First-line managers' experience of the use of audit and feedback cycle in specialist mental health care: A qualitative case study.

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback was the main strategy to facilitate implementation of The National Guideline for Persons with Concurrent Substance Use Disorders and Mental Disorders in specialist mental health services. Studies have shown that leadership support contributes to implementation success. The aim of the study was to explore how first-line managers in a District Psychiatric Centre experienced using audit and feedback cycle. METHOD: The study had a qualitative case study design with individual interviews with five first-line managers from a District Psychiatric Centre in Norway. Qualitative content analysis was conducted. RESULTS: First-line managers were positive to contribute to better practice for the patient group and apply available tools. Four themes emerged: 1) Lack of endurance, where first-line managers saw their role as being process leaders, but failed to persist, 2) Lack of support in the process, where first-line managers called for a stronger organisational focus 3) Lack of ownership, where first-line managers felt the process was imposed on them, and 4) Lack of leader autonomy, where first-line managers seemed insecure about their role between professional leadership and own management. CONCLUSION: First-line managers were not sufficiently experienced or equipped to solve the implementation process satisfactorily. They were torn between different commitments, without the autonomy to act as process drivers or facilitators, and without taking the necessary leadership role. The potential impact of the use of audit and feedback may thus not be fully realized, in part, because of limited organisational support and capacity to respond effectively.

Audit and feedback in mental healthcare: staff experiences.

PURPOSE: Audit and feedback (A&F) often underlie implementation projects, described as a circular process; i.e. an A&F cycle. They are widely used, but effect varies with no apparent explanation. We need to understand how A&F work in real-life situations. The purpose of this paper, therefore, is to describe and explore mental healthcare full A&F cycle experiences. DESIGN/METHODOLOGY/APPROACH: This is a naturalistic qualitative study that uses four focus groups and qualitative content analysis. FINDINGS: Staff accepted the initial A&F stages, perceiving it to enhance awareness and reassure them about good practice. They were willing to participate in the full cycle and implement changes, but experienced poor follow-up and prioritization, not giving them a chance to own to the process. An important finding is the need for an A&F cycle facilitator. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Research teams cannot be expected to be involved in implementing clinical care. Guidelines will keep being produced to improve service quality and will be expected to be practiced. This study gives insights into planning and tailoring A&F cycles. ORIGINALITY/VALUE: Tools to ease implementation are not enough, and the key seems to lie with facilitating a process using A&F. This study underscores leadership, designated responsibility and facilitation throughout a full audit cycle.

Acting on audit & feedback: a qualitative instrumental case study in mental health services in Norway.

BACKGROUND: The National Guideline for Assessment, Treatment and Social Rehabilitation of Persons with Concurrent Substance Use and Mental Health Disorders, launched in 2012, is to be implemented in mental health services in Norway. Audit and feedback (A&F) is commonly used as the starting point of an implementation process. It aims to measure the research-practice gap, but its effect varies greatly. Less is known of how audit and feedback is used in natural settings. The aim of this study was to describe and investigate what is discussed and thematised when Quality Improvement (QI) teams in a District Psychiatric Centre (DPC) work to complete an action form as part of an A&F cycle in 2014. METHODS: This was an instrumental multiple case study involving four units in a DPC in Norway. We used open non-participant observation of QI team meetings in their natural setting, a total of seven teams and eleven meetings. RESULTS: The discussions provided health professionals with insight into their own and their colleagues' practices. They revealed insufficient knowledge of substance-related disorders and experienced unclear role expectations. We found differences in how professional groups sought answers to questions of clinical practice and that they were concerned about whether new tasks fitted in with their routine ways of working. CONCLUSION: Acting on A&F provided an opportunity to discuss practice in general, enhancing awareness of good practice. There was a general need for arenas to relate to practice and QI team meetings after A&F may well be a suitable arena for this. Self-assessment audits seem valuable, particular in areas where no benchmarked data exists, and there is a demand for implementation of new guidelines that might change routines and develop new roles. QI teams could benefit from having a unit leader present at meetings. Nurses and social educators and others turn to psychiatrists or psychologists for answers to clinical and organisational questions beyond guidelines, and show less confidence or routine in seeking research-based information. There is a general need to emphasise training in evidence-based practice and information seeking behaviour for all professional groups.