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 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Health Services Research
Published in: BMC Health Services Research 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research article

Model depicting aspects of audit and feedback that impact physicians’ acceptance of clinical performance feedback

Authors: Velma L. Payne, Sylvia J. Hysong

Published in: BMC Health Services Research | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a strategy that has been used in various disciplines for performance and quality improvement. There is limited research regarding medical professionals’ acceptance of clinical-performance feedback and whether feedback impacts clinical practice. The objectives of our research were to (1) investigate aspects of A&F that impact physicians’ acceptance of performance feedback; (2) determine actions physicians take when receiving feedback; and (3) determine if feedback impacts physicians’ patient-management behavior.

Methods

In this qualitative study, we employed grounded theory methods to perform a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 VA primary care physicians. We analyzed a subset of interview questions from the primary study, which aimed to determine how providers of high, low and moderately performing VA medical centers use performance feedback to maintain and improve quality of care, and determine perceived utility of performance feedback.

Results

Based on the themes emergent from our analysis and their observed relationships, we developed a model depicting aspects of the A&F process that impact feedback acceptance and physicians’ patient-management behavior. The model is comprised of three core components – Reaction, Action and Impact – and depicts elements associated with feedback recipients’ reaction to feedback, action taken when feedback is received, and physicians modifying their patient-management behavior. Feedback characteristics, the environment, external locus-of-control components, core values, emotion and the assessment process induce or deter reaction, action and impact.
Feedback characteristics (content and timeliness), and the procedural justice of the assessment process (unjust penalties) impact feedback acceptance. External locus-of-control elements (financial incentives, competition), the environment (patient volume, time constraints) and emotion impact patient-management behavior. Receiving feedback generated intense emotion within physicians. The underlying source of the emotion was the assessment process, not the feedback. The emotional response impacted acceptance, impelled action or inaction, and impacted patient-management behavior. Emotion intensity was associated with type of action taken (defensive, proactive, retroactive).

