Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2019

Next generation audit and feedback: findings of a systematic review and interviews with international thought leaders (#167)

Candice Donnelly 1 2 , Anna Janssen 1 2 , Emily Stone 3 , Shalini Vinod 4 5 , Paul Harnett 2 6 , Tim Shaw 1 2
  1. Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
  2. Sydney West Translational Cancer Research Centre, Westmead, NSW, Australia
  3. St Vincent's Hospital and the Kinghorn Cancer Centre, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. South Western Clinical School, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW, Australia
  5. Cancer Therapy Centre, Liverpool Hospital, Liverpool, NSW, Australia
  6. Crown Princess Mary Cancer Centre, Westmead, NSW, Australia

Background

Quality measurement is changing as technology offers new possibilities. Whilst historical audit and feedback remains relevant, clinicians and Multidisciplinary Teams are increasingly looking towards the future of near-real time clinical analytics capabilities for informed decision making and focusing quality improvement efforts.

 

Aim

This study aims to explore the use and impact of analytic feedback programs and digital tools to monitor quality of care and patient outcomes within oncology services.

 

Methods

Two collection methods were used:

(1) A systematic review of interventions utilising near-real time oncology data to drive analytic feedback programs was conducted.A search strategy was guided by the PICO Framework and executed in four databases. Two reviewers screened abstracts and full-text manuscripts. Data was extracted using a tailored version of the Cochrane EPOC abstraction tool to identify intervention characteristics and effectiveness.

(2) A purposeful sample of international leaders participated in qualitative interviews designed to capture the lived experiences of implementing analytic feedback programs and digital tools to support these systems. A thematic analysis of recorded transcripts used Grounded Theory to establish key themes.

 

Results

(1) A total of 15 articles and12 interventions were included in the extraction and analysis of the review.

(2) A total of 15 interview participants comprised of clinical (n=12), research (n=11), government (n=5) and health service (n=7) leaders completed one-hour interviews.

The synthesised findings of both indicate that data sources (eMRs, registries and patient reported outcome tools) linked to feedback methods (interactive dashboards, action toolboxes, reports, performance scorecards, academic detailing) are commonly used. Key success factors of clinical analytic feedback programs include; selection of actionable quality indicators, data access, multidisciplinary clinical ownership, action based feedback and technology platforms.

 

Conclusion

These findings support an interactive multidisciplinary approach to quality measurement, feedback and active improvement utilising quality oncology eMR, cancer registry and patient reported outcome data.