Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2005

Open Access 01-12-2005 | Research article

What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review

Authors: R Foy, MP Eccles, G Jamtvedt, J Young, JM Grimshaw, R Baker

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2005

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Improving the quality of health care requires a range of evidence-based activities. Audit and feedback is commonly used as a quality improvement tool in the UK National Health Service [NHS]. We set out to assess whether current guidance and systematic review evidence can sufficiently inform practical decisions about how to use audit and feedback to improve quality of care.

Methods

We selected an important chronic disease encountered in primary care: diabetes mellitus. We identified recommendations from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on conducting audit and generated questions which would be relevant to any attempt to operationalise audit and feedback in a healthcare service setting. We explored the extent to which a systematic review of audit and feedback could provide practical guidance about whether audit and feedback should be used to improve quality of diabetes care and, if so, how audit and feedback could be optimised.

Results

National guidance suggests the importance of securing the right organisational conditions and processes. Review evidence suggests that audit and feedback can be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. However, the available evidence says relatively little about the detail of how to use audit and feedback most efficiently.

Conclusion

Audit and feedback will continue to be an unreliable approach to quality improvement until we learn how and when it works best. Conceptualising audit and feedback within a theoretical framework offers a way forward.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (6): 1-72.CrossRef Grimshaw JM, Thomas RE, MacLennan G, Fraser C, Ramsay CR, Vale L, Whitty P, Eccles MP, Matowe L, Shirran L, Wensing M, Dijkstra R, Donaldson C: Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess. 2004, 8 (6): 1-72.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Getting evidence into practice. Effective Health Care. 1999, University of York NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination: Getting evidence into practice. Effective Health Care. 1999, University of York
3.
go back to reference Crossing the quality chasm: the IOM Health Care Quality Initiative. Institute of Medicine. 2001 Crossing the quality chasm: the IOM Health Care Quality Initiative. Institute of Medicine. 2001
4.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Principles for Best Practice in Clinical Audit. 2002, Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press National Institute for Clinical Excellence: Principles for Best Practice in Clinical Audit. 2002, Abingdon: Radcliffe Medical Press
5.
go back to reference Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Library. 2004, Oxford: Update Software, 2 Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD: Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. The Cochrane Library. 2004, Oxford: Update Software, 2
6.
go back to reference National Service Framework for Diabetes. 2001, London, Department of Health National Service Framework for Diabetes. 2001, London, Department of Health
7.
go back to reference Audit Commission: Testing Times: A Review of Diabetes Services in England and Wales. 2000, London, Audit Commission Audit Commission: Testing Times: A Review of Diabetes Services in England and Wales. 2000, London, Audit Commission
8.
go back to reference Department of Health: National Service Framework for Diabetes. Delivery Strategy. 2002, London, Department of Health Department of Health: National Service Framework for Diabetes. Delivery Strategy. 2002, London, Department of Health
9.
go back to reference The NHS Confederation & British Medical Association: 2003, New GMS Contract. London The NHS Confederation & British Medical Association: 2003, New GMS Contract. London
10.
go back to reference Hombergh Pvd, Grol R, Hoogen HJMvd, Bosch WJHNvd: Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: mutual visits and feedback by peers compared with visits and feedback by non-physician observers. Quality in Health Care. 1999, 161-166. Hombergh Pvd, Grol R, Hoogen HJMvd, Bosch WJHNvd: Practice visits as a tool in quality improvement: mutual visits and feedback by peers compared with visits and feedback by non-physician observers. Quality in Health Care. 1999, 161-166.
11.
go back to reference Ward A, Kamien M, Mansfield F, Fatovich B: Educational feedback in management of diabetes in general practice. Education for General Practice. 1996, 7: 142-150. Ward A, Kamien M, Mansfield F, Fatovich B: Educational feedback in management of diabetes in general practice. Education for General Practice. 1996, 7: 142-150.
12.
go back to reference Feder G, Griffiths C, Highton C, Eldridge S, Spence M, Southgate L: Do clinical guidelines introduced with practice based education improve care of asthmatic and diabetic patients? A randomised controlled trial in general practice. BMJ. 1995, 311: 1473-1478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Feder G, Griffiths C, Highton C, Eldridge S, Spence M, Southgate L: Do clinical guidelines introduced with practice based education improve care of asthmatic and diabetic patients? A randomised controlled trial in general practice. BMJ. 1995, 311: 1473-1478.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
13.
go back to reference Lobach DF: Electronically distributed, computer-generated, individualized feedback enhances the use of a computerized practice guideline. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996, 493-497. Lobach DF: Electronically distributed, computer-generated, individualized feedback enhances the use of a computerized practice guideline. Proc AMIA Annu Fall Symp. 1996, 493-497.
14.
go back to reference Jones HE, Cleave B, Zinman B, Szalai JP, Nichol HL, Hoffman BR: Efficacy of feedback from quarterly laboratory comparison in maintaining quality of a hospital capillary blood glucose monitoring program. Diabetes Care. 1996, 19: 168-170.CrossRefPubMed Jones HE, Cleave B, Zinman B, Szalai JP, Nichol HL, Hoffman BR: Efficacy of feedback from quarterly laboratory comparison in maintaining quality of a hospital capillary blood glucose monitoring program. Diabetes Care. 1996, 19: 168-170.CrossRefPubMed
15.
16.
go back to reference McKee M, Britton A, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C: Methods in health services research: Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. BMJ. 1999, 319: 312-315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral McKee M, Britton A, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C: Methods in health services research: Interpreting the evidence: choosing between randomised and non-randomised studies. BMJ. 1999, 319: 312-315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
17.
go back to reference Dans AL, Dans LF, Guyatt GH, Richardson S: Users' guides to the medical literature: XIV. How to decide on the applicability of clinical trial results to your patient. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1998, 279: 545-549. 10.1001/jama.279.7.545.CrossRefPubMed Dans AL, Dans LF, Guyatt GH, Richardson S: Users' guides to the medical literature: XIV. How to decide on the applicability of clinical trial results to your patient. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1998, 279: 545-549. 10.1001/jama.279.7.545.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Foy R, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Why does primary care need more implementation research?. Family Practice. 2001, 18: 353-355. 10.1093/fampra/18.4.353.CrossRefPubMed Foy R, Eccles M, Grimshaw J: Why does primary care need more implementation research?. Family Practice. 2001, 18: 353-355. 10.1093/fampra/18.4.353.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Walker AE, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Pitts N, Steen N, Eccles M: PRIME - PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003, 3 (1): 22-10.1186/1472-6963-3-22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Walker AE, Grimshaw J, Johnston M, Pitts N, Steen N, Eccles M: PRIME - PRocess modelling in ImpleMEntation research: selecting a theoretical basis for interventions to change clinical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2003, 3 (1): 22-10.1186/1472-6963-3-22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
20.
go back to reference Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 107-112. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002.CrossRefPubMed Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Walker A, Johnston M, Pitts N: Changing the behaviour of healthcare professionals: the use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005, 58: 107-112. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.002.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review
Authors
R Foy
MP Eccles
G Jamtvedt
J Young
JM Grimshaw
R Baker
Publication date
01-12-2005
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2005
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-5-50

Other articles of this Issue 1/2005

BMC Health Services Research 1/2005 Go to the issue