Physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators: systematic review and thematic synthesis
- PMID: 39126155
- PMCID: PMC11369353
- DOI: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae082
Physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators: systematic review and thematic synthesis
Abstract
Clinical indicators are increasingly used to improve the quality of care, particularly with the emergence of 'big data', but physicians' views regarding their utility in practice is unclear. We reviewed the published literature investigating physicians' perspectives, focusing on the following objectives in relation to quality improvement: (1) the role of clinical indicators, (2) what is needed to strengthen them, (3) their key attributes, and (4) the best tool(s) for assessing their quality. A systematic literature search (up to November 2022) was carried out using: Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, PsycInfo, and Web of Science. Articles that met all of the following inclusion criteria were included: reported on physicians' perspectives on clinical indicators and/or tools for assessing the quality of clinical indicators, addressing at least one of the four review objectives; the clinical indicators related to care at least partially delivered by physicians; and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Data extracted from eligible studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme tool. A thematic synthesis of data was conducted using NVivo software. Descriptive themes were inductively derived from codes, which were grouped into analytical themes answering each objective. A total of 14 studies were included, with 17 analytical themes identified for objectives 1-3 and no data identified for objective 4. Results showed that indicators can play an important motivating role for physicians to improve the quality of care and show where changes need to be made. For indicators to be effective, physicians should be involved in indicator development, recording relevant data should be straightforward, indicator feedback must be meaningful to physicians, and clinical teams need to be adequately resourced to act on findings. Effective indicators need to focus on the most important areas for quality improvement, be consistent with good medical care, and measure aspects of care within the control of physicians. Studies cautioned against using indicators primarily as punitive measures, and there were concerns that an overreliance on indicators can lead to narrowed perspective of quality of care. This review identifies facilitators and barriers to meaningfully engaging physicians in developing and using clinical indicators to improve the quality of healthcare.
Keywords: clinical indicators; physician perspectives; systematic review.
© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care.
Conflict of interest statement
During the conduct of this research, S.A., C.G., M.H., P.J., R.P.J., V.S., and S.W. received funding for other research projects from the Health Research Council of New Zealand; S.A., C.G., M.H., V.S., and S.W. received funding from the National Heart Foundation of New Zealand and the National Science Challenge (Healthier Lives); V.S. and S.W. received funding from the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, and P.J. received funding from the A+ Trust.
Figures
References
-
- Raleigh VS, Foot C. Getting the Measure of Quality. Opportunities and Challenges. London: The King’s Fund, 2010.
-
- Roski J, Bo-Linn GW, Andrews TA. Creating value in health care through big data: opportunities and policy implications. Health Affairs 2014;33:1115–22. - PubMed
-
- Patel S, Rajkomar A, Harrison JD et al. Next-generation audit and feedback for inpatient quality improvement using electronic health record data: a cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ Qual Saf 2018;27:691–9. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous
