Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Volume 2016, Article ID 4983790, 6 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/4983790
Research Article

How to Make Feedback More Effective? Qualitative Findings from Pilot Testing of an Audit and Feedback Report for Endoscopists

1Department of Health Policy, Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
2Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
3Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, ON, Canada
4Department of Family and Community Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
5Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Toronto, ON, Canada
6Department of Surgery and Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada
7Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada
8Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON, Canada

Received 11 February 2016; Accepted 21 August 2016

Academic Editor: Jennifer Jones

Copyright © 2016 Fiona Webster et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Linked References

  1. J. M. Grimshaw, R. E. Thomas, G. MacLennan et al., “Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies,” Health Technology Assessment, vol. 8, no. 6, pp. 1–84, 2004. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  2. N. Ivers, G. Jamtvedt, S. Flottorp et al., “Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 6, Article ID CD000259, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  3. N. M. Ivers, A. Sales, H. Colquhoun et al., “No more ‘business as usual’ with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention,” Implementation Science, vol. 9, no. 1, article 14, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  4. J. M. Grimshaw, M. P. Eccles, A. E. Walker, and R. E. Thomas, “Changing physicians' behavior: what works and thoughts on getting more things to work,” The Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 237–243, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  5. S. J. Hysong, R. G. Best, and J. A. Pugh, “Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: making feedback actionable,” Implementation Science, vol. 1, no. 1, article 9, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. M. Eccles, N. Steen, J. Grimshaw et al., “Effect of audit and feedback, and reminder messages on primary-care radiology referrals: a randomised trial,” The Lancet, vol. 357, no. 9266, pp. 1406–1409, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  7. G. Fairbrother, K. L. Hanson, S. Friedman, and G. C. Butts, “The impact of physician bonuses, enhanced fees, and feedback on childhood immunization coverage rates,” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 89, no. 2, pp. 171–175, 1999. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. R. Siegel, J. Ma, Z. Zou, and A. Jemal, “Cancer statistics, 2014,” CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 9–29, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  9. L. Rabeneck, R. B. Rumble, J. Axler et al., “Cancer care ontario colonoscopy standards: standards and evidentiary base,” Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology, vol. 21, pp. 5D–24D, 2007. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  10. J. M. Tinmouth, N. N. Baxter, Q. Li, L. Paszat, J. Patel, and L. Rabeneck, “Measuring the quality of colonoscopy delivered to the entire population of Ontario, Canada,” Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, vol. 79, no. 5, p. AB118, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  11. J. Tinmouth, E. B. Kennedy, D. Baron et al., “Colonoscopy quality assurance in Ontario: systematic review and clinical practice guideline,” Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 251–274, 2014. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  12. M. Sandelowski, “Focus on research methods: whatever happened to qualitative description?” Research in Nursing and Health, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 334–340, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. I. T. Coyne, “Sampling in qualitative research. Purposeful and theoretical sampling; merging or clear boundaries?” Journal of Advanced Nursing, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 623–630, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. K. Charmaz, “Grounded theory: objectivist and constructivist methods,” in Handbook of Qualitative Research, N. Denzin and Y. Lincoln, Eds., pp. 509–535, Sage, Thousand Oaks, Calif, USA, 2nd edition, 2000. View at Google Scholar
  15. K. W. Eva and G. Regehr, “Effective feedback for maintenance of competence: from data delivery to trusting dialogues,” Canadian Medical Association Journal, vol. 185, no. 6, pp. 463–464, 2013. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. B. J. Bellande, Z. M. Winicur, and K. M. Cox, “Commentary: urgently needed: a safe place for self-assessment on the path to maintaining competence and improving performance,” Academic Medicine, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 16–18, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. D. A. Davis, P. E. Mazmanian, M. Fordis, R. Van Harrison, K. E. Thorpe, and L. Perrier, “Accuracy of physician self-assessment compared with observed measures of competence: a systematic review,” The Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 296, no. 9, pp. 1094–1102, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. F. D. Duffy and E. S. Holmboe, “Self-assessment in lifelong learning and improving performance in practice: physician know thyself,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 296, no. 9, pp. 1137–1139, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  19. A. N. Kluger and A. DeNisi, “The effects of feedback interventions on performance: a historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory,” Psychological Bulletin, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 254–284, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. S. J. Hysong, “Meta-analysis: audit and feedback features impact effectiveness on care quality,” Medical Care, vol. 47, no. 3, pp. 356–363, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. A. N. Kluger and A. DeNisi, “Feedback interventions: toward the understanding of a double-edged sword,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 67–72, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. F. Webster, C. Weijer, L. Todd et al., “The ethics of future trials: qualitative analysis of physicians' decision making,” Trials, vol. 17, article 12, 2016. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  23. A. J. Forster and C. van Walraven, “The use of quality indicators to promote accountability in health care: the good, the bad, and the ugly,” Open Medicine, vol. 6, article e75, 2012. View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus