Audit and feedback and clinical practice guideline adherence: Making feedback actionable

BACKGROUND: As a strategy for improving clinical practice guideline (CPG) adherence, audit and feedback (A&F) has been found to be variably effective, yet A&F research has not investigated the impact of feedback characteristics on its effectiveness. This paper explores how high performing facilities (HPF) and low performing facilities (LPF) differ in the way they use clinical audit data for feedback purposes. METHOD: Descriptive, qualitative, cross-sectional study of a purposeful sample of six Veterans Affairs Medical Centers (VAMCs) with high and low adherence to six CPGs, as measured by external chart review audits. One-hundred and two employees involved with outpatient CPG implementation across the six facilities participated in one-hour semi-structured interviews where they discussed strategies, facilitators and barriers to implementing CPGs. Interviews were analyzed using techniques from the grounded theory method. RESULTS: High performers provided timely, individualized, non-punitive feedback to providers, whereas low performers were more variable in their timeliness and non-punitiveness and relied on more standardized, facility-level reports. The concept of actionable feedback emerged as the core category from the data, around which timeliness, individualization, non-punitiveness, and customizability can be hierarchically ordered. CONCLUSION: Facilities with a successful record of guideline adherence tend to deliver more timely, individualized and non-punitive feedback to providers about their adherence than facilities with a poor record of guideline adherence. Consistent with findings from organizational research, feedback intervention characteristics may influence the feedback's effectiveness at changing desired behaviors

Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Coronary Artery Disease in Asymptomatic Patients with Type 2 Diabetes and Additional Atherogenic Risk Factors

OBJECTIVE: Screening for coronary artery disease (CAD) in asymptomatic diabetic patients with two additional atherogenic risk factors has been recommended by the American College of Cardiology/American Diabetes Association, but its cost-effectiveness is yet to be determined. The present study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of screening and determine acceptable strategies. DESIGN: Cost-effectiveness analysis using a Markov model was performed from a societal perspective to measure the clinical benefit and economic consequences of CAD screening in asymptomatic men with diabetes and two additional atherogenic risk factors. We evaluated cohorts of patients stratified by different age groups, and 10 possible combination pairs of atherogenic risks. Incremental cost-effectiveness of no screening, exercise electrocardiography, exercise echocardiography, or exercise single-photon emission-tomography (SPECT) was calculated. Input data were obtained from the published literature. Outcomes were expressed as U.S. dollars per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Compared with no screening, incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of exercise electrocardiography was $41,600/QALY in 60-year-old asymptomatic diabetic men with hypertension and smoking, but was weakly dominated by exercise echocardiography. Exercise echocardiography was most cost-effective, with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of$40,800/QALY. Exercise SPECT was dominated by other strategies. Sensitivity analyses found that results varied depending on age, combination of additional atherogenic risk factors, and diagnostic test performance. CONCLUSIONS: Incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of CAD screening in asymptomatic patients with diabetes and two or more additional atherogenic risk factors is shown to be acceptable from a societal perspective. Exercise echocardiography was the most cost-effective strategy, followed by exercise electrocardiography