Evaluation of a continuous monitoring and feedback initiative to improve quality of anaesthetic care: a mixed-methods quasi-experimental study

Abstract

BackgroundThis study evaluated the impact of a continuous quality monitoring and feedback initiative in anaesthesia.ObjectivesTo conduct a quasi-experimental evaluation of the feedback initiative and its effect on quality of anaesthetic care and perioperative efficiency. To understand the longitudinal effects of passive and active feedback and investigate the mechanisms and interactions underpinning those effects.DesignMixed-methods evaluation with analysis and synthesis of data from longitudinal qualitative interviews, longitudinal evaluative surveys and an interrupted time series study.InterventionContinuous measurement of a range of anaesthetic quality indicators was undertaken in a London teaching hospital alongside monthly personal feedback from case summary data to a cohort of anaesthetists, with follow-up roll-out to the whole NHS trust. Basic feedback consisted of the provision of passive monthly personalised feedback reports containing summary case data. In the enhanced phase, data feedback consisted of more sophisticated statistical breakdown of data, comparative and longitudinal views, and was paired with an active programme of dissemination and professional engagement.MethodsBaseline data collection began in March 2010. Implementation of basic feedback took place in October 2010, followed by implementation of the enhanced feedback protocol in July 2012. Weekly aggregated quality indicator data, coupled with surgical site infection and mortality rates, was modelled using interrupted time series analyses. The study anaesthetist cohort comprised 50,235 cases, performed by 44 anaesthetists over the course of the study, with 22,670 cases performed at the primary site. Anaesthetist responses to the surveys were collected pre and post implementation of feedback at all three sites in parallel with qualitative investigation. Seventy anaesthetists completed the survey at one or more time points and 35 health-care professionals, including 24 anaesthetists, were interviewed across two time points.ResultsResults from the time series analysis of longitudinal variation in perioperative indicators did not support the hypothesis that implementation of basic feedback improved quality of anaesthetic care. The implementation of enhanced feedback was found to have a significant positive impact on two postoperative pain measures, nurse-recorded freedom from nausea, mean patient temperature on arrival in recovery and Quality of Recovery Scale scores. Analysis of survey data demonstrated that anaesthetists value perceived credibility of data and local relevance of quality indicators above other criteria when assessing utility of feedback. A significant improvement in the perceived value of quality indicators, feedback, data use and overall effectiveness was observed between baseline and implementation of feedback at the primary site, a finding replicated at the two secondary sites. Findings from the qualitative research elucidated processes of interaction between context, intervention and user, demonstrating a positive response by clinicians to this type of initiative and willingness to interact with a sustained and comprehensive feedback protocol to understand variations in care.ConclusionsThe results support the potential of quality monitoring and feedback interventions as quality improvement mechanisms and provide insight into the positive response of clinicians to this type of initiative, including documentation of the experiences of anaesthetists that participated as users and codesigners of the feedback. Future work in this area might usefully investigate how this type of intervention may be transferred to other areas of clinical practice and further explore interactions between local context and the successful implementation of quality monitoring and feedback systems.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Services and Delivery Research programme.

Using physiological monitoring data for performance feedback: an initiative using thermoregulation metrics

“…Feedback of performance data has been shown to improve professional practice and outcomes. [1][2][3] Examples include improved antibiotic administration, 4,5 reduced drug cost, 6 and improved operating room booking efficiency. 7 Vital signs, drug infusion, and therapy device data are not routinely included in quality improvement (QI) research because of their limited availability.…”

A scoping review of local quality improvement using data from UK perioperative National Clinical Audits

“…S 2 ) was created in Research Electronic Data Capture platform (REDCap 7.4.9—© 2018 Vanderbilt University) and iteratively refined during review of the reports. This form was based upon previous research investigating how audit data had been used for improvement (Taylor et al 2016 ; Benn et al 2015 ) and contained fields describing the manuscript format and target audience; ‘how’ NCA data were used for improvement and what the impact was. One reviewer performed data charting for all the articles, and a second reviewer cross-checked a random sample of 10% of articles within each manuscript category, finding no discrepancies.…”

Is the pursuit of DREAMing (drinking, eating and mobilising) the ultimate goal of anaesthesia?

“…The practice of measuring the quality of recovery and providing feedback to anaesthetists is an exciting concept, and has been shown to lead to improvements in both district general and teaching hospitals . In the study performed in the district general hospital setting, recovery staff entered quality indicator data into a bespoke module within the electronic theatre management system.…”

“…Subsequent audit demonstrated an overall improvement in the chosen quality indicators. Within the teaching hospital environment, the implementation of enhanced feedback to anaesthetic staff was found to have a positive impact on postoperative pain measures, nurse‐recorded freedom from nausea, mean patient temperature on arrival in recovery and QoR‐9 score .…”