Do medical specialists accept claims-based Audit and Feedback for quality improvement? A focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a widely used quality improvement (QI) intervention in healthcare. However, not all feedback is accepted by professionals. While claims-based feedback has been previously used for A&F interventions, its acceptance by medical specialists is largely unknown. This study examined medical specialists' acceptance of claims-based A&F for QI. DESIGN: Qualitative design, with focus group discussions. Transcripts were analysed using discourse analysis. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A total of five online focus group discussions were conducted between April 2021 and September 2022 with 21 medical specialists from varying specialties (urology; paediatric surgery; gynaecology; vascular surgery; orthopaedics and trauma surgery) working in academic or regional hospitals in the Netherlands. RESULTS: Participants described mixed views on using claims-based A&F for QI. Arguments mentioned in favour were (1) A&F stimulates reflective learning and improvement and (2) claims-based A&F is more reliable than other A&F. Arguments in opposition were that (1) A&F is insufficient to create behavioural change; (2) A&F lacks clinically meaningful interpretation; (3) claims data are invalid for feedback on QI; (4) claims-based A&F is unreliable and (5) A&F may be misused by health insurers. Furthermore, participants described several conditions for the implementation of A&F which shape their acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: Using claims-based A&F for QI is, for some clinical topics and under certain conditions, accepted by medical specialists. Acceptance of claims-based A&F can be shaped by how A&F is implemented into clinical practice. When designing A&F for QI, it should be considered whether claims data, as the most resource-efficient data source, can be used or whether it is necessary to collect more specific data.

Practice Variation Research in Degenerative Lumbar Disc Surgery: A Literature Review on Design Characteristics and Outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: Literature review. OBJECTIVE: To describe whether practice variation studies on surgery in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease used adequate study methodology to identify unwarranted variation, and to inform quality improvement in clinical practice. Secondary aim was to describe whether variation changed over time. METHODS: Literature databases were searched up to May 4th, 2021. To define whether study design was appropriate to identify unwarranted variation, we extracted data on level of aggregation, study population, and case-mix correction. To define whether studies were appropriate to achieve quality improvement, data were extracted on outcomes, explanatory variables, description of scientific basis, and given recommendations. Spearman's rho was used to determine the association between the Extreme Quotient (EQ) and year of publication. RESULTS: We identified 34 articles published between 1990 and 2020. Twenty-six articles (76%) defined the diagnosis. Prior surgery cases were excluded or adjusted for in 5 articles (15%). Twenty-three articles (68%) adjusted for case-mix. Variation in outcomes was analyzed in 7 articles (21%). Fourteen articles (41%) identified explanatory variables. Twenty-six articles (76%) described the evidence on effectiveness. Recommendations for clinical practice were given in 9 articles (26%). Extreme Quotients ranged between 1-fold and 15-fold variation and did not show a significant change over time (rho= -.33, P= .09). CONCLUSIONS: Practice variation research on surgery in patients with degenerative disc disease showed important limitations to identify unwarranted variation and to achieve quality improvement by public reporting. Despite the availability of new evidence, we could not observe a significant decrease in variation over time.