Conclusions

Feedback acceptance and impact have as much to do with the performance assessment process as it does the feedback. In order to enhance feedback acceptance and the impact of feedback, developers of clinical performance systems and feedback interventions should consider multiple design elements.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Hattie J, Timperley H. The power of feedback. Rev Educ Res. 2007;77:81–112.CrossRef
2.
3.
4.
5.
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:CD000259.
6.
Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O'Brien MA, Oxman AD. Audit and feedback: Effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006;19:CD000259.
7.
Kluger AN, DeNisi A. The effects of feedback interventions on peformance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychol Bull. 1996;119:254–84.CrossRef
8.
9.
Veloski J, Boex JR, Grasberger MJ, Evans A, Wolfson DB. Systematic review of the literature on assessment, feedback and physicians' clinical performance: BEME Guide No. 7. Med Teach. 2006;28:117–28.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Kluger AN, Van DD. Feedback, the various tasks of the doctor, and the feedforward alternative. Med Educ. 2010;44:1166–74.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Morgan RT CR, Reddy SG, Ford ME, Ashton CM. Measurement in Veterans Affairs Health Services Research: Veterans as a Special Population. Health Serv Res. 2005;40:1573–83.CrossRef
12.
Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2008.CrossRef
13.
Patton MQ. Qualitative research and evaluation methods, Vol. 3rd. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2001.
14.
Friese S. Qualitative Data Analysis with ATLAS.ti. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications Ltd; 2014.
15.
Miles M, Huberman AM. Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1994.
16.
Lefcourt HM. Locus of Control. In: Robinson JP, Shaver PR, Wrightsman LS, editors. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. San Diego, CA: Academic; 1991. p. 413–99.CrossRef
17.
Anseel F, Lievens F. The mediating role of feedback acceptance in the relationship between feedback and attitudinal and performance outcomes. Int J Sel Assess. 2009;17:362–76.CrossRef
18.
Ashford SJ. The role of feedback seeking in individual adaptation: A resource perspective. Acad Manage J. 1986;29:465–87.CrossRef
19.
Brett JF, Atwater LE. 360 degree feedback: Accuracy, reaction and perceptions of usefulness. J Appl Psychol. 2001;86:930–42.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Stone EF, Stone DL. The effect of multiple sources of performance feedback and feedback favorability on self-perceived task competence and perceived feedback accuracy. J Manage. 1984;10:371–78.
21.
Ryan AM, Brutus S, Greguars GJ, Hakel MD. Receptivity to assessment-based feedback for management development. J Manage Dev. 2000;19:252–76.CrossRef
22.
Bing-You RG, Paterson J, Levine MA. Feedback falling on deaf ears: residents' receptivity to feedback tempered by sender credibility. Med Teach. 1997;19:40–4.CrossRef
23.
Boehler ML, Rogers DA, Schwind CJ, Mayforth R, Quin J, Williams RG, Dunnington G. An investigation of medical student reactions to feedback: a randomised controlled trial. Med Educ. 2006;40:746–49.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Sternthal B, Dholakia R, Leavitt C. The persuasive effect of source credibility: tests of cognitive response. J Consum Res. 1978;4:252–60.CrossRef
25.
Stull MK. Staff nurse performance. Effects of goal-setting and performance feedback. J Nurs Adm. 1986;16:26–30.CrossRefPubMed
26.
27.
Vancouver JB, Tischner EC. The effect of feedback sign on task performance depends on self-concept discrepancies. J Appl Psychol. 2004;89:1092–98.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Yi S, Wray NP, Jones SL, Bass BL, Nishioka J, Brann S, Ashton CM. Surgeon-Specific Performance Reports in General Surgery: An Observational Study of Initial Implementation and Adoption. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217:636–47.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Lefcourt HM. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: a review. Psychol Bull. 1966;65:206–20.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Lefcourt HM. Locus of Control: Current trends in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1976.
31.
Rotter JB. Social learning and clinical psychology. NY: Prentice-Hall; 1954.CrossRef
32.
Rotter JB. Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychol Monogr. 1966;80:1–28.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Rotter JB. Some problems and misconceptions related to the construct of internal versus external control of reinforcement. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1975;43:56–67.CrossRef
34.
Rotter JB. Internal versus external control of reinforcement: A case history of a variable. Am Psychol. 1990;45:489–93.CrossRef
35.
Sargeant J, Armson H, Chesluk B, Dornam T, Eva K, Holmboe E, Lockyer J, Loney E, Mann K, van der Vleuten C. The processes and dimensions of informed self-assessment: A conceptual model. Acad Med. 2010;85:1212–20.CrossRefPubMed
36.
Sargeant J, Mann K, van der Vleuten C, Metsemakers J. "Directed" self-assessment: Practice and feedback within a social context. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2008;28:47–54.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Byrne MM, Daw CN HA, Urech TH, Pietz K, Petersen LA. Method to develop health care peer groups for quality and financial comparisons across hospitals. Health Serv Res. 2009;44:577–92.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Metadata
Title
Model depicting aspects of audit and feedback that impact physicians’ acceptance of clinical performance feedback
Authors
Velma L. Payne
Sylvia J. Hysong
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Health Services Research / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6963
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1486-3

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

BMC Health Services Research 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research article

Household income determines access to specialized pediatric chronic pain treatment in Germany

Research article

A systematic review of the quality of studies on dementia prevalence in Italy

Research article

A quantitative study on factors influencing enrolment of dairy farmers in a community health insurance scheme

Erratum

Erratum to: Unique challenges experienced during the process of implementing mobile health information technology in developing countries

Research article

Factors influencing health care and service providers’ and their respective “at risk” populations’ adoption of the Air Quality Health Index (AQHI): a qualitative study

Debate

Is “disease management” the answer to our problems? No! Population health management and (disease) prevention require “management of overall well-being”