, Westert GP, Gurp PJV, Wollersheim H. Effects of auditing patient safety in hospital care: design of a mixed-method evaluation. BioMed Central Health Serv Res. 2013;13:226.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6). Art. No.: CD000259. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD000259.pub3. Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, O’Brien MA, Johansen M, Grimshaw J, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;(6). Art. No.: CD000259. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD000259.​pub3.
5.
go back to reference Evaluation: What to consider. Commonly asked questions about how to approach evaluation of quality improvement in health care. London: The Health Foundation; 2015. Evaluation: What to consider. Commonly asked questions about how to approach evaluation of quality improvement in health care. London: The Health Foundation; 2015.
6.
go back to reference Davies H. Measuring and reporting the quality of health care: issues and evidence from the international research literature. Scotland: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2005. Davies H. Measuring and reporting the quality of health care: issues and evidence from the international research literature. Scotland: NHS Quality Improvement Scotland; 2005.
7.
go back to reference S. A. Flottorp, G. Jamtvedt, B. Gibis and M. McKee, "Using audit and feedback to health professionals to improve the quality and safety of health care," World Health Organisation, 2010. S. A. Flottorp, G. Jamtvedt, B. Gibis and M. McKee, "Using audit and feedback to health professionals to improve the quality and safety of health care," World Health Organisation, 2010.
8.
go back to reference Strome TL. Healthcare analytics for quality and performance improvement. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons; 2013.CrossRef Strome TL. Healthcare analytics for quality and performance improvement. Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley and Sons; 2013.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Thomson RG, Lally J. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red. BMJ Qual Saf. 2000;9(4):201–2. Thomson RG, Lally J. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red. BMJ Qual Saf. 2000;9(4):201–2.
10.
go back to reference Asboe D, Aitken C, Boffito M, et al. British HIV Association guidelines for the routine investigation and monitoring of adult HIV-1-infected individuals 2011. HIV Med. 2012;13:1–44.CrossRefPubMed Asboe D, Aitken C, Boffito M, et al. British HIV Association guidelines for the routine investigation and monitoring of adult HIV-1-infected individuals 2011. HIV Med. 2012;13:1–44.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference A. Molloy, "Routine monitoring and assessment of adults with HIV, BHIVA national audit 2015," BHIVA, 2015. A. Molloy, "Routine monitoring and assessment of adults with HIV, BHIVA national audit 2015," BHIVA, 2015.
13.
go back to reference Cox NJ. Speaking Stata: creating and varying box plots. Stata J. 2009;9(3):478–96. Cox NJ. Speaking Stata: creating and varying box plots. Stata J. 2009;9(3):478–96.
14.
go back to reference Delpech V, Brown A, Croxford S, Chau C, Polavarapu V, Cooper N, Rooney G, Yin Z. Quality of HIV care in the United Kingdom: key indicators for the first 12 months from HIV diagnosis. HIV Med. 2013;14:19–24.CrossRefPubMed Delpech V, Brown A, Croxford S, Chau C, Polavarapu V, Cooper N, Rooney G, Yin Z. Quality of HIV care in the United Kingdom: key indicators for the first 12 months from HIV diagnosis. HIV Med. 2013;14:19–24.CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Michael S, May M, Gompels M, Sabin C, Jose S. Age, Gender, Risk Group, Cohort Size and Year of Study Effect on the Performance Indicator of CD4 Count at HIV Presentation: A UK CHIC Study on Late Diagnosis Performance: EACS Online Libary, Barcelona; 2015. Michael S, May M, Gompels M, Sabin C, Jose S. Age, Gender, Risk Group, Cohort Size and Year of Study Effect on the Performance Indicator of CD4 Count at HIV Presentation: A UK CHIC Study on Late Diagnosis Performance: EACS Online Libary, Barcelona; 2015.
16.
go back to reference May M, Gompels M, Michael S, Jose S, Sabin C. The importance of adjusting for patient characteristics and clinic size when comparing measures of treatment outcome across clinics: the UK CHIC study. Budapest: International Workshop on HIV Observational Databases (IWHOD); 2016. May M, Gompels M, Michael S, Jose S, Sabin C. The importance of adjusting for patient characteristics and clinic size when comparing measures of treatment outcome across clinics: the UK CHIC study. Budapest: International Workshop on HIV Observational Databases (IWHOD); 2016.
17.
go back to reference Glass T, De Geest S, Weber R. Correlates of self-reported nonadherence to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients. The Swiss HIV cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;41:385–92.CrossRefPubMed Glass T, De Geest S, Weber R. Correlates of self-reported nonadherence to antiretroviral therapy in HIV-infected patients. The Swiss HIV cohort study. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2006;41:385–92.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Chesney MA. Factors affecting adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(Suppl 2):S171–6.CrossRefPubMed Chesney MA. Factors affecting adherence to antiretroviral therapy. Clin Infect Dis. 2000;30(Suppl 2):S171–6.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med. 2005;24(8):1185–202.CrossRefPubMed Spiegelhalter DJ. Funnel plots for comparing institutional performance. Stat Med. 2005;24(8):1185–202.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Forni S, Gini R. Funnel plot for institutional comparison: the funnelcompar command. London: UK Stata Users Group meeting; 2009. Forni S, Gini R. Funnel plot for institutional comparison: the funnelcompar command. London: UK Stata Users Group meeting; 2009.
21.
go back to reference Caskey F, Castledine C, Dawnay A, Farrington K, Fogarty D, Fraser S, Kumwenda M, MacPhee I, Sinha S, Steenkamp R, Williams A. 18th Annual Report of the Renal Association. NEPHRON 2016, UK Renal Registry. 2016;32(Suppl 1):1-2. Caskey F, Castledine C, Dawnay A, Farrington K, Fogarty D, Fraser S, Kumwenda M, MacPhee I, Sinha S, Steenkamp R, Williams A. 18th Annual Report of the Renal Association. NEPHRON 2016, UK Renal Registry. 2016;32(Suppl 1):1-2.
Metadata
Title
Benchmarked performance charts using principal components analysis to improve the effectiveness of feedback for audit data in HIV care
Authors
Skevi Michael
Mark Gompels
Caroline Sabin
Hilary Curtis
Margaret T. May
Publication date
01-12-2017
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2017
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-017-2426-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2017

BMC Health Services Research 1/2017 Go to the issue