Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2022

Open Access 01-12-2022 | Care | Research

How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review

Authors: Joachim Rapin, Joanie Pellet, Cédric Mabire, Sylvie Gendron, Carl-Ardy Dubois

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2022

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Care quality varies between organizations and even units within an organization. Inadequate care can have harmful financial and social consequences, e.g. nosocomial infection, lengthened hospital stays or death. Experts recommend the implementation of nursing performance improvement systems to assess team performance and monitor patient outcomes as well as service efficiency. In practice, these systems provide nursing or interprofessional teams with nursing-sensitive indicator feedback. Feedback is essential since it commits teams to improve their practice, although it appears somewhat haphazard and, at times, overlooked. Research findings suggest that contextual dynamics, initial system performance and feedback modes interact in unknown ways. This rapid review aims to produce a theorization to explain what works in which contexts, and how feedback to nursing or interprofessional teams shape nursing performance improvement systems.

Methods

Based on theory-driven realist methodology, with reference to an innovative combination of Actor-Network Theory and Critical Realist philosophy principles, this realist rapid review entailed an iterative procedure: 8766 documents in French and English, published between 2010 and 2018, were identified via 5 databases, and 23 were selected and analysed. Two expert panels (scientific and clinical) were consulted to improve the synthesis and systemic modelling of an original feedback theorization.

Results

We identified three hypotheses, subdivided into twelve generative configurations to explain how feedback mobilizes nursing or interprofessional teams. Empirically founded and actionable, these propositions are supported by expert panels. Each configuration specifies contextualized mechanisms that explain feedback and team outcomes. Socially mediated mechanisms are particularly generative of action and agency.

Conclusions

This rapid realist review provides an informative theoretical proposition to embrace the complexity of nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interdisciplinary teams. Building on general explanations previously observed, this review provides insight into a deep explanation of feedback mechanisms.

