Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK
Department of Gastroenterology, University Hospital of North Tees, Stockton-on-Tees, UK.
BMJ Qual Saf. 2022 Oct;31(10):704-715. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013588. Epub 2021 Dec 10.
Audit and feedback (A&F) interventions improve patient care but may result in unintended consequences. To evaluate plausible harms and maximise benefits, theorisation using logic models can be useful. We aimed to explore the adverse effects of colonoscopy A&F using a feedback intervention theory (FIT) dark logic model before the National Endoscopy Database Automated Performance Reports to Improve Quality Outcomes Trial study.
We undertook a qualitative study exploring A&F practices in colonoscopy. Interviews were undertaken with endoscopists from six English National Health Service endoscopy centres, purposively sampled for professional background and experience. A thematic framework analysis was performed, mapping paradoxical effects and harms using FIT and the theory of planned behaviour.
Data saturation was achieved on the 19th participant, with participants from nursing, surgical and medical backgrounds and a median of 7 years' experience.When performance was below aspirational targets participants were falsely reassured by social comparisons. Participants described confidence as a requirement for colonoscopy. Negative feedback without a plan to improve risked reducing confidence and impeding performance (cognitive interference). Unmet targets increased anxiety and prompted participants to question messages' motives and consider gaming.Participants described inaccurate documentation of subjective measures, including patient comfort, to achieve targets perceived as important. Participants described causing harm from persevering to complete procedures despite patient discomfort and removing insignificant polyps to improve detection rates without benefiting the patient.
Our dark logic model highlighted that A&F interventions may create both desired and adverse effects. Without a priori theorisation evaluations may disregard potential harms. In colonoscopy, improved patient experience measures may reduce harm. To address cognitive interference the motivation of feedback to support improvement should always be clear, with plans targeting specific behaviours and offering face-to-face support for confidence.
ISRCTN11126923.
审核和反馈(A&F)干预措施可以改善患者的护理,但也可能产生意想不到的后果。为了评估合理的危害并最大限度地提高益处,可以使用反馈干预理论(FIT)的逻辑模型进行理论化。我们的目的是在国家内镜数据库自动化性能报告以改善质量结果试验研究之前,使用反馈干预理论(FIT)的黑暗逻辑模型探索结肠镜检查 A&F 的不良影响。
我们进行了一项定性研究,探索了结肠镜检查中的 A&F 实践。我们从英国六个国家卫生服务内镜中心的内镜医生中进行了访谈,这些医生是根据专业背景和经验有目的地抽样的。我们采用主题框架分析,使用 FIT 和计划行为理论来映射矛盾的效果和危害。
第 19 位参与者的数据达到了饱和,参与者来自护理、外科和医学背景,平均有 7 年的经验。当绩效低于理想目标时,参与者会通过社会比较得到错误的安慰。参与者描述信心是结肠镜检查的要求。没有改善计划的负面反馈有可能降低信心并阻碍绩效(认知干扰)。未达到目标会增加焦虑,并促使参与者质疑信息的动机,并考虑游戏。参与者描述了不准确地记录主观措施,包括患者舒适度,以实现被认为重要的目标。参与者描述了尽管患者不适仍坚持完成手术并切除无意义的息肉以提高检出率而不使患者受益的行为,从而造成了伤害。
我们的黑暗逻辑模型强调,A&F 干预措施可能会产生预期和不良影响。如果没有事先的理论化,评估可能会忽略潜在的危害。在结肠镜检查中,改善患者体验的措施可能会减少伤害。为了解决认知干扰问题,反馈支持改进的动机应该始终明确,计划针对特定行为,并提供面对面的支持以增强信心。
ISRCTN82654126。