Comparison of two audit and feedback approaches: descriptive analysis of personal and contextual dynamics.

IF 2.7 4区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Jbi Evidence Implementation Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1097/XEB.0000000000000428
Maria Pagano, Irene Cappadona, Francesco Corallo, Davide Cardile, Augusto Ielo, Giangaetano D'Aleo, Maria Cristina De Cola, Placido Bramanti, Rosella Ciurleo
{"title":"Comparison of two audit and feedback approaches: descriptive analysis of personal and contextual dynamics.","authors":"Maria Pagano, Irene Cappadona, Francesco Corallo, Davide Cardile, Augusto Ielo, Giangaetano D'Aleo, Maria Cristina De Cola, Placido Bramanti, Rosella Ciurleo","doi":"10.1097/XEB.0000000000000428","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Audit and feedback (A&F) is a systematic intervention that can be used to improve the quality of health care. The EASY-NET Network Project proposes an innovative A&F model.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study aimed to describe the newly proposed A&F model. An analysis was conducted, examining the participants' attitudes and their individual and interpersonal mechanisms to understand how they influence the work context and vice versa.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Two A&F models were compared, involving emergency and rehabilitation health workers, who were divided into two groups. The classic A&F model was compared with a new model, using a desk audit followed by interactive feedback. Communication training was provided to the audit team by psychologists before commencement of the project. The experimental group underwent psychological screening using two standardized tools (COPE-NVI and ProQoL) to evaluate personal and relational dynamics using the context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) paradigm.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The exchange of ideas among health professionals is more effective when using face-to-face feedback than written feedback. The COPE-NVI and ProQoL questionnaires highlighted the difficulties experienced by health care professionals in implementing effective coping strategies to deal with stressful events.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Identifying signs of stress in health care workers is essential for improvement strategies to be implemented and for establishing new, optimal conditions. Remote feedback makes it possible to overcome logistical barriers and, in the future, this method can be used for inter-organizational collaboration.</p><p><strong>Spanish abstract: </strong>http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A203.</p>","PeriodicalId":48473,"journal":{"name":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","volume":" ","pages":"384-395"},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11540272/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jbi Evidence Implementation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/XEB.0000000000000428","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Audit and feedback (A&F) is a systematic intervention that can be used to improve the quality of health care. The EASY-NET Network Project proposes an innovative A&F model.

Aim: This study aimed to describe the newly proposed A&F model. An analysis was conducted, examining the participants' attitudes and their individual and interpersonal mechanisms to understand how they influence the work context and vice versa.

Methods: Two A&F models were compared, involving emergency and rehabilitation health workers, who were divided into two groups. The classic A&F model was compared with a new model, using a desk audit followed by interactive feedback. Communication training was provided to the audit team by psychologists before commencement of the project. The experimental group underwent psychological screening using two standardized tools (COPE-NVI and ProQoL) to evaluate personal and relational dynamics using the context-mechanism-outcome (CMO) paradigm.

Results: The exchange of ideas among health professionals is more effective when using face-to-face feedback than written feedback. The COPE-NVI and ProQoL questionnaires highlighted the difficulties experienced by health care professionals in implementing effective coping strategies to deal with stressful events.

Conclusions: Identifying signs of stress in health care workers is essential for improvement strategies to be implemented and for establishing new, optimal conditions. Remote feedback makes it possible to overcome logistical barriers and, in the future, this method can be used for inter-organizational collaboration.

Spanish abstract: http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A203.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
两种审计和反馈方法的比较:对个人和环境动态的描述性分析。
导言:审计与反馈(A&F)是一种系统性干预措施,可用于提高医疗质量。EASY-NET 网络项目提出了一种创新的 A&F 模式。通过分析参与者的态度及其个人和人际机制,了解他们如何影响工作环境,反之亦然:比较了两种 A&F 模式,将急诊和康复保健工作者分为两组。经典的 A&F 模式与新模式进行了比较,新模式采用案头审核,然后进行互动反馈。项目开始前,心理学家对审核小组进行了沟通培训。实验组使用两种标准化工具(COPE-NVI 和 ProQoL)进行心理筛查,采用情境-机制-结果(CMO)范式评估个人和关系动态:结果:与书面反馈相比,医护人员之间面对面的意见交流更为有效。COPE-NVI和ProQoL问卷强调了医护人员在实施有效的应对策略以处理压力事件时遇到的困难:发现医护人员的压力迹象对于实施改进策略和建立新的最佳条件至关重要。远程反馈使克服后勤障碍成为可能,将来,这种方法可用于组织间合作。西班牙文摘要:http://links.lww.com/IJEBH/A203。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
13.00%
发文量
23
期刊最新文献
Nutrition as therapy - the role of dietitian counseling: a best practice implementation project. Pain assessment and management in patients with dementia in Taiwan: a best practice implementation project. Comparison of two audit and feedback approaches: descriptive analysis of personal and contextual dynamics. Collaborative implementation science: a Can-SOLVE CKD case example. Improving communication among nursing staff at a children's hospital in the southern United States: a best practice implementation project.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1