Performance feedback: an exploratory study to examine the acceptability and impact for interdisciplinary primary care teams

Factors Influencing Team Performance: What Can Support Teams in High-Performance Sport Learn from Other Industries? A Systematic Scoping Review

Background

The primary aim of our systematic scoping review was to explore the factors influencing team function and performance across various industries and discuss findings in the context of the high-performance sport support team setting. These outcomes may also be used to inform future research into high-performance teamwork in sport.

Methods

A systematic scoping review of literature published in English since 2000 reporting team-based performance outcomes and included a performance metric that was ‘team outcome based’ was conducted using search of the Academic Search Ultimate, Medline, Business Source Ultimate, APA PsycInfo, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, and Military database (ProQuest) using the terms: ‘team’, ‘function’ OR ‘dysfunction’, ‘Perform*’ OR ‘outcome’.

Results

Application of the search strategy identified a total of 11,735 articles for title and abstract review. Seventy-three articles were selected for full-text assessment with the aim to extract data for either quantitative or qualitative analysis. Forty-six of the 73 articles met our inclusion criteria; 27 articles were excluded as they did not report a performance metric. Eleven studies explored leadership roles and styles on team performance, three studies associated performance feedback to team performance, and 12 studies explored the relationship between supportive behaviour and performance. Team orientation and adaptability as key figures of team performance outcomes were explored in 20 studies.

Conclusions

Our findings identified 4 key variables that were associated with team function and performance across a variety of industries; (i) leadership styles, (ii) supportive team behaviour, (iii) communication, and (iv) performance feedback. High-performance teams wishing to improve performance should examine these factors within their team and its environment. It is widely acknowledged that the dynamics of team function is important for outcomes in high-performance sport, yet there is little evidence to provide guidance. This inequality between real-world need and the available evidence should be addressed in future research.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40798-021-00406-7.

Approaches to reducing fragmented care in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and other multimorbid conditions: A realist review

Introduction

Fragmented care overwhelmingly affects populations with multimorbid chronic conditions, like systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE). However, strategies to mitigate care fragmentation typically focus on singular disease frameworks with insufficient evidence regarding approaches for individuals with two or more concurrent chronic conditions (multimorbidity). This review explores the literature to identify the (C)ontextual influences, underlying (M)echanisms, and associated (O)utcomes of fragmented care prevention in SLE and other multimorbid conditions.

Methods

A realist review was applied to systematically examine literature, including the search of >1300 published articles focused on SLE and multimorbidity, continuity of care, and approaches to mitigate fragmented care. The analysis was guided by care continuity elements and organized by fragmented care concepts explicated by the MacColl Institute for Healthcare Innovations Care Coordination Model and further grouped for context–mechanism–outcome (CMO) configurations.

Results

Fourteen articles met inclusion/exclusion criteria and were included in the sample to illustrate the relationship between C-M-O for approaches focused on fragmented care prevention. Favorable outcomes in mechanisms that produced positive responses to resources relevant to fragmented care prevention included 1) opportunities for exposure and negotiation within professional teams, 2) structured health education, role clarity, and access to adherence services for patients, and 3) awareness of workflow waste and use of clinical algorithms.

Discussion

Review findings suggest using a multidimensional approach to mitigate fragmented care in SLE and other multimorbid conditions. Multidimensional approaches should focus on shared decision-making, social support, social–cultural–economic factors, patient engagement, and technological infrastructure to support the complex care needs of the multimorbid patient.

Effectiveness of confidential reports to physicians on their prescribing of antipsychotic medications in nursing homes

Background

Antipsychotic medication use in nursing homes is associated with potential for harms. In Ontario, Canada, an agency of the provincial government offers nursing home physicians quarterly audit and feedback on their antipsychotic prescribing. We compared the characteristics of physicians who did and did not engage with the intervention, and assessed early changes in prescribing.

Methods

This population-level, retrospective cohort study used linked administrative databases to track prescribing practices in nursing homes pre-intervention (baseline), immediately post-initiative (3 months), and at follow-up (6 months). Exposure variables identified whether a physician signed up to participate (or not) or viewed the feedback following sign up (or not). Differences in the proportion of days that residents received antipsychotic medications at 6 months compared to baseline by exposure(s) were assessed using a linear mixed effects regression analysis to adjust for a range of resident, physician, and nursing home factors. Benzodiazepine and statin prescribing were assessed as a balance and tracer measures, respectively.

