Data for improvement and clinical excellence: protocol for an audit with feedback intervention in long-term care

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>There is considerable evidence about the effectiveness of audit coupled with feedback, although few audit with feedback interventions have been conducted in long-term care (LTC) settings to date. In general, the effects have been found to be modest at best, although in settings where there has been little history of audit and feedback, the effects may be greater, at least initially. The primary purpose of the Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence (DICE) Long-Term Care project is to assess the effects of an audit with feedback intervention delivered monthly over 13 months in four LTC facilities. The research questions we addressed are:</p> <p indent="1">1. What effects do feedback reports have on processes and outcomes over time?</p> <p indent="1">2. How do different provider groups in LTC and home care respond to feedback reports based on data targeted at improving quality of care?</p> <p>Methods/design</p> <p>The research team conducting this study comprises researchers and decision makers in continuing care in the province of Alberta, Canada. The intervention consists of monthly feedback reports in nine LTC units in four facilities in Edmonton, Alberta. Data for the feedback reports comes from the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set (RAI) version 2.0, a standardized instrument mandated for use in LTC facilities throughout Alberta. Feedback reports consist of one page, front and back, presenting both graphic and textual information. Reports are delivered to all staff working in the four LTC facilities. The primary evaluation uses a controlled interrupted time series design both adjusted and unadjusted for covariates. The concurrent process evaluation uses observation and self-report to assess uptake of the feedback reports. Following the project phase described in this protocol, a similar intervention will be conducted in home care settings in Alberta. Depending on project findings, if they are judged useful by decision makers participating in this research team, we plan dissemination and spread of the feedback report approach throughout Alberta.</p

No more 'business as usual' with audit and feedback interventions: towards an agenda for a reinvigorated intervention

Background: Audit and feedback interventions in healthcare have been found to be effective, but there has been little progress with respect to understanding their mechanisms of action or identifying their key ‘active ingredients.’ Discussion: Given the increasing use of audit and feedback to improve quality of care, it is imperative to focus further research on understanding how and when it works best. In this paper, we argue that continuing the ‘business as usual’ approach to evaluating two-arm trials of audit and feedback interventions against usual care for common problems and settings is unlikely to contribute new generalizable findings. Future audit and feedback trials should incorporate evidence- and theory-based best practices, and address known gaps in the literature. Summary: We offer an agenda for high-priority research topics for implementation researchers that focuses on reviewing best practices for designing audit and feedback interventions to optimize effectiveness

Assessing the Effects of Responsible Leadership and Ethical Conflict on Behavioral Intention

[[abstract]]This study develops a research model that elaborates how responsible leadership and ethical conflict influence employees from the perspectives of role theory and attachment theory. Its empirical results reveal that turnover intention indirectly relates to ethical conflict and responsible leadership via the mediating mechanisms of organizational identification and organizational uncertainty. At the same time, helping intention indirectly relates to ethical conflict and responsible leadership only through organizational identification. Finally, the managerial implications for international business and research limitations based on the empirical results are discussed.[[notice]]補正完

The Joint Influence of Intra- and Inter-Team Learning Processes on Team Performance: A Constructive or Destructive Combination?

In order for teams to build a shared conception of their task, team learning is crucial. Benefits of intra-team learning have been demonstrated in numerous studies. However, teams do not operate in a vacuum, and interact with their environment to execute their tasks. Our knowledge of the added value of inter-team learning (team learning with external parties) is limited. Do both types of team learning compete over limited resources, or do they form a synergistic combination? We aim to shed light on the interplay between intra- and inter-team learning in relation to team performance, by including adaptive and transformative sub-processes of intra-team learning. A quantitative field study was conducted among 108 university teacher teams. The joint influence of intra- and inter-team learning as well as structural (task interdependence) and cultural (team efficacy) team characteristics on self-perceived and externally rated team performance were explored in a path model. The results showed that adaptive intra-team learning positively influenced self-perceived team performance, while transformative intra-team learning positively influenced externally rated team performance. Moreover, intra-team and inter-team learning were found to be both a constructive and a destructive combination. Adaptive intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning led to increased team performance, while transformative intra-team learning combined with inter-team learning hurt team performance. The findings demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between both the scope (intra- vs. inter-team) and the level (adaptive vs. transformative) of team learning in understanding team performance

A century of work groups in the Journal of Applied Psychology

Work groups are a vital link between individuals and organizations. Systematic psychological research on the nature and effects of work groups dates back at least to the Hawthorne studies of the 1920s and 1930s. Yet little to none of this work appeared in the Journal of Applied Psychology until the 1950s when groups were treated primarily as foils against which to compare the performance of individuals. From the 1990s to the present, the volume of research and the nature of topics addressing work group/teams expanded significantly. The authors review the evolution of team research over the past century with a particular focus on that which has appeared in this journal. They chronicle the shift from a focus on individuals within teams, or on individual versus team comparisons, to a focus on the team itself and larger systems of teams. They describe the major outcomes studied within this literature, and how they relate to the nature of team tasks and structures. Further, the authors consider the roles of team members’ characteristics and composition, and team dynamics in terms of processes and emergent states. They close with a call for future research that models dynamic team relationships in context and as they operate in complex systems. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2017 APA, all rights reserved