Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care

Stakeholders' Perspectives on Quality Measurement of Oral Health Care in the Netherlands: A Qualitative Study

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to identify which barriers and facilitators exist and can be expected when measuring quality of oral health care according to different stakeholders in the Netherlands.

METHODS

A total of 36 semistructured interviews were conducted with dentists, patients, universities and knowledge institutes, health insurance companies, professional dental associations, and governmental health organisations. Using qualitative content analysis, barriers and facilitators were classified according to the frameworks of Grol and Cabana.

RESULTS

In total 70 barrier and 53 facilitating factors were identified in the 5 domains of the frameworks. Various stakeholders found quality measurement challenging because the quality of oral health care is difficult to define with a lack of consensus on what constitutes quality of oral health care. Patients mentioned that, for them, quality of oral health care is difficult to assess. Dentists experienced a fear of being monitored and were apprehensive of the administrative burden of quality measurement. On an organisational level, the isolation of dentistry from the medical field was mentioned as a barrier. Facilitating factors were discussing quality in a trusted environment, and developing more clinical practice guidelines, which include meaningful quality measures.

DISCUSSION

This study identified barriers and facilitators for measuring quality of oral health care in the Netherlands. Findings signal the importance of achieving consensus on the definition of quality of oral health care. Further strategy discussions about how quality of oral health care can be made insightful in a way acceptable to all stakeholders are needed to make progressions in quality improvement.

"Less words, more pictures": creating and sharing data visualizations from a remote health monitoring system with clinicians to improve cancer pain management

Background

The Behavioral and Environmental Sensing and Intervention for Cancer (BESI-C) is a remote health monitoring system (RHMS) developed by our interdisciplinary team that collects holistic physiological, behavioral, psychosocial, and contextual data related to pain from dyads of patients with cancer and their family caregivers via environmental and wearable (smartwatch) sensors.

Methods

R, Python, and Canva software were used to create a series of static and interactive data visualizations (e.g., visual representations of data in the form of graphs, figures, or pictures) from de-identified BESI-C data to share with palliative care clinicians during virtual and in-person 1-hour feedback sessions. Participants were shown a sequence of 5-6 different data visualizations related to patient and caregiver self-reported pain events, environmental factors, and quality of life indicators, completed an electronic survey that assessed clarity, usefulness, and comprehension, and then engaged in a structured discussion. Quantitative survey results were descriptively analyzed and "think aloud" qualitative comments thematically summarized and used to iterate data visualizations between feedback sessions.

Results

Six to 12 interdisciplinary palliative care clinicians from an academic medical center, a local hospice, and a community hospital within Central Virginia participated in five data visualization feedback sessions. Both survey results and group discussion feedback revealed a preference for more familiar, simpler data visualizations that focused on the physical aspects of pain assessment, such as number of high intensity pain events and response to pharmacological interventions. Preferences for degree of data granularity and content varied by discipline and care delivery model, and there was mixed interest in seeing caregiver reported data. Overall, non-physician participants expressed greater interest in visualizations that included environmental variables impacting pain and non-pharmacological interventions.

Conclusion

Clinicians desired higher-level (i.e., less granular/detailed) views of complex sensing data with a "take home" message that can be quickly processed. Orienting clinicians to unfamiliar, contextual data sources from remote health monitoring systems (such as environmental data and quality of life data from caregivers) and integrating these data into clinical workflows is critical to ensure these types of data can optimally inform the patient's plan of care. Future work should focus on customizing data visualization formats and viewing options, as well as explore ethical issues related to sharing data visualizations with key stakeholders.

From Data to Improvement: Social Mechanisms as a Key to Understanding Dashboard Adoption

Research on dashboard adoption has focused on technical and design requirements. Evidence on social mechanisms for successful dashboard adoption is scarce. This study examined 2 quality dashboards in a similar organizational context with different outcomes. The research question was: How do social mechanisms influence the adoption of dashboards in practice? This embedded case study within one Dutch hospital in 2 phases: (1) interviews and observations to identify social mechanisms in the end-user's team and (2) expert focus groups to validate identified mechanisms. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically, resulting in the identification of 3 social mechanisms within the team of end-users influencing dashboard adoption: cultivating a supportive team climate, trust, and leadership behavior in end-users' teams. These mechanisms stimulate a learning environment for discussing and improving care quality. They require action from individuals and teams, so dashboards can be used for collective understanding, learning, and improving. Without these social mechanisms, dashboards remain an unadopted "materiality."

