Table 1 Feedback reports from national clinical audit programmes meeting assessment criteria
From: Repeated analyses of national clinical audit reports demonstrate improvements in feedback methods
Domain | Criterion | Number and proportion of feedback reports meeting criterion | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
November 2015 (n = 23) | January 2017 (n = 20) | August 2019 (n = 14) | |||||
Audit components | Data are based on recent performance (less than 6 months) [2]. | 2 | 9% | 1 | 5% | 0 | 0% |
Audit cycles are repeated or intended to be repeated [2]. | 21 | 91% | 19 | 95% | 14 | 100% | |
Data are about the individual’s or team’s own behaviour(s), i.e. regional data included [2]. | 18 | 78% | 16 | 80% | 8 | 57% | |
Importance of audit topic as related to patient care is clearly stated [7]. | 22 | 96% | 20 | 100% | 14 | 100% | |
Feedback components | Authorship of the feedback report is identified as a trusted source (e.g. recognised professional body) [2]. | 23 | 100% | 20 | 100% | 14 | 100% |
A specific dissemination list is provided for the feedback report [7]. | 4 | 17% | 18 | 90% | 7 | 50% | |
Presentation is multi-modal including either text and talking or text and graphical materials [2]. | 23 | 100% | 19 | 95% | 14 | 100% | |
National data are displayed in graphical form [2]. | 21 | 91% | 18 | 90% | 13 | 93% | |
Regional data are displayed in graphical form [2]. | 13 | 57% | 10 | 50% | 7 | 50% | |
A short or summarised version of the feedback report is available on the website [7]. | 1 | 4% | 5 | 25% | 4 | 29% | |
Key audit standards are present [2]. | 18 | 78% | 18 | 90% | 13 | 93% | |
Key audit standards are easily identified within the document, e.g. highlighted text/bullet points/text box [2]. | 14 | 61% | 18 | 90% | 12 | 86% | |
Key audit findings are present [7]. | 23 | 100% | 20 | 100% | 14 | 100% | |
Key audit findings are easily identified within the document, e.g. highlighted text/bullet points/text box [7]. | 18 | 78% | 20 | 100% | 14 | 100% | |
Audit recommendations are present [1]. | 18 | 78% | 19 | 95% | 14 | 100% | |
Audit recommendations are easily identified within the document, e.g. highlighted text, bullet points, text box [7]. | 15 | 65% | 19 | 95% | 14 | 100% | |
Enhanced feedback | Recommendations are clearly linked to audit standards [1]. | 6 | 26% | 16 | 80% | 13 | 93% |
Action plans are phrased in a behaviourally specific manner (who, what, when, where) [7]. | 9 | 39% | 19 | 95% | 14 | 100% | |
Actions plans are easily identified within the document, e.g. highlighted text, bullet points, text box [1]. | 9 | 39% | 17 | 85% | 13 | 93% | |
Positive feedback is highlighted when a standard has been achieved or where there is significant improvement since a previous audit [7]. | 10 | 43% | 9 | 45% | 11 | 79% | |
Feedback includes multiple comparators for national performance | Audit standards [7]. | 12 | 52% | 18 | 90% | 13 | 93% |
Past performance [7]. | 18 | 78% | 17 | 85% | 14 | 100% | |
Achievable benchmark (e.g. top 10%) [7]. | 2 | 9% | 8 | 40% | 7 | 50% | |
Regional comparators [7]. | 11 | 48% | 15 | 75% | 9 | 64% | |
Feedback includes multiple comparators for regional performance | Audit standards [7]. | 4 | 17% | 14 | 70% | 7 | 50% |
Past performance [7]. | 5 | 22% | 9 | 45% | 0 | 0% | |
Achievable benchmarks (e.g. top 10%) [7]. | 0 | 0% | 9 | 45% | 2 | 14% | |
Regional comparators [7]. | 18 | 78% | 15 | 75% | 8 | 57% | |
National average [7]. | 12 | 52% | 14 | 70% | 8 | 57% | |