Administrative Data Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment

Abstract

Feedback based on one-time, confidential report cards constructed using administrative data is not an effective strategy for quality improvement regarding care of patients with AMI. A need exists for further studies to rigorously evaluate the effectiveness of more intensive report card interventions.

What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review

“…In 14 articles (19 %), reports of fidelity related to the implementation strategy were exemplary with scores of 2 for each of adherence, dose, and participant responsiveness [ 14 , 15 , 37 – 48 ] for a total score of 6. For example, Schaffner et al [ 44 ] reported adherence by describing the drug educator and the physician visits to family doctors with 85 % of the visits completed.…”

What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review

“…In 14 articles (19 %), reports of fidelity related to the implementation strategy were exemplary with scores of 2 for each of adherence, dose, and participant responsiveness [ 14 , 15 , 37 – 48 ] for a total score of 6. For example, Schaffner et al [ 44 ] reported adherence by describing the drug educator and the physician visits to family doctors with 85 % of the visits completed.…”

Benchmarking System Monitoring on Quality Improvement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

“… 43 In contrast, the randomized AFFECT (Administrative Data Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment) trial in Quebec, Canada, showed that one-time feedback provided as a report card containing information on 12 QIs at each hospital compared with those at province average and sent to a site manager was not effective for quality improvement regarding care of patients with acute myocardial infarction. 44 These findings suggest that feedback intervention is not uniform and that the effectiveness should be validated in individual approaches. The benchmarking system provided by CVIT, in which only 7 QIs can be reviewed online by a site manager, is apparently similar to and simpler than that used in the AFFECT trial.…”

Randomized Trial of Targeted Performance Feedback to Facilitate Quality Improvement in Acute Myocardial Infarction Care

“…Although few in number, randomized interventions for QI strategies have furthered our understanding of effective methods for improving AMI care. One trial found that a single episode of administrative feedback was ineffective, underscoring the need for ongoing feedback 20. Another found no difference in mailed versus in-person delivery of performance reports, enabling centralized distribution to a variety of centers 21.…”

What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review

“…In 14 articles (19 %), reports of fidelity related to the implementation strategy were exemplary with scores of 2 for each of adherence, dose, and participant responsiveness [ 14 , 15 , 37 – 48 ] for a total score of 6. For example, Schaffner et al [ 44 ] reported adherence by describing the drug educator and the physician visits to family doctors with 85 % of the visits completed.…”

Benchmarking System Monitoring on Quality Improvement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

“… 43 In contrast, the randomized AFFECT (Administrative Data Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment) trial in Quebec, Canada, showed that one-time feedback provided as a report card containing information on 12 QIs at each hospital compared with those at province average and sent to a site manager was not effective for quality improvement regarding care of patients with acute myocardial infarction. 44 These findings suggest that feedback intervention is not uniform and that the effectiveness should be validated in individual approaches. The benchmarking system provided by CVIT, in which only 7 QIs can be reviewed online by a site manager, is apparently similar to and simpler than that used in the AFFECT trial.…”

Randomized Trial of Targeted Performance Feedback to Facilitate Quality Improvement in Acute Myocardial Infarction Care

“…Although few in number, randomized interventions for QI strategies have furthered our understanding of effective methods for improving AMI care. One trial found that a single episode of administrative feedback was ineffective, underscoring the need for ongoing feedback 20. Another found no difference in mailed versus in-person delivery of performance reports, enabling centralized distribution to a variety of centers 21.…”

What is the extent and quality of documentation and reporting of fidelity to implementation strategies: a scoping review

“…In 14 articles (19 %), reports of fidelity related to the implementation strategy were exemplary with scores of 2 for each of adherence, dose, and participant responsiveness [ 14 , 15 , 37 – 48 ] for a total score of 6. For example, Schaffner et al [ 44 ] reported adherence by describing the drug educator and the physician visits to family doctors with 85 % of the visits completed.…”

Benchmarking System Monitoring on Quality Improvement in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

“… 43 In contrast, the randomized AFFECT (Administrative Data Feedback for Effective Cardiac Treatment) trial in Quebec, Canada, showed that one-time feedback provided as a report card containing information on 12 QIs at each hospital compared with those at province average and sent to a site manager was not effective for quality improvement regarding care of patients with acute myocardial infarction. 44 These findings suggest that feedback intervention is not uniform and that the effectiveness should be validated in individual approaches. The benchmarking system provided by CVIT, in which only 7 QIs can be reviewed online by a site manager, is apparently similar to and simpler than that used in the AFFECT trial.…”

Randomized Trial of Targeted Performance Feedback to Facilitate Quality Improvement in Acute Myocardial Infarction Care

“…Although few in number, randomized interventions for QI strategies have furthered our understanding of effective methods for improving AMI care. One trial found that a single episode of administrative feedback was ineffective, underscoring the need for ongoing feedback 20. Another found no difference in mailed versus in-person delivery of performance reports, enabling centralized distribution to a variety of centers 21.…”