Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers

Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in co...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of health services research & policy Jg. 27; H. 1; S. 50
Hauptverfasser: Alderson, Sarah, Willis, Thomas A, Wood, Su, Lorencatto, Fabiana, Francis, Jill, Ivers, Noah, Grimshaw, Jeremy, Foy, Robbie
Format: Journal Article
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: England 01.01.2022
Schlagworte:
ISSN:1758-1060, 1758-1060
Online-Zugang:Weitere Angaben
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Abstract Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes. We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed. We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs. Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.
AbstractList Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes.BACKGROUNDAudit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes.We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed.METHODSWe purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed.We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs.RESULTSWe interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs.Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.CONCLUSIONSuccessfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.
Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in a structured manner. There are potential significant returns on investment from partnerships between existing clinical audit programmes in coordinated programmes of research to test ways of improving the effect of their feedback to drive greater improvements in health care delivery and population outcomes. We explored barriers to and enablers of embedding audit and feedback trials within clinical audit programmes. We purposively recruited participants with varied experience in embedded trials in audit programmes. We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews, guided by behavioural theory, with researchers, clinical audit programme staff and health care professionals. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and data coded and thematically analysed. We interviewed 31 participants (9 feedback researchers, 14 audit staff and 8 healthcare professionals, many having dual roles). We identified barriers and enablers for all 14 theoretical domains but no relationship between domains and participant role. We identified four optimal conditions for sustainable collaboration from the perspectives of stakeholders: resources, that is, recognition that audit programmes need to create capacity to participate in research, and research must be adapted to fit within each programme's constraints; logistics, namely, that partnerships need to address data sharing and audit quality, while securing research funding to ensure operational success; leadership, that is, enthusiastic and engaged audit programme leaders must motivate their team and engage local stakeholders; and relationships, meaning that trust between researchers and audit programmes must be established over time by identifying shared priorities and meeting each partner's needs. Successfully embedding research within clinical audit programmes is likely to require compromise, logistical expertise, leadership and trusting relationships to overcome perceived risks and fully realise benefits.
Author Alderson, Sarah
Foy, Robbie
Grimshaw, Jeremy
Willis, Thomas A
Ivers, Noah
Francis, Jill
Wood, Su
Lorencatto, Fabiana
Author_xml – sequence: 1
  givenname: Sarah
  orcidid: 0000-0002-5418-0495
  surname: Alderson
  fullname: Alderson, Sarah
  organization: Associate Professor in Primary Care, 120727Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, UK
– sequence: 2
  givenname: Thomas A
  surname: Willis
  fullname: Willis, Thomas A
  organization: Senior Research Fellow in Primary Care, 120727Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, UK
– sequence: 3
  givenname: Su
  surname: Wood
  fullname: Wood, Su
  organization: Research Fellow in Primary Care, 120727Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, UK
– sequence: 4
  givenname: Fabiana
  surname: Lorencatto
  fullname: Lorencatto, Fabiana
  organization: Research Lead, 4919Centre for Behaviour Change, University College London, UK
– sequence: 5
  givenname: Jill
  surname: Francis
  fullname: Francis, Jill
  organization: Professor of Implementation Science, 448446School of Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia
– sequence: 6
  givenname: Noah
  surname: Ivers
  fullname: Ivers, Noah
  organization: Associate Professor, Department of Family and Community Medicine and Institute of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Canada
– sequence: 7
  givenname: Jeremy
  surname: Grimshaw
  fullname: Grimshaw, Jeremy
  organization: Professor, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Canada
– sequence: 8
  givenname: Robbie
  surname: Foy
  fullname: Foy, Robbie
  organization: Clinical Professor of Primary Care, 4468Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, UK
