↓ Skip to main content

Combining administrative data feedback, reflection and action planning to engage primary care professionals in quality improvement: qualitative assessment of short term program outcomes

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
112 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Combining administrative data feedback, reflection and action planning to engage primary care professionals in quality improvement: qualitative assessment of short term program outcomes
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, September 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-1056-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Brigitte Vachon, Bruno Désorcy, Isabelle Gaboury, Michel Camirand, Jean Rodrigue, Louise Quesnel, Claude Guimond, Martin Labelle, Ai-Thuy Huynh, Jeremy Grimshaw

Abstract

Improving primary care for chronic disease management requires a coherent, integrated approach to quality improvement. Evidence in the continuing professional development (CPD) field suggests the importance of using strategies such as feedback delivery, reflective practice and action planning to facilitate recognition of gaps and service improvement needs. Our study explored the outcomes of a CPD intervention, named the COMPAS Project, which consists of a three-hour workshop composed of three main activities: feedback, critical reflection and action planning. The feedback intervention is delivered face-to-face and presents performance indicators extracted from clinical-administrative databases. This aim of this study was to assess the short term outcomes of this intervention to engage primary care professional in continuous quality improvement (QI). In order to develop an understanding of our intervention and of its short term outcomes, a program evaluation approach was used. Ten COMPAS workshops on diabetes management were directly observed and qualitative data was collected to assess the intervention short term outcomes. Data from both sources were combined to describe the characteristics of action plans developed by professionals. Two independent coders analysed the content of these plans to assess if they promoted engagement in QI and interprofessional collaboration. During the ten workshops held, 26 interprofessional work teams were formed. Twenty-two of them developed a QI project they could implement themselves and that targeted aspects of their own practice they perceived in need of change. Most frequently prioritized strategies for change were improvement of systematic clientele follow-up, medication compliance, care pathway and support to improve adoption of healthier life habits. Twenty-one out of 22 action plans were found to target some level of improvement of interprofessional collaboration in primary care. Our study results demonstrate that the COMPAS intervention enabled professionals to target priorities for practice improvements and to develop action plans that promote interprofessional collaboration. The COMPAS intervention aims to increase capability for continuous QI, readiness to implement process of care changes and team shared goals but available resources, climate and culture for change and leadership, are also important required conditions to successfully implement these practice changes. We think that the proposed approach can be very useful to support and engage primary care professionals in the planning stage of quality improvement projects since it combines key successful ingredients: feedback, reflection and planning of action.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 112 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Chile 1 <1%
New Zealand 1 <1%
Unknown 110 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 18 16%
Student > Master 14 13%
Student > Bachelor 14 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 8 7%
Other 14 13%
Unknown 35 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 18 16%
Medicine and Dentistry 18 16%
Social Sciences 14 13%
Psychology 7 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 4%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 38 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#15,013,920
of 25,138,857 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,215
of 8,532 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#135,962
of 279,108 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#73
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,138,857 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,532 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 279,108 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.