23
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      The Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework: a practical, evidence-informed approach for the design and implementation of socially constructed learning interventions using audit and group feedback

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Audit and feedback interventions may be strengthened using social interaction. The Calgary office of the Alberta Physician Learning Program (CPLP) developed a process for audit and group feedback for physicians. This paper extends previous work in which we developed a conceptual model of physician responses to audit and group feedback based on a qualitative analysis of six audit and group feedback sessions. The present study explored the mediating factors for successfully engaging physician groups in change planning through audit and group feedback.

          Methods

          To understand why some groups were more interactive than others, we completed a comparative case analysis of the six audit and group feedback projects from the prior study. We used framework analysis to build the case studies, triangulated our observations across data sources to validate findings, compared the case studies for similarities and differences that influenced social interaction (mediating factors), and thematically categorized mediating factors into an organizing framework.

          Results

          Mediating factors for socially interactive AGFS were a pre-existing relationship between the program team and the physician group, projects addressing important, actionable questions, easily interpretable data visualization in the reports, and facilitation of the groups that included reflective questioning. When these factors were in place (cases 1, 2A, 3), the audit and group feedback sessions were dynamic, with physicians sharing and comparing practices, and raising change cues (such as declaring commitments to de-prescribing, planning educational interventions, and improving documentation). In cases 2C–D, the mediating factors were less well established and in these cases, the sessions showed little physician reflection or change planning. We organized the mediating factors into a framework linking the factors for successful sessions to the conceptual model of physician behaviors which these mediating factors drive.

          Conclusions

          We propose the Calgary Audit and Feedback Framework as a practical tool to help foster socially constructed learning in audit and group feedback sessions. Ensuring that the four factors, relationship, question choice, data visualization, and facilitation, are considered for design and implementation of audit and group feedback will help physicians move from reactions to their data towards planning for change.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            PARIHS revisited: from heuristic to integrated framework for the successful implementation of knowledge into practice

            Background The Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services, or PARIHS framework, was first published in 1998. Since this time, work has been ongoing to further develop, refine and test it. Widely used as an organising or conceptual framework to help both explain and predict why the implementation of evidence into practice is or is not successful, PARIHS was one of the first frameworks to make explicit the multi-dimensional and complex nature of implementation as well as highlighting the central importance of context. Several critiques of the framework have also pointed out its limitations and suggested areas for improvement. Discussion Building on the published critiques and a number of empirical studies, this paper introduces a revised version of the framework, called the integrated or i-PARIHS framework. The theoretical antecedents of the framework are described as well as outlining the revised and new elements, notably, the revision of how evidence is described; how the individual and teams are incorporated; and how context is further delineated. We describe how the framework can be operationalised and draw on case study data to demonstrate the preliminary testing of the face and content validity of the revised framework. Summary This paper is presented for deliberation and discussion within the implementation science community. Responding to a series of critiques and helpful feedback on the utility of the original PARIHS framework, we seek feedback on the proposed improvements to the framework. We believe that the i-PARIHS framework creates a more integrated approach to understand the theoretical complexity from which implementation science draws its propositions and working hypotheses; that the new framework is more coherent and comprehensive and at the same time maintains it intuitive appeal; and that the models of facilitation described enable its more effective operationalisation. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0398-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Using Framework Analysis in nursing research: a worked example.

              To demonstrate Framework Analysis using a worked example and to illustrate how criticisms of qualitative data analysis including issues of clarity and transparency can be addressed. Critics of the analysis of qualitative data sometimes cite lack of clarity and transparency about analytical procedures; this can deter nurse researchers from undertaking qualitative studies. Framework Analysis is flexible, systematic, and rigorous, offering clarity, transparency, an audit trail, an option for theme-based and case-based analysis and for readily retrievable data. This paper offers further explanation of the process undertaken which is illustrated with a worked example. Data were collected from 31 nursing students in 2009 using semi-structured interviews. The data collected are not reported directly here but used as a worked example for the five steps of Framework Analysis. Suggestions are provided to guide researchers through essential steps in undertaking Framework Analysis. The benefits and limitations of Framework Analysis are discussed. Nurses increasingly use qualitative research methods and need to use an analysis approach that offers transparency and rigour which Framework Analysis can provide. Nurse researchers may find the detailed critique of Framework Analysis presented in this paper a useful resource when designing and conducting qualitative studies. Qualitative data analysis presents challenges in relation to the volume and complexity of data obtained and the need to present an 'audit trail' for those using the research findings. Framework Analysis is an appropriate, rigorous and systematic method for undertaking qualitative analysis. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                lcooke@ucalgary.ca
                dduncan@ucalgary.ca
                laura.rivera@ucalgary.ca
                Shawn.dowling@ahs.ca
                cjsymond@ucalgary.ca
                armson@ucalgary.ca
                Journal
                Implement Sci
                Implