Comparing Graphical Formats for Feedback of Clinical Practice Data^[*]

Summary

Objectives: Although graphical formats used to feedback clinical practice data may have an important impact, the most effective formats remain unknown. Using prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting by anesthesiologists as an application, the objective of this study was to assess which graphical formats for feedback of clinical practice data are the most incentive to change practice.

Methods: We conducted a multicenter cross-sectional study among anesthesiologists randomized in two groups between March and

June 2014. Each anesthesiologist assessed 15 graphical formats displaying an indicator of either prescription conformity or prescription effectiveness. Graphical formats varied by: type of graph (bar charts, linear sliders, or pictographs), presence or not of a target to reach, presence or not of a contrast between a hypothetical physician and his/her team, direction of the difference between the physician and his/her team, and restitution or not of the quality indicator evolution over the previous six months. The primary outcome was a numerical scale score expressing the anesthesiologists’ motivation to change his/her practice (ranging from 1 to 10 points). A linear mixed model was fitted to explain variation in motivation.

Results: Sixty-six anesthesiologists assessed the conformity indicator and 67 assessed the effectiveness indicator. Factors associated with an increased motivation to change practice were: (i) presence of a clearly defined target to reach (conformity: β = 0.24 points, p = 0.0046; effectiveness: β = 1.11 points, p < 0.0001); (ii) contrast between the physician and his/her team (conformity: β = 0.38 points, p < 0.0001; effectiveness: β = 0.33 points, p = 0.0021); (iii) better results for the team than for the physician (conformity: β = 0.65 points, p < 0.0001; effectiveness β = 1.16 points, p < 0.0001). For the effectiveness indicator, anesthesiologists were more motivated to change practice with bar charts (β = 0.24 points, p = 0.0447) and pictographs (β = 0.45 points, p = 0.0001) than with linear sliders.

Conclusions: Graphs associated with a defined target to reach should be preferred to deliver feedback, especially bar graphs or pictographs for indicators which are more complex to represent such as effectiveness indicators. Anesthesiologists are also more motivated to change practice when graphs report contrasted data between the physician and his/her team and a lower conformity or effectiveness for the physician than for his/her team.

Keywords

Feedback - graphical formats - clinical practice - quality of care - anesthesia

^* Supplementary material published on our website https://doi.org/10.3414/ME15-01-0163