BackLink https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34886697$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed
BookMark eNpNkE1Lw0AQhhepaK3-AC-yRy_Rnc3uJvFWSv2Aghc9h0l2ogvJpt1sWvrvDVjB0_u88DAzzBWb-d4TY7cgHgCy7BFSrXMojAQQSqUSztgcMp0nIIyY_eMLdpmqPDemyOZst-4qspYsj8FhO_CDi9_Oc4_R9R5bXrfOu3oCHK2LfBv6r4BdR8MTX_LdiK2Lk7on7nyksHd04EMc7ZH3DSePVUth4OgtrzAEN5Vrdt5Mi-jmlAv2-bz-WL0mm_eXt9Vyk9TKmJgUqaBcS1CaQAlZUSOUFlbbKheZBcwaQGttVTe2qJWsUzC5Rcx0qhFBpHLB7n_nTifvRhpi2bmhprZFT_04lNKIXCuQopjUu5M6Vh3Zchtch-FY_r1J_gByCWr6
CitedBy_id crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjoq_2025_003455
crossref_primary_10_1097_XEB_0000000000000428
ContentType Journal Article
DBID NPM
7X8
DOI 10.1177/13558196211044321
DatabaseName PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitle PubMed
MEDLINE - Academic
DatabaseTitleList MEDLINE - Academic
PubMed
Database_xml – sequence: 1
  dbid: NPM
  name: PubMed
  url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed
  sourceTypes: Index Database
– sequence: 2
  dbid: 7X8
  name: MEDLINE - Academic
  url: https://search.proquest.com/medline
  sourceTypes: Aggregation Database
DeliveryMethod no_fulltext_linktorsrc
EISSN 1758-1060
ExternalDocumentID 34886697
Genre Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Journal Article
GrantInformation_xml – fundername: Department of Health
  grantid: 16/04/13
GroupedDBID NPM
7X8
ID FETCH-LOGICAL-c466t-930e852145e1402bef0450d5db807d1a7f1adddbcfd9c42c3168daa7535aa1032
IEDL.DBID 7X8
ISICitedReferencesCount 2
ISICitedReferencesURI http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000730275700001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
ISSN 1758-1060
IngestDate Fri Jul 11 16:10:12 EDT 2025
Thu Jan 02 22:55:08 EST 2025
IsDoiOpenAccess false
IsOpenAccess true
IsPeerReviewed true
IsScholarly true
Issue 1
Keywords clinical audit
embedded research
Quality improvement
Language English
LinkModel DirectLink
MergedId FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c466t-930e852145e1402bef0450d5db807d1a7f1adddbcfd9c42c3168daa7535aa1032
Notes ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ORCID 0000-0002-5418-0495
OpenAccessLink https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC8772016
PMID 34886697
PQID 2608541209
PQPubID 23479
ParticipantIDs proquest_miscellaneous_2608541209
pubmed_primary_34886697
PublicationCentury 2000
PublicationDate 2022-01-01
PublicationDateYYYYMMDD 2022-01-01
PublicationDate_xml – month: 01
  year: 2022
  text: 2022-01-01
  day: 01
PublicationDecade 2020
PublicationPlace England
PublicationPlace_xml – name: England
PublicationTitle Journal of health services research & policy
PublicationTitleAlternate J Health Serv Res Policy
PublicationYear 2022
Score 2.3198812
Snippet Audit and feedback entails systematic documentation of clinical performance based on explicit criteria or standards which is then fed back to professionals in...
SourceID proquest
pubmed
SourceType Aggregation Database
Index Database
StartPage 50
Title Embedded trials within national clinical audit programmes: A qualitative interview study of enablers and barriers
URI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34886697
https://www.proquest.com/docview/2608541209
Volume 27
WOSCitedRecordID wos000730275700001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D
hasFullText
inHoldings 1
isFullTextHit
isPrint
link http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV09T8MwELWAMrDwIb7Klw6JNaJxnDhmQRVqxULVAaRukRPbUocmbVL4_dw5iZiQkFiyRYqcy8t7Z793jD04xEUZOhVESSICwXNJGZBhkCqnFOoV7oTzwybkbJYuFmreNdya7lhlj4keqE1VUI_8EXl3Ggtyej6vNwFNjaLd1W6Exi4bREhl6MOUC-9-QxqMCJP0G5mUsRRSkjgWHEkeISIe_k4q_c9levTfxzpmhx2thHFbBydsx5anbDNZ5RaBxYCfzdEANV2XJfQNQOhtkaDJmwHdWa2VbZ5gDK3d0ueCw9KfjMQnAR9HC5UD601XdQO6NJDrmibfNWfsYzp5f3kNuhELQSGSZBuoaGTTmNLKLSotnluHFG9kYpOnI2lCLV2IAGjywhlVCF7QmCujNWqcWGvK4jtne2VV2ksGximpTI4CTSPFUqhbIoXa23FVkJmVD9l9v4IZljDtS-jSVp9N9rOGQ3bRvoZs3WZtZBECTJIoefWHu6_ZASdzgm-Q3LCBw5W1t2y_-Noum_rO1wZeZ_O3b9ASxNE
linkProvider ProQuest
openUrl ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Embedded+trials+within+national+clinical+audit+programmes%3A+A+qualitative+interview+study+of+enablers+and+barriers&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+health+services+research+%26+policy&rft.au=Alderson%2C+Sarah&rft.au=Willis%2C+Thomas+A&rft.au=Wood%2C+Su&rft.au=Lorencatto%2C+Fabiana&rft.date=2022-01-01&rft.eissn=1758-1060&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=50&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177%2F13558196211044321&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F34886697&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F34886697&rft.externalDocID=34886697
thumbnail_l http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1758-1060&client=summon
thumbnail_m http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1758-1060&client=summon
thumbnail_s http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1758-1060&client=summon