Exploring Anesthesia Provider Preferences for Precision Feedback: Preference Elicitation Study

Background

Health care professionals must learn continuously as a core part of their work. As the rate of knowledge production in biomedicine increases, better support for health care professionals' continuous learning is needed. In health systems, feedback is pervasive and is widely considered to be essential for learning that drives improvement. Clinical quality dashboards are one widely deployed approach to delivering feedback, but engagement with these systems is commonly low, reflecting a limited understanding of how to improve the effectiveness of feedback about health care. When coaches and facilitators deliver feedback for improving performance, they aim to be responsive to the recipient's motivations, information needs, and preferences. However, such functionality is largely missing from dashboards and feedback reports. Precision feedback is the delivery of high-value, motivating performance information that is prioritized based on its motivational potential for a specific recipient, including their needs and preferences. Anesthesia care offers a clinical domain with high-quality performance data and an abundance of evidence-based quality metrics.

Objective

The objective of this study is to explore anesthesia provider preferences for precision feedback.

Methods

We developed a test set of precision feedback messages with balanced characteristics across 4 performance scenarios. We created an experimental design to expose participants to contrasting message versions. We recruited anesthesia providers and elicited their preferences through analysis of the content of preferred messages. Participants additionally rated their perceived benefit of preferred messages to clinical practice on a 5-point Likert scale.

Results

We elicited preferences and feedback message benefit ratings from 35 participants. Preferences were diverse across participants but largely consistent within participants. Participants' preferences were consistent for message temporality (α=.85) and display format (α=.80). Ratings of participants' perceived benefit to clinical practice of preferred messages were high (mean rating 4.27, SD 0.77).

Conclusions

Health care professionals exhibited diverse yet internally consistent preferences for precision feedback across a set of performance scenarios, while also giving messages high ratings of perceived benefit. A "one-size-fits-most approach" to performance feedback delivery would not appear to satisfy these preferences. Precision feedback systems may hold potential to improve support for health care professionals' continuous learning by accommodating feedback preferences.

Organization of head and neck cancer rehabilitation care: a national survey among healthcare professionals in Dutch head and neck cancer centers

PURPOSE

Head and neck cancer (HNC) treatment often leads to physical and psychosocial impairments. Rehabilitation can overcome these limitations and improve quality of life. The aim of this study is to obtain an overview of rehabilitation care for HNC, and to investigate factors influencing rehabilitation provision, in Dutch HNC centers, and to some extent compare it to other countries.

METHODS

An online survey, covering five themes: organizational structure; rehabilitation interventions; financing; barriers and facilitators; satisfaction and future improvements, among HNC healthcare- and financial professionals of Dutch HNC centers.

RESULTS

Most centers (86%) applied some type of rehabilitation care, with variations in organizational structure. A speech language therapist, physiotherapist and dietitian were available in all centers, but other rehabilitation healthcare professionals in less than 60%. Facilitators for providing rehabilitation services included availability of a contact person, and positive attitude, motivation, and expertise of healthcare professionals. Barriers were lack of reimbursement, and patient related barriers including comorbidity, travel (time), low health literacy, limited financial capacity, and poor motivation.

CONCLUSION

Although all HNC centers included offer rehabilitation services, there is substantial practice variation, both nationally and internationally. Factors influencing rehabilitation are related to the motivation and expertise of the treatment team, but also to reimbursement aspects and patient related factors. More research is needed to investigate the extent to which practice variation impacts individual patient outcomes and how to integrate HNC rehabilitation into routine clinical pathways.

How does nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interprofessional teams work and shape nursing performance improvement systems? A rapid realist review

BACKGROUND

Care quality varies between organizations and even units within an organization. Inadequate care can have harmful financial and social consequences, e.g. nosocomial infection, lengthened hospital stays or death. Experts recommend the implementation of nursing performance improvement systems to assess team performance and monitor patient outcomes as well as service efficiency. In practice, these systems provide nursing or interprofessional teams with nursing-sensitive indicator feedback. Feedback is essential since it commits teams to improve their practice, although it appears somewhat haphazard and, at times, overlooked. Research findings suggest that contextual dynamics, initial system performance and feedback modes interact in unknown ways. This rapid review aims to produce a theorization to explain what works in which contexts, and how feedback to nursing or interprofessional teams shape nursing performance improvement systems.

METHODS

Based on theory-driven realist methodology, with reference to an innovative combination of Actor-Network Theory and Critical Realist philosophy principles, this realist rapid review entailed an iterative procedure: 8766 documents in French and English, published between 2010 and 2018, were identified via 5 databases, and 23 were selected and analysed. Two expert panels (scientific and clinical) were consulted to improve the synthesis and systemic modelling of an original feedback theorization.

RESULTS

We identified three hypotheses, subdivided into twelve generative configurations to explain how feedback mobilizes nursing or interprofessional teams. Empirically founded and actionable, these propositions are supported by expert panels. Each configuration specifies contextualized mechanisms that explain feedback and team outcomes. Socially mediated mechanisms are particularly generative of action and agency.

