Increasing numbers of research studies test interventions for clinicians in addition to or instead of interventions for patients. Although previous studies have enumerated barriers to patient enrolment in clinical trials, corresponding barriers have not been identified for enrolling clinicians as subjects. We propose a framework of metrics for evidence-based estimation of time and resources required for recruiting clinicians as research participants, and present an example from a federally funded study. Our framework proposes metrics for tracking five steps in the recruitment process: gaining entry into facilities, obtaining accurate eligibility and contact information, reaching busy clinicians, assessing willingness to participate, and scheduling participants for data collection. We analyzed recruitment records from a qualitative study exploring performance feedback at US Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs); five recruiters sought to reach two clinicians at 16 facilities for a one-hour interview. Objective metrics were calculable for all five steps; metric values varied considerably across facilities. Obtaining accurate contact information slowed down recruiting the most. We conclude that successfully recruiting even small numbers of employees requires considerable resourcefulness and more calendar time than anticipated. Our proposed framework provides an empirical basis for estimating research-recruitment timelines, planning subject-recruitment strategies, and assessing the research accessibility of clinical sites.

BACKGROUND:The move to team-based models of health care represents a fundamental shift in healthcare delivery, including major changes in the roles and relationships among clinical personnel. Audit and feedback of clinical performance has traditionally focused on the provider; however, a team-based model of care may require different approaches. OBJECTIVE: Identify changes in audit and feedback of clinical performance to primary care clinical personnel resulting from implementing team-based care in their clinics. DESIGN: Semi-structured interviews with primary care clinicians, their department heads, and facility leadership at 16 geographically diverse VA Medical Centers, selected purposively by their clinical performance profile. PARTICIPANTS: An average of three interviewees per VA medical center, selected from physicians, nurses, and primary care and facility directors who participated in 1-hour interviews. APPROACH: Interviews focused on how clinical performance information is fed back to clinicians, with particular emphasis on external peer-review program measures and changes in feedback associated with team-based care implementation. Interview transcripts were analyzed, using techniques adapted from grounded theory and content analysis. KEY RESULTS: Ownership of clinical performance still rests largely with the provider, despite transitioning to team-based care. A panel-management information tool emerged as the most prominent change to clinical performance feedback dissemination, and existing feedback tools were seen as most effective when monitored by the nurse members of the team. Facilities reported few, if any, appreciable changes to the assessment of clinical performance since transitioning to team-based care. CONCLUSIONS: Although new tools have been created to support higher-quality clinical performance feedback to primary care teams, such tools have not necessarily delivered feedback consistent with a team-based approach to health care. Audit and feedback of clinical performance has remained largely unchanged, despite material differences in roles and responsibilities of team members. Future research should seek to unpack the nuances of teambased audit and feedback, to better align feedback with strategic clinical goals.KEY WORDS: audit and feedback; patient-aligned care teams; primary care; qualitative methods.