Results

Of 944 eligible physicians, 210 (22.3%) signed up to recieve the feedback report and 132 (13.9%) viewed their feedback. Physicians who signed up for feedback were more likely to have graduated from a Canadian medical school, work in urban nursing homes, and care for a larger number of residents. The clinical and functional characteristics of residents were similar across physician exposure groups. At 6 months, antipsychotic prescribing had decreased in all exposure groups. Those who viewed their feedback report had a signicantly greater reduction in antipsychotic prescribing than those who did not sign up (0.94% patient-days exposed; 95% CI 0.35 to 1.54%, p = 0.002). Trends in prescribing patterns across exposure groups for benzodiazepines and statins were not statistically significant.

Interpretation

Almost a quarter of eligible physicians engaged early in a voluntary audit and feedback intervention related to antipsychotic prescribing in nursing homes. Those who viewed their feedback achieved a small but statistically significant change in prescribing, equivalent to approximately 14,000 fewer days that nursing home residents received antipsychotic medications over 6 months. This study adds to the literature regarding the role of audit and feedback interventions to improve quality of care.

Measuring the performance of interprofessional primary health care teams: understanding the teams perspective

AIM

The aim of the study was to describe practices that support collaboration in interprofessional primary health care teams, and identify performance indicators perceived to measure the impact of this collaboration from the perspective of interprofessional health providers.

BACKGROUND

Despite the surge of interprofessional primary health care models implemented across Canada, there is little evidence as to whether or not the intended outcomes of primary health care teams have been achieved. Part of the challenge is determining the most appropriate measures that can demonstrate the value of collaborative care. To date, little remains known about performance measurement from the providers contributing to the collaborative care process in interprofessional primary care teams. Having providers from a range of disciplinary backgrounds assist in the development of performance measures can help identify measures most relevant to demonstrate the value of collaborative care on the intended outcomes of interprofessional primary care models.

METHODS

A qualitative study; part of a larger mixed methods developmental evaluation to examine performance measurement in interprofessional primary health care teams. A stakeholder workshop was conducted at an annual association meeting of interprofessional primary health care teams in the province of Ontario, Canada. Six questions guided the workshop groups and participant responses were documented on worksheets and flip charts. All responses were collected and entered verbatim into a word document. Qualitative analytic strategies were applied to each question.

FINDINGS

A total of 283 primary health care providers from 14 health professions working in interprofessional primary health care teams participated. Top three elements of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 628) were communication (n = 146), co-treatment (n = 112) and patient-based conferences (n = 81). Top three performance indicators currently used to demonstrate the value of interprofessional collaboration (total n = 241) were patient experience (n = 71), patient health status (n = 35) and within team referrals (n = 30).

Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams

Background

The use of clinical performance feedback to support quality improvement (QI) activities is based on the sound rationale that measurement is necessary to improve quality of care. However, concerns persist about the reliability of this strategy, known as Audit and Feedback (A&F) to support QI. If successfully implemented, A&F should reflect an iterative, self-regulating QI process. Whether and how real-world A&F initiatives result in this type of feedback loop are scarcely reported. This study aimed to identify barriers or facilitators to implementation in a team-based primary care context.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key informants from team-based primary care practices in Ontario, Canada. At the time of data collection, practices could have received up to three iterations of the voluntary A&F initiative. Interviews explored whether, how, and why practices used the feedback to guide their QI activities. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research was used to code transcripts and the resulting frameworks were analyzed inductively to generate key themes.

Results

Twenty-five individuals representing 18 primary care teams participated in the study. Analysis of how the A&F intervention was used revealed that implementation reflected an incomplete feedback loop. Participation was facilitated by the reliance on an external resource to facilitate the practice audit. The frequency of feedback, concerns with data validity, the design of the feedback report, the resource requirements to participate, and the team relationship were all identified as barriers to implementation of A&F.

Conclusions

The implementation of a real-world, voluntary A&F initiative did not lead to desired QI activities despite substantial investments in performance measurement. In small primary care teams, it may take long periods of time to develop capacity for QI and future evaluations may reveal shifts in the implementation state of the initiative. Findings from the present study demonstrate that the potential mechanism of action of A&F may be deceptively clear; in practice, moving from measurement to action can be complex.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-019-4226-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Clinical performance comparators in audit and feedback: a review of theory and evidence

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a common quality improvement strategy with highly variable effects on patient care. It is unclear how A&F effectiveness can be maximised. Since the core mechanism of action of A&F depends on drawing attention to a discrepancy between actual and desired performance, we aimed to understand current and best practices in the choice of performance comparator.