CONCLUSIONS

This rapid realist review provides an informative theoretical proposition to embrace the complexity of nursing-sensitive indicator feedback with nursing or interdisciplinary teams. Building on general explanations previously observed, this review provides insight into a deep explanation of feedback mechanisms.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Prospero CRD42018110128 .

Visualization formats of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: a systematic review about preferences and interpretation accuracy

PURPOSE

The use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for individual patient management within clinical practice is becoming increasingly important. New evidence about graphic visualization formats for PROMs scores has become available. This systematic literature review evaluated evidence for graphic visualization formats of PROMs data in clinical practice for patients and clinicians, for both individual and group level PROMs data.

METHODS

Studies published between 2000 and 2020 were extracted from CINAHL, PubMed, PsychInfo, and Medline. Studies included patients ≥ 18 years old in daily clinical practice. Papers not available in English, without full-text access, or that did not specifically describe visualization of PROMs data were excluded. Outcomes were: visualization preferences; interpretation accuracy; guidance for clinical interpretation.

RESULTS

Twenty-five out of 789 papers were included for final analysis. Most frequently studied formats were: bar charts, line graphs, and pie charts. Patients preferred bar charts and line graphs as these were easy and quick for retrieving information about their PROMs scores over time. Clinicians' interpretation accuracy and preferences were similar among graphic visualization formats. Scores were most often compared with patients' own previous scores; to further guide clinical interpretation, scores were compared to norm population scores. Different 'add-ons' improved interpretability for patients and clinicians, e.g. using colors, descriptions of measurement scale directionality, descriptive labels, and brief definitions.

CONCLUSION

There was no predominant graphical visualization format approach in terms of preferences or interpretation accuracy for both patients and clinicians. Detailed clarification of graph content is essential.

Feedback of patient-reported outcomes to healthcare professionals for comparing health service performance: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide self-reported patient assessments of their quality of life, daily functioning, and symptom severity after experiencing an illness and having contact with the health system. Feeding back summarised PROs data, aggregated at the health-service level, to healthcare professionals may inform clinical practice and quality improvement efforts. However, little is known about the best methods for providing these summarised data in a way that is meaningful for this audience. Therefore, the aim of this scoping review was to summarise the emerging approaches to PROs data for 'service-level' feedback to healthcare professionals.

SETTING

Healthcare professionals receiving PROs data feedback at the health-service level.

DATA SOURCES

Databases selected for the search were Embase, Ovid Medline, Scopus, Web of Science and targeted web searching. The main search terms included: 'patient-reported outcome measures', 'patient-reported outcomes', 'patient-centred care', 'value-based care', 'quality improvement' and 'feedback'. Studies included were those that were published in English between January 2009 and June 2019.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Data were extracted on the feedback methods of PROs to patients or healthcare providers. A standardised template was used to extract information from included documents and academic publications. Risk of bias was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence for Effectiveness.

RESULTS

Overall, 3480 articles were identified after de-duplication. Of these, 19 academic publications and 22 documents from the grey literature were included in the final review. Guiding principles for data display methods and graphical formats were identified. Seven major factors that may influence PRO data interpretation and use by healthcare professionals were also identified.

CONCLUSION

While a single best format or approach to feedback PROs data to healthcare professionals was not identified, numerous guiding principles emerged to inform the field.

Feedback preferences of patients, professionals and health insurers in integrated head and neck cancer care

Background

Audit and feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes are the most often used interventions to change behaviour of professionals and improve quality of health care. However, limited information is available regarding preferred feedback for patients, professionals and health insurers.

Objective

Investigate the (differences in) preferences of receiving feedback between stakeholders, using the Dutch Head and Neck Audit as an example.

Methods

A total of 37 patients, medical specialists, allied health professionals and health insurers were interviewed using semi‐structured interviews. Questions focussed on: “Why,” “On what aspects” and “How” do you prefer to receive feedback on professional practice and health care outcomes?

Results

All stakeholders mentioned that feedback can improve health care by creating awareness, enabling self‐reflection and reflection on peers or colleagues, and by benchmarking to others. Patients prefer feedback on the actual professional practice that matches the health care received, whereas medical specialists and health insurers are interested mainly in health care outcomes. All stakeholders largely prefer a bar graph. Patients prefer a pie chart for patient‐reported outcomes and experiences, while Kaplan‐Meier survival curves are preferred by medical specialists. Feedback should be simple with firstly an overview, and 1‐4 times a year sent by e‐mail. Finally, patients and health professionals are cautious with regard to transparency of audit data.

Conclusions

This exploratory study shows how feedback preferences differ between stakeholders. Therefore, tailored reports are recommended. Using this information, effects of audit and feedback can be improved by adapting the feedback format and contents to the preferences of stakeholders.