Systematic review registration

Prospero CRD42018110128.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Ivers N, Brown B, Grimshaw J. Clinincal performance feedback and decision support. in Improving Patient Care: The Implementation of Change in Health Care, Third Edition. Edited by Michel Wensing, Richard Grol, and Jeremy Grimshaw. 2020. p. 235–51.
2.
3.
Rapin J, D’Amour D, Penseyres T, Santos G, Adatte V, Lehn I, et al. Développement d’un système de gestion de la performance des soins dans un centre hospitalier universitaire suisse. Rech Soins Infirm. 2017;131(4):61–70.
4.
Cooke LJ, Duncan D, Rivera L, Dowling SK, Symonds C, Armson H. The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework: a practical, evidence-informed approach for the design and implementation of socially constructed learning interventions using audit and group feedback. Implement Sci. 2018;13(1):136.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
5.
Greenhalgh J, Dalkin S, Gooding K, Gibbons E, Wright J, Meads D, et al. Functionality and feedback: a realist synthesis of the collation, interpretation and utilisation of patient-reported outcome measures data to improve patient care. In: Health Services and Delivery Research. 5th ed. Southampton: NIHR Journals Library; 2017.
6.
Brown B, Gude WT, Blakeman T, van der Veer SN, Ivers N, Francis JJ, et al. Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):40.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
7.
Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2012;6:CD000259.
8.
Tuti T, Nzinga J, Njoroge M, Brown B, Peek N, English M, et al. A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
Ivers NM, Sales A, Colquhoun H, Michie S, Foy R, Francis JJ, et al. No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention. Implement Sci. 2014;9(1):14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
10.
Brehaut JC, Colquhoun HL, Eva KW, Carroll K, Sales A, Michie S, et al. Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(6):435–42.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Colquhoun HL, Carroll K, Eva KW, Grimshaw JM, Ivers N, Michie S, et al. Advancing the literature on designing audit and feedback interventions: identifying theory-informed hypotheses. Implement Sci. 2017;12(1):1–10.CrossRef
12.
Damschroder LJ, Robinson CH, Francis J, Bentley DR, Krein SL, Rosland AM, et al. Effects of performance measure implementation on clinical manager and provider motivation. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29(4):877–84.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
13.
de Vos Maartje LG, van der Veer SN, Graafmans WC, de Keizer NF, Jager KJ, Westert GP, et al. Process evaluation of a tailored multifaceted feedback program to improve the quality of intensive care by using quality indicators. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(3):233–41.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Gude WT, van Engen-Verheul MM, van der Veer SN, Kemps HMC, Jaspers MWM, de Keizer NF, et al. Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation. Implement Sci. 2016;11:160.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
15.
Konig C, Plank J, Augustin T, Habacher W, Beck P, Fruhwald T, et al. Effects of audit and feedback on professional practice in Geriatric Acute Care Units. Eur Geriatr Med. 2013;4(6):394–400.CrossRef
16.
17.
Contandriopoulos AP, Champagne F, Sainte-Marie G, Thibeault G-C. Conception et évaluation de la performance des organisations et des systèmes de santé. In: Suárez-Herrera JC, Contandriopoulos AP, Cupertino de Barros FP, Hartz ZMA, editors. Améliorer la performance des systèmes de santé: Concepts, méthodes, pratiques. Montréal: Les Presses de l’Université de Montréal; 2017. p. 29–72.
18.
Beaulieu PA, Higgins JH, Dacey LJ, Nugent WC, DeFoe GR, Likosky DS. Transforming administrative data into real-time information in the Department of Surgery. BMJ Qual Saf. 2010;19:399–404.CrossRef
19.
Pawson R. Realist methodology: the building blocks of evidence. In: Pawson R, editor. Evidence-based policy: a realist perspective. London: Sage; 2006. p. 17–37.CrossRef
20.
Byrne D. Researching complex large-scale nested interventions. 2018. In: Doing Realist Research [Google Book version] [Internet]. London, UK; Thousands Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India: Sage; [120–39]. Available from: https://​play.​google.​com/​books.
21.
Jagosh J, Macaulay AC, Pluye P, Salsberg JON, Bush PL, Henderson JIM, et al. Uncovering the benefits of participatory research: implications of a realist review for health research and practice. Milbank Q. 2012;90(2):311–46.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. J Adv Nurs. 2013;69(5):1005–22.PubMedCrossRef
23.
24.
Marchal B, Kegels G, Van Belle S. Theory and realist methods. In: Emmel N, Greenhalgh J, Manzano A, Monaghan M, Dalkin S, editors. Doing realist research. London; Thousands Oaks; New Delhi: Sage; 2018. p. 107–19.
25.
Rapin J, Pellet J, Mabire C, Gendron S, Dubois C-A. How does feedback shared with interprofessional health care teams shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review protocol. Syst Rev. 2019;8(1):182.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
27.
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review–a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Booth A, Wright J, Briscoe S. Scoping and Searching to Support Realist Approaches. 2018. In: Doing Realist Research [Google Book version] [Internet]. London, UK; Thousands Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India: SAGE; [187–208]. Available from: https://​play.​google.​com/​books.
29.
30.
Callon M. Éléments pour une sociologie de la traduction: la domestication des coquilles St-Jacques et des marins pêcheurs dans la baie de St. Brieuc L’Année Sociologique. 1986;26:169–208 (numéro spécial La sociologie des Sciences et des Techniques).
31.
Latour B. La science en action. Paris: La Découverte; 1989.
32.
Bhaskar R. A realist theory of science. Abingdon; New York: Routledge; 2008.
33.
O’Mahoney J, O’Mahoney H, Al-Amoudi I. How can the loggerhead sea-turtle survive? Exploring the journeys of the Caretta caretta using ANT and critical realism. Organization. 2016;24(6):781–99.CrossRef
34.
O’Mahoney J. Archetypes of translation: Recommendations for dialogue. Int J Manag Rev. 2016;18(3):333–50.CrossRef
35.
Callon M. Techno-economic networks and irreversibility. The Sociol Rev. 1990;38(1_suppl):132–61.CrossRef
36.
Bilodeau A, Potvin L. Unpacking complexity in public health interventions with the Actor-Network Theory. Health Promot Int. 2016;33(1):173–81.
37.
Rolfe S. Combining theories of change and realist evaluation in practice: lessons from a research on evaluation study. Evaluation. 2019;25(3):294–316.CrossRef
