Abstract
BackgroundAudit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers.ObjectiveInvestigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example.MethodsA total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi‐structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes?ResultsAll stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self‐reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient‐reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan‐Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1‐4 times a year sent by e‐mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data.ConclusionsThis exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.
Highlights
Much effort has been devoted to improve professional practice and outcomes in health care during the past decades, with varying effects
We aim to investigate the preferences of various stakeholders on receiving feedback, with the Dutch Head and Neck Audit (DHNA) as an example
This exploratory study investigated the preferences of receiving feedback on outcome, process and structure indicators in the DHNA from four different stakeholder perspectives: patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals including nurses and health insurers
Summary
Much effort has been devoted to improve professional practice and outcomes in health care during the past decades, with varying effects. One of the methods to derive the information for audit and feedback is using quality indicators.[4,5] Quality indicators are aimed at detecting suboptimal care either in structure or process (eg, the percentage of patients discussed in multidisciplinary team meetings), or outcomes (eg, patient-reported outcomes [PROs] and experiences [PREs]). They can be used as a tool to guide the process of quality improvement in health care.[6]. Effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders
Published Version (Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have