↓ Skip to main content

Model depicting aspects of audit and feedback that impact physicians’ acceptance of clinical performance feedback

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
89 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
95 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Model depicting aspects of audit and feedback that impact physicians’ acceptance of clinical performance feedback
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12913-016-1486-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Velma L. Payne, Sylvia J. Hysong

Abstract

Audit and feedback (A&F) is a strategy that has been used in various disciplines for performance and quality improvement. There is limited research regarding medical professionals' acceptance of clinical-performance feedback and whether feedback impacts clinical practice. The objectives of our research were to (1) investigate aspects of A&F that impact physicians' acceptance of performance feedback; (2) determine actions physicians take when receiving feedback; and (3) determine if feedback impacts physicians' patient-management behavior. In this qualitative study, we employed grounded theory methods to perform a secondary analysis of semi-structured interviews with 12 VA primary care physicians. We analyzed a subset of interview questions from the primary study, which aimed to determine how providers of high, low and moderately performing VA medical centers use performance feedback to maintain and improve quality of care, and determine perceived utility of performance feedback. Based on the themes emergent from our analysis and their observed relationships, we developed a model depicting aspects of the A&F process that impact feedback acceptance and physicians' patient-management behavior. The model is comprised of three core components - Reaction, Action and Impact - and depicts elements associated with feedback recipients' reaction to feedback, action taken when feedback is received, and physicians modifying their patient-management behavior. Feedback characteristics, the environment, external locus-of-control components, core values, emotion and the assessment process induce or deter reaction, action and impact. Feedback characteristics (content and timeliness), and the procedural justice of the assessment process (unjust penalties) impact feedback acceptance. External locus-of-control elements (financial incentives, competition), the environment (patient volume, time constraints) and emotion impact patient-management behavior. Receiving feedback generated intense emotion within physicians. The underlying source of the emotion was the assessment process, not the feedback. The emotional response impacted acceptance, impelled action or inaction, and impacted patient-management behavior. Emotion intensity was associated with type of action taken (defensive, proactive, retroactive). Feedback acceptance and impact have as much to do with the performance assessment process as it does the feedback. In order to enhance feedback acceptance and the impact of feedback, developers of clinical performance systems and feedback interventions should consider multiple design elements.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 95 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 95 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 18 19%
Other 13 14%
Researcher 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 13 14%
Unknown 23 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 26 27%
Nursing and Health Professions 12 13%
Psychology 7 7%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 6%
Social Sciences 5 5%
Other 10 11%
Unknown 29 31%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 December 2016.
All research outputs
#16,927,921
of 24,892,887 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,178
of 8,421 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#235,853
of 362,867 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#140
of 184 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,892,887 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,421 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 362,867 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 184 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.