METHODS

We described current choices for performance comparators by conducting a secondary review of randomised trials of A&F interventions and identifying the associated mechanisms that might have implications for effective A&F by reviewing theories and empirical studies from a recent qualitative evidence synthesis.

RESULTS

We found across 146 trials that feedback recipients' performance was most frequently compared against the performance of others (benchmarks; 60.3%). Other comparators included recipients' own performance over time (trends; 9.6%) and target standards (explicit targets; 11.0%), and 13% of trials used a combination of these options. In studies featuring benchmarks, 42% compared against mean performance. Eight (5.5%) trials provided a rationale for using a specific comparator. We distilled mechanisms of each comparator from 12 behavioural theories, 5 randomised trials, and 42 qualitative A&F studies.

CONCLUSION

Clinical performance comparators in published literature were poorly informed by theory and did not explicitly account for mechanisms reported in qualitative studies. Based on our review, we argue that there is considerable opportunity to improve the design of performance comparators by (1) providing tailored comparisons rather than benchmarking everyone against the mean, (2) limiting the amount of comparators being displayed while providing more comparative information upon request to balance the feedback's credibility and actionability, (3) providing performance trends but not trends alone, and (4) encouraging feedback recipients to set personal, explicit targets guided by relevant information.

Implications of interprofessional primary care team characteristics for health services and patient health outcomes: A systematic review with narrative synthesis

Interprofessional primary care (IPPC) teams are promoted as an alternative to single profession physician practices in primary care with focus on preventive care and chronic disease management. Characteristics of teams can have an impact on their performance. We synthesized quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods evidence addressing the design of IPPC teams. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PAIS using search terms focused on IPPC teams. Studies were included if they discussed the influence of team structure, organization, financial arrangements, or policies and procedures, or either health care processes or outputs, health outcomes, or costs, and were conducted in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom or New Zealand between 2003 and 2016. We screened 11,707 titles, 5366 abstracts, and selected 77 full text articles (38 qualitative, 31 quantitative and 8 mixed-methods). Literature focused on the implications of team characteristics on team processes, such as teamwork, collaboration, or satisfaction of patients or providers. Despite heterogeneity of contexts, some trends are observable: shared space, common vision and goals, clear definitions of roles, and leadership as important to good teamwork. The impacts of these on health care outputs or patient health are not clear. To move the state of knowledge beyond perception of what works well for IPPC teams, researchers should focus on quantitative causal inference about the linkages between team characteristics and patient health.

Beyond quality improvement: exploring why primary care teams engage in a voluntary audit and feedback program

Background

Despite its popularity, the effectiveness of audit and feedback in support quality improvement efforts is mixed. While audit and feedback-related research efforts have investigated issues relating to feedback design and delivery, little attention has been directed towards factors which motivate interest and engagement with feedback interventions. This study explored the motivating factors that drove primary care teams to participate in a voluntary audit and feedback initiative.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with leaders of primary care teams who had participated in at least one iteration of the audit and feedback program. This intervention was developed by an organization which advocates for high-quality, team-based primary care in Ontario, Canada. Interview transcripts were coded using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and the resulting framework was analyzed inductively to generate key themes.

Results

Interviews were completed with 25 individuals from 18 primary care teams across Ontario. The majority were Executive Directors (14), Physician leaders (3) and support staff for Quality Improvement (4). A range of motivations for participating in the audit and feedback program beyond quality improvement were emphasized. Primarily, informants believed that the program would eventually become a best-in-class audit and feedback initiative. This reflected concerns regarding existing initiatives in terms of the intervention components and intentions as well as the perception that an initiative by primary care, for primary care would better reflect their own goals and better support desired patient outcomes. Key enablers included perceived obligations to engage and provision of support for the work involved. No teams cited an evidence base for A&F as a motivating factor for participation.