• References

• 1 Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, O’Brien MA, Oxman AD. Does telling people what they have been doing change what they do? A systematic review of the effects of audit and feedback. Qual Saf Health Care. 2006; 15 (06) 433-436.
• 2 Ivers N, Jamtvedt G, Flottorp S, Young JM, Odgaard-Jensen J, French SD. et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 6: CD000259.
• 3 Buntinx F, Winkens R, Grol R, Knottnerus JA. Influencing diagnostic and preventive performance in ambulatory care by feedback and reminders. A review. Fam Pract. 1993; 10 (02) 219-228.
• 4 Benn J, Arnold G, Wei I, Riley C, Aleva F. Using quality indicators in anaesthesia: feeding back data to improve care. Br J Anaesth. 2012; 109 (01) 80-91.
• 5 Foy R, Eccles MP, Jamtvedt G, Young J, Grimshaw JM, Baker R. What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2005; 5: 50.
• 6 de Vos M, Graafmans W, Kooistra M, Meijboom B, Van Der Voort P, Westert G. Using quality indicators to improve hospital care: a review of the literature. Int J Qual Health Care. 2009; 21 (02) 119-129.
• 7 van der Veer SN, de Keizer NF, Ravelli ACJ, Tenkink S, Jager KJ. Improving quality of care. A systematic review on how medical registries provide information feedback to health care providers. Int J Med Inform. 2010; 79 (05) 305-323.
• 8 Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ. 1999; 318 7197 1527-1531.
• 9 Agostinelli A, Specchia ML, Liguori G, Parlato A, Siliquini R, Nante N. et al. Data display format and hospital ward reports: effects of different presentations on data interpretation. Eur J Public Health. 2013; 23 (01) 82-86.
• 10 Bentz CJ, Bayley KB, Bonin KE, Fleming L, Hollis JF, Hunt JS. et al. Provider feedback to improve 5A’s tobacco cessation in primary care: a cluster randomized clinical trial. Nicotine Tob Res. 2007; 9 (03) 341-349.
• 11 Guldberg TL, Vedsted P, Kristensen JK, Lauritzen T. Improved quality of Type 2 diabetes care following electronic feedback of treatment status to general practitioners: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Diabet Med. 2011; 28 (03) 325-332.
• 12 Haute Autorité de Santé. Guide méthodologique de diffusion publique des indicateurs de qualité des soins [Internet]. 2012. [cited 2013 Sept 27]. Available from: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2012-11/guide_methodologique_diffusion_indicateurs.pdf. French.:
• 13 Gan TJ, Diemunsch P, Habib AS, Kovac A, Kranke P, Meyer TA. et al. Consensus guidelines for the management of postoperative nausea and vomiting. Anesth Analg. 2014; 118 (01) 85-113.
• 14 Mcintosh CA, Macario A. Managing quality in an anesthesia department. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2009; 22 (02) 223-231.
• 15 Macario A, Weinger M, Carney S, Kim A. Which clinical anesthesia outcomes are important to avoid? The perspective of patients. Anesth Analg. 1999; 89 (03) 652-658.
• 16 Cabana MD, Rand CS, Powe NR, Wu AW, Wilson MH, Abboud PA. et al. Why don’t physicians follow clinical practice guidelines? A framework for improvement. JAMA. 1999; 282 (15) 1458-1465.
• 17 Ministère de l’Enseignement Supérieur et de la Recherche. Article R1123-21 du Code de la santé publique relatif à la procédure d’avis des comités de protection des personnes – Modifié par Décret n°2007-1220 du 10 août 2007 [Internet]. 2007. [cited 2016 June 28]. Available from: https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichCodeArticle.do?cid-Texte=LEGITEXT000006072665&idArticle=LE-GIARTI000006908380&dateTexte=&categorie-Lien=cid. French.:
• 18 Apfel CC, Läärä E, Koivuranta M, Greim CA, Roewer N. A simplified risk score for predicting postoperative nausea and vomiting: conclusions from cross-validations between two centers. Anesthesiology. 1999; 91 (03) 693-700.
• 19 Apfel CC, Philip BK, Cakmakkaya OS, Shilling A, Shi Y-Y, Leslie JB. et al. Who is at risk for postdischarge nausea and vomiting after ambulatory surgery? Anesthesiology. 2012; 117 (03) 475-486.
• 20 Kolanek B, Svartz L, Robin F, Boutin F, Beylacq L, Lasserre A. et al. Management program decreases postoperative nausea and vomiting in high-risk and in general surgical patients: a quality improvement cycle. Minerva Anestesiol. 2014; 80 (03) 337-346.
• 21 Schartel SA. Giving feedback – an integral part of education. Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2012; 26 (01) 77-87.
• 22 Dulko D. Audit and feedback as a clinical practice guideline implementation strategy: a model for acute care nurse practitioners. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007; 4 (04) 200-209.
• 23 O’Rourke HM, Fraser KD, Boström AM, Baylon MAB, Sales AE. Regulated provider perceptions of feedback reports. J Nurs Manag. 2013; 21 (08) 1016-1025.
• 24 Grol RPTM, Bosch MC, Hulscher MEJL, Eccles MP, Wensing M. Planning and studying improvement in patient care: the use of theoretical perspectives. Milbank Q. 2007; 85 (01) 93-138.
• 25 Prochaska JO, DiClemente CC. Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: toward an integrative model of change. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1983; 51 (03) 390-395.
• 26 Moulding NT, Silagy CA, Weller DP. A framework for effective management of change in clinical practice: dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines. Qual Health Care. 1999; 8 (03) 177-183.
• 27 Robertson N, Baker R, Hearnshaw H. Changing the clinical behavior of doctors: a psychological framework. Qual Health Care. 1996; 5 (01) 51-54.
• 28 Saillour-Glenisson F, Michel P. [Individual and collective facilitators of and barriers to the use of clinical practice guidelines by physicians: a literature review]. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2003; 51 (01) Pt 1 65-80. French.
• 29 Peabody JW, Luck J, Glassman P, Dresselhaus TR, Lee M. Comparison of vignettes, standardized patients, and chart abstraction: a prospective validation study of 3 methods for measuring quality. JAMA. 2000; 283 (13) 1715-1722.
• 30 Peabody JW, Liu A. A cross-national comparison of the quality of clinical care using vignettes. Health Policy Plan. 2007; 22 (05) 294-302.
• 31 Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. et al. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ. 2008; 337: a1655.