Thought Leader Perspectives on the Benefits, Barriers, and Enablers for Routinely Collected Electronic Health Data to Support Professional Development: Qualitative Study.

BACKGROUND: Hospitals routinely collect large amounts of administrative data such as length of stay, 28-day readmissions, and hospital-acquired complications; yet, these data are underused for continuing professional development (CPD). First, these clinical indicators are rarely reviewed outside of existing quality and safety reporting. Second, many medical specialists view their CPD requirements as time-consuming, having minimal impact on practice change and improving patient outcomes. There is an opportunity to build new user interfaces based on these data, designed to support individual and group reflection. Data-informed reflective practice has the potential to generate new insights about performance, bridging the gap between CPD and clinical practice. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to understand why routinely collected administrative data have not yet become widely used to support reflective practice and lifelong learning. METHODS: We conducted semistructured interviews (N=19) with thought leaders from a range of backgrounds, including clinicians, surgeons, chief medical officers, information and communications technology professionals, informaticians, researchers, and leaders from related industries. Interviews were thematically analyzed by 2 independent coders. RESULTS: Respondents identified visibility of outcomes, peer comparison, group reflective discussions, and practice change as potential benefits. The key barriers included legacy technology, distrust with data quality, privacy, data misinterpretation, and team culture. Respondents suggested recruiting local champions for co-design, presenting data for understanding rather than information, coaching by specialty group leaders, and timely reflection linked to CPD as enablers to successful implementation. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there was consensus among thought leaders, bringing together insights from diverse backgrounds and medical jurisdictions. We found that clinicians are interested in repurposing administrative data for professional development despite concerns with underlying data quality, privacy, legacy technology, and visual presentation. They prefer group reflection led by supportive specialty group leaders, rather than individual reflection. Our findings provide novel insights into the specific benefits, barriers, and benefits of potential reflective practice interfaces based on these data sets. They can inform the design of new models of in-hospital reflection linked to the annual CPD planning-recording-reflection cycle.

Do teaching staff trust stakeholders and tools in learning analytics? A mixed methods study.

Learning analytics (LA) has gained increasing attention for its potential to improve different educational aspects (e.g., students' performance and teaching practice). The existing literature identified some factors that are associated with the adoption of LA in higher education, such as stakeholder engagement and transparency in data use. The broad literature on information systems also emphasizes the importance of trust as a critical predictor of technology adoption. However, the extent to which trust plays a role in the adoption of LA in higher education has not been examined in detail in previous research. To fill this literature gap, we conducted a mixed method (survey and interviews) study aimed to explore how much teaching staff trust LA stakeholders (e.g., higher education institutions or third-parties) and LA technology, as well as the trust factors that could hinder or enable adoption of LA. The findings show that the teaching staff had a high level of trust in the competence of higher education institutions and the usefulness of LA; however, the teaching staff had a low level of trust in third parties that are involved in LA (e.g., external technology vendors) in terms of handling privacy and ethics-related issues. They also had a low level of trust in data accuracy due to issues such as outdated data and lack of data governance. The findings have strategic implications for institutional leaders and third parties in the adoption of LA by providing recommendations to increase trust, such as, improving data accuracy, developing policies for data sharing and ownership, enhancing the consent-seeking process, and establishing data governance guidelines. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature on the adoption of LA in HEIs by integrating trust factors.

An exploration into physician and surgeon data sensemaking: a qualitative systematic review using thematic synthesis.

Providing electronic health data to medical practitioners to reflect on their performance can lead to improved clinical performance and quality of care. Understanding the sensemaking process that is enacted when practitioners are presented with such data is vital to ensure an improvement in performance. Thus, the primary objective of this research was to explore physician and surgeon sensemaking when presented with electronic health data associated with their clinical performance. A systematic literature review was conducted to analyse qualitative research that explored physicians and surgeons experiences with electronic health data associated with their clinical performance published between January 2010 and March 2022. Included articles were assessed for quality, thematically synthesised, and discussed from the perspective of sensemaking. The initial search strategy for this review returned 8,829 articles that were screened at title and abstract level. Subsequent screening found 11 articles that met the eligibility criteria and were retained for analyses. Two articles met all of the standards within the chosen quality assessment (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research, SRQR). Thematic synthesis generated five overarching themes: data communication, performance reflection, infrastructure, data quality, and risks. The confidence of such findings is reported using CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research). The way the data is communicated can impact sensemaking which has implications on what is learned and has impact on future performance. Many factors including data accuracy, validity, infrastructure, culture can also impact sensemaking and have ramifications on future practice. Providing data in order to support performance reflection is not without risks, both behavioural and affective. The latter of which can impact the practitioner's ability to effectively make sense of the data. An important consideration when data is presented with the intent to improve performance.Registration This systematic review was registered with Prospero, registration number: CRD42020197392.

Quality Indicators in the Clinical Specialty of Urology: A Systematic Review.

CONTEXT: In health care, monitoring of quality indicators (QIs) in general urology remains underdeveloped in comparison to other clinical specialties. OBJECTIVE: To identify, synthesise, and appraise QIs that monitor in-hospital care for urology patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: This systematic review included peer-reviewed articles identified via Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, CINAHL, Global Health, Google Scholar, and grey literature from 2000 to February 19, 2021. The review was carried out under the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and used the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) tool for quality assessment. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: A total of 5111 articles and 62 government agencies were screened for QI sets. There were a total of 57 QI sets included for analysis. Most QIs focused on uro-oncology, with prostate, bladder, and testicular cancers the most represented. The most common QIs were surgical QIs in uro-oncology (positive surgical margin, surgical volume), whereas in non-oncology the QIs most frequently reported were for treatment and diagnosis. Out of 61 articles, only four scored a total of ≥50% on the AIRE tool across four domains. Aside from QIs developed in uro-oncology, general urological QIs are underdeveloped and of poor methodological quality and most lack testing for both content validity and reliability. CONCLUSIONS: There is an urgent need for the development of methodologically robust QIs in the clinical specialty of general urology for patients to enable standardised quality of care monitoring and to improve patient outcomes. PATIENT SUMMARY: We investigated a range of quality indicators (QIs) that provide health care professionals with feedback on the quality of their care for patients with general urological diseases. We found that aside from urological cancers, there is a lack of QIs for general urology. Hence, there is an urgent need for the development of robust and disease-specific QIs in general urology.