Conclusions

A range of motivating factors, beyond quality improvement, contributed to participation in the audit and feedback program. Findings from this study highlight that efforts to understand how and when the intervention works best cannot be limited to factors within developers’ control. Clinical teams may more readily engage with initiatives with the potential to address their own long-term system goals. Aligning motivations for participation with the goals of the audit and feedback initiative may facilitate both engagement and impact.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12913-017-2765-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Politics and Professions: Interdisciplinary Team Models and Their Implications for Health Equity in Ontario

Ontario's efforts to reform primary care through interdisciplinary primary care teams are unprecedented in Canada. Since 2004, the provincial government has focused its reform efforts on three models: Family Health Teams (FHTs), Community Health Centres (CHCs), and Nurse Practitioner-led Clinics (NPLCs). These models vary by team structure, funding, and governance. I examine the strong preference for the FHT model by the government and medical profession, and the implications of this preference on health equity. The opportunity for teams to increase health equity in Ontario may be limited due to the preference for physician-centered FHTs over more egalitarian team models.

Improving stroke prevention therapy for patients with atrial fibrillation in primary care: protocol for a pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial

Background

The prevalence of atrial fibrillation (AF) is growing as the population ages, and at least 15% of ischemic strokes are attributed to AF. However, many high-risk AF patients are not offered guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy due to a variety of system, provider, and patient-level barriers.

Methods

We will conduct a pragmatic, cluster-randomized controlled trial randomizing primary care clinics to test a “toolkit” of quality improvement interventions in primary care. In keeping with the recommendations of the chronic care model to simultaneously activate patients and facilitate proactive care by providers, the toolkit includes provider-focused strategies (education, audit and feedback, electronic decision support, and reminders) plus patient-directed strategies (educational letters and reminders). The trial will include two feedback cycles at baseline and approximately 6 months and a final data collection at approximately 12 months. The study will be powered to show a difference of 10% in the primary outcome of proportion of patients receiving guideline-recommended stroke prevention therapy. Analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle and will be blind to treatment allocation. Unit of analysis will be the patient; models will use generalized estimating equations to account for clustering at the clinical level.

Discussion

Stroke prevention therapy using anticoagulation in patients with AF is known to reduce strokes by two thirds or more in clinical trials, but most studies indicate under-use of this treatment in real-world practice. If the toolkit successfully improves care for patients with AF, stakeholders will be engaged to facilitate broader application to maximize the potential to improve patient outcomes. The intervention toolkit tested in this project could also provide a model to improve quality of care for other chronic cardiovascular conditions managed in primary care.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01927445). Registered August 14, 2014 at https://clinicaltrials.gov/.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0523-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Improving the network management of integrated primary mental healthcare for older people in a rural Australian region: protocol for a mixed methods case study

INTRODUCTION

An integrated approach to the mental healthcare of older people is advocated across health, aged care and social care sectors. It is not clear, however, how the management of integrated servicing should occur, although interorganisational relations theory suggests a reflective network approach using evaluation feedback. This research will test a network management approach to help regional primary healthcare organisations improve mental health service integration.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed methods case study in rural South Australia will test facilitated reflection within a network of health and social care services to determine if this leads to improved integration. Engagement of services will occur through a governance group and a series of three 1-day service stakeholder workshops. Facilitated reflection and evaluation feedback will use information from a review of health sector and local operational policies, a network survey about current service links, gaps and enablers and interviews with older people and their carers about their help seeking journeys. Quantitative and qualitative analysis will describe the policy enablers and explore the current and ideal links between services. The facilitated reflection will be developed to maximise engagement of senior management in the governance group and the service staff at the operational level in the workshops. Benefit will be assessed through indicators of improved service coordination, collective ownership of service problems, strengthened partnerships, agreed local protocols and the use of feedback for accountability.

ETHICS, BENEFITS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval will deal with the sensitivities of organisational network research where data anonymity is not preserved. The benefit will be the tested utility of a facilitated reflective process for a network of health and social care services to manage linked primary mental healthcare for older people in a rural region. Dissemination will make use of the sectoral networks of the governance group.

"My approach to this job is...one person at a time": Perceived discordance between population-level quality targets and patient-centred care

OBJECTIVE

To understand the usefulness of audit and feedback among family physicians and examine the barriers to using it to improve quality of care.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using in-depth interviews.

SETTING

Family physicians across Ontario participating in audit and feedback initiatives describing the proportion of patients meeting quality targets for chronic disease.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sampling was conducted to ensure variation in sex, years of experience, and baseline performance for quality metrics. All participants used electronic medical records and worked in multidisciplinary primary care practices.

METHODS

Semistructured interviews were conducted with family physicians. The interview guide and initial coding framework were adjusted iteratively in keeping with the constant comparative method. Sampling continued until saturation was reached. Interviews were analyzed using the framework approach.

MAIN FINDINGS

Participants reported that the feedback increased their awareness of gaps between ideal and actual performance. This resulted mainly in efforts to "try harder" patient by patient. Key barriers to acting upon feedback in a systematic manner included a perceived discordance between population-level quality targets and patient-centred care, as well as competing priorities at both the patient and organizational levels. Although all participants had electronic medical records, participants reported a lack of quality improvement infrastructure in their practices.

CONCLUSION

Family physicians were not highly motivated to achieve evidence-based population-level quality targets for diabetes; many competing organizational and clinical goals took priority. Additional human resources might be needed to translate data in feedback reports into systematic changes that could lead to sustained improvements in quality of care.

Assessing methods for measurement of clinical outcomes and quality of care in primary care practices

Purpose

To evaluate the appropriateness of potential data sources for the population of performance indicators for primary care (PC) practices.

Methods

This project was a cross sectional study of 7 multidisciplinary primary care teams in Ontario, Canada. Practices were recruited and 5-7 physicians per practice agreed to participate in the study. Patients of participating physicians (20-30) were recruited sequentially as they presented to attend a visit. Data collection included patient, provider and practice surveys, chart abstraction and linkage to administrative data sets. Matched pairs analysis was used to examine the differences in the observed results for each indicator obtained using multiple data sources.

Results

Seven teams, 41 physicians, 94 associated staff and 998 patients were recruited. The survey response rate was 81% for patients, 93% for physicians and 83% for associated staff. Chart audits were successfully completed on all but 1 patient and linkage to administrative data was successful for all subjects. There were significant differences noted between the data collection methods for many measures. No single method of data collection was best for all outcomes. For most measures of technical quality of care chart audit was the most accurate method of data collection. Patient surveys were more accurate for immunizations, chronic disease advice/information dispensed, some general health promotion items and possibly for medication use. Administrative data appears useful for indicators including chronic disease diagnosis and osteoporosis/ breast screening.

Conclusions

Multiple data collection methods are required for a comprehensive assessment of performance in primary care practices. The choice of which methods are best for any one particular study or quality improvement initiative requires careful consideration of the biases that each method might introduce into the results. In this study, both patients and providers were willing to participate in and consent to, the collection and linkage of information from multiple sources that would be required for such assessments.

Acceptability of participatory social network analysis for problem-solving in Australian Aboriginal health service partnerships

BACKGROUND

While participatory social network analysis can help health service partnerships to solve problems, little is known about its acceptability in cross-cultural settings. We conducted two case studies of chronic illness service partnerships in 2007 and 2008 to determine whether participatory research incorporating social network analysis is acceptable for problem-solving in Australian Aboriginal health service delivery.

METHODS

Local research groups comprising 13-19 partnership staff, policy officers and community members were established at each of two sites to guide the research and to reflect and act on the findings. Network and work practice surveys were conducted with 42 staff, and the results were fed back to the research groups. At the end of the project, 19 informants at the two sites were interviewed, and the researchers conducted critical reflection. The effectiveness and acceptability of the participatory social network method were determined quantitatively and qualitatively.

RESULTS

Participants in both local research groups considered that the network survey had accurately described the links between workers related to the exchange of clinical and cultural information, team care relationships, involvement in service management and planning and involvement in policy development. This revealed the function of the teams and the roles of workers in each partnership. Aboriginal workers had a high number of direct links in the exchange of cultural information, illustrating their role as the cultural resource, whereas they had fewer direct links with other network members on clinical information exchange and team care. The problem of their current and future roles was discussed inside and outside the local research groups. According to the interview informants the participatory network analysis had opened the way for problem-solving by "putting issues on the table". While there were confronting and ethically challenging aspects, these informants considered that with flexibility of data collection to account for the preferences of Aboriginal members, then the method was appropriate in cross-cultural contexts for the difficult discussions that are needed to improve partnerships.

CONCLUSION

Critical reflection showed that the preconditions for difficult discussions are, first, that partners have the capacity to engage in such discussions, second, that partners assess whether the effort required for these discussions is balanced by the benefits they gain from the partnership, and, third, that "boundary spanning" staff can facilitate commitment to partnership goals.