Skip to main content

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%