Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 May 10;11(5):e34990.
doi: 10.2196/34990.

A Scalable Service to Improve Health Care Quality Through Precision Audit and Feedback: Proposal for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Zach Landis-Lewis  1 , Allen Flynn  1   2 , Allison Janda  3 , Nirav Shah  3
Affiliations

A Scalable Service to Improve Health Care Quality Through Precision Audit and Feedback: Proposal for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Zach Landis-Lewis et al. JMIR Res Protoc. .

Abstract

Background: Health care delivery organizations lack evidence-based strategies for using quality measurement data to improve performance. Audit and feedback (A&F), the delivery of clinical performance summaries to providers, demonstrates the potential for large effects on clinical practice but is currently implemented as a blunt one size fits most intervention. Each provider in a care setting typically receives a performance summary of identical metrics in a common format despite the growing recognition that precisionizing interventions hold significant promise in improving their impact. A precision approach to A&F prioritizes the display of information in a single metric that, for each recipient, carries the highest value for performance improvement, such as when the metric's level drops below a peer benchmark or minimum standard for the first time, thereby revealing an actionable performance gap. Furthermore, precision A&F uses an optimal message format (including framing and visual displays) based on what is known about the recipient and the intended gist meaning being communicated to improve message interpretation while reducing the cognitive processing burden. Well-established psychological principles, frameworks, and theories form a feedback intervention knowledge base to achieve precision A&F. From an informatics perspective, precision A&F requires a knowledge-based system that enables mass customization by representing knowledge configurable at the group and individual levels.

Objective: This study aims to implement and evaluate a demonstration system for precision A&F in anesthesia care and to assess the effect of precision feedback emails on care quality and outcomes in a national quality improvement consortium.

Methods: We propose to achieve our aims by conducting 3 studies: a requirements analysis and preferences elicitation study using human-centered design and conjoint analysis methods, a software service development and implementation study, and a cluster randomized controlled trial of a precision A&F service with a concurrent process evaluation. This study will be conducted with the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group, a national anesthesia quality improvement consortium with >60 member hospitals in >20 US states. This study will extend the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group quality improvement infrastructure by using existing data and performance measurement processes.

Results: The proposal was funded in September 2021 with a 4-year timeline. Data collection for Aim 1 began in March 2022. We plan for a 24-month trial timeline, with the intervention period of the trial beginning in March 2024.

Conclusions: The proposed aims will collectively demonstrate a precision feedback service developed using an open-source technical infrastructure for computable knowledge management. By implementing and evaluating a demonstration system for precision feedback, we create the potential to observe the conditions under which feedback interventions are effective.

International registered report identifier (irrid): PRR1-10.2196/34990.

Keywords: anesthesiology; audit and feedback; human-centered design; knowledge-based system; learning health system.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflicts of Interest: ZLL has received research support, paid to the University of Michigan and related to this work, from the National Library of Medicine (K01 LM012528). AJ has received research support, paid to the University of Michigan and unrelated to this work, from Becton, Dickinson and Company. NS has received research support, paid to University of Michigan and unrelated to this work, from Merck & Co. NS received support, paid to the University of Michigan, for his role as Program Director of Anesthesiology Performance Improvement and Reporting Exchange (ASPIRE) Collaborative Quality Initiative, and has received research support from Edwards Lifesciences, Apple Inc, and National Institute on Aging (R01 AG059607), paid to the University of Michigan and unrelated to this work.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A precision feedback service. A&F: audit and feedback.
Figure 2
Figure 2
An example provider feedback email from the Multicenter Perioperative Outcomes Group (MPOG) setting.
Figure 3
Figure 3
A one size fits n spectrum.
Figure 4
Figure 4
A causal pathway model for precision audit and feedback (A&F) interventions.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Prototype precision feedback email messages.
Figure 6
Figure 6
A process model for feedback intervention success.
Figure 7
Figure 7
An information value chain for feedback intervention success.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. McClure RC, Macumber CL, Skapik JL, Smith AM. Igniting harmonized digital clinical quality measurement through terminology, CQL, and FHIR. Appl Clin Inform. 2020 Jan;11(1):23–33. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-3402755. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/31914472 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dowding D, Randell R, Gardner P, Fitzpatrick G, Dykes P, Favela J, Hamer S, Whitewood-Moores Z, Hardiker N, Borycki E, Currie L. Dashboards for improving patient care: review of the literature. Int J Med Inform. 2015 Feb;84(2):87–100. doi: 10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2014.10.001.S1386-5056(14)00189-0 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tuti T, Nzinga J, Njoroge M, Brown B, Peek N, English M, Paton C, van der Veer SN. A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory. Implement Sci. 2017 May 12;12(1):61. doi: 10.1186/s13012-017-0590-z. https://implementationscience.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13012-... 10.1186/s13012-017-0590-z - DOI - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Westert GP, Groenewoud S, Wennberg JE, Gerard C, DaSilva P, Atsma F, Goodman DC. Medical practice variation: public reporting a first necessary step to spark change. Int J Qual Health Care. 2018 Nov 01;30(9):731–5. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzy092. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/29718369 4990397 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ivers NM, Grimshaw JM, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, O'Brien MA, French SD, Young J, Odgaard-Jensen J. Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care. J Gen Intern Med. 2014 Nov;29(11):1534–41. doi: 10.1007/s11606-014-2913-y. http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/24965281 - DOI - PMC - PubMed