38.
Wong G. Data gathering in realist reviews looking for needles in haystacks. 2018. In: Doing Realist Research [Google Book version] [Internet]. London, UK; Thousands Oaks, CA; New Delhi, India: Sage; [169–87]. Available from: https://​play.​google.​com/​books.
39.
Paillé P, Mucchielli A. L’analyse par questionnement analytique. 2016. In: L'analyse qualitative en sciences humaines et sociales [Internet]. Malakoff: Armand Colin. 4. [130–44]. Available from: https://​play.​google.​com.
40.
Bhaskar R. The order of natural necessity: a kind of introduction to critical realism. Middletown: Garry Hawke; 2017.
41.
Rapin J. [Entretiens réalistes panélistes]. Données de recherche inédites. 2018.
42.
Murray MA, Higuchi KAS, Edwards N, Greenough M, Hoogeveen K. Practice change in long-Term Care Facilities in Ontario: Views of Managers and Staff. Geriatr Nurs. 2011;32(6):418–28.PubMedCrossRef
43.
Jeffs L, Beswick S, Lo J, Lai Y, Chhun A, Campbell H. Insights from staff nurses and managers on unit-specific nursing performance dashboards: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2014;23(12):1001–6.PubMedCrossRef
44.
O’Rourke HM, Fraser KD, Boström A-M, Baylon MAB, Sales AE. Regulated provider perceptions of feedback reports. J Nurs Manag. 2013;21(8):1016–25.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Sales AE, Fraser K, Baylon MA, O’Rourke HM, Gao G, Bucknall T, et al. Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings. Implement Sci. 2015;10:20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
Sinuff T, Muscedere J, Rozmovits L, et al. A qualitative study of the variable effects of audit and feedback in the ICU. BMJ Qual Saf. 2015;24:393–9.PubMedCrossRef
47.
Giesbers APM, Schouteten RLJ, Poutsma E, van der Heijden BIJM, van Achterberg T. Nurses’ perceptions of feedback to nursing teams on quality measurements: An embedded case study design. Int J Nurs Stud. 2016;64:120–9.PubMedCrossRef
48.
de Vos Maartje LG, van der Veer SN, Graafmans WC, de Keizer NF, Jager KJ, Westert GP, et al. Implementing quality indicators in intensive care units: exploring barriers to and facilitators of behaviour change. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
49.
Gude WT, van Engen-Verheul MM, van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Peek N. How does audit and feedback influence intentions of health professionals to improve practice? A laboratory experiment and field study in cardiac rehabilitation. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26(4):279–87.PubMedCrossRef
50.
Overveld LFJ, Takes RP, Vijn TW, Braspenning JCC, Boer JP, Brouns JJA, et al. Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care. Health Expect. 2017;20(6):1275–88.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
51.
Ross JS, Williams L, Damush TM, Matthias M. Physician and other healthcare personnel responses to hospital stroke quality of care performance feedback: a qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2016;25(6):441–7.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Albanese MP, Evans DA, Schantz CA, Bowen M, Disbot M, Moffa JS, et al. Engaging clinical nurses in quality and performance improvement activities. Nurs Adm Q. 2010;34(3):226–45.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Haines S, Warren T. Staff and patient involvement in benchmarking to improve care. Nurs Manag - UK. 2011;18(2):22–5.
54.
55.
Parr JM, Bell J, Koziol-McLain J. Evaluating fundamentals of care: The development of a unit-level quality measurement and improvement programme. J Clin Nurs. 2018;27(11/12):2360–72.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Ray-Barruel G, Ullman AJ, Rickard CM, Cooke M. Clinical audits to improve critical care: Part 2: Analyse, benchmark and feedback. Aust Crit Care. 2018;31(2):106–9.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Flottorp SA, Jamtvedt G, Gibis B, McKee M. Using audit and feedback to health professionals to improve the quality and safety of health care. Cpenhagen: WHO Regional Office for Europe; 2010.
58.
Ullman AJ, Ray-Barruel G, Rickard CM, Cooke M. Clinical audits to improve critical care: Part 1 Prepare and collect data. Aust Crit Care. 2018;31(2):101–5.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Hysong SJ, Francis J, Petersen LA. Motivating and engaging frontline providers in measuring and improving team clinical performance. BMJ Qual Safe. 2019;28(5):405–11.CrossRef
60.
Colquhoun HL, Carroll K, Eva KW, Grimshaw JM, Ivers N, Michie S, et al. Informing the research agenda for optimizing audit and feedback interventions: results of a prioritization exercise. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
Colquhoun H, Michie S, Sales A, Ivers N, Grimshaw JM, Carroll K, et al. Reporting and design elements of audit and feedback interventions: a secondary review. BMJ Qual Saf. 2017;26:54–60.PubMedCrossRef
62.
63.
Greenhalgh J, Manzano A. Understanding ‘context’ in realist evaluation and synthesis. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2021:1–14.
64.
Shaw J, Gray CS, Baker GR, Denis J-L, Breton M, Gutberg J, et al. Mechanisms, contexts and points of contention: operationalizing realist-informed research for complex health interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):178.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
66.
Archer M. Théorie sociale et analyse de la société. Sociol soc. 1998;30(1):9–22.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review
Authors
Joachim Rapin
Joanie Pellet
Cédric Mabire
Sylvie Gendron
Carl-Ardy Dubois
Publication date
01-12-2022
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Care
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2022
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-022-02026-y

Other articles of this Issue 1/2022

Systematic Reviews 1/2022 Go to the issue

Protocol

Interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation: protocol for a scoping review

Systematic review update

Clinical yarning with Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander peoples—a systematic scoping review of its use and impacts

Protocol

Psychosocial rehabilitation of individuals with schizophrenia: a scoping review protocol

Protocol

Using a theoretical framework to inform implementation of the patient-centred medical home (PCMH) model in primary care: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review

Letter

Efficacy and safety of AYUSH-64 as standalone or adjunct to standard care in COVID-19: a structured summary of protocol for a systematic review

Systematic review update

The effect of lead exposure on IQ test scores in children under 12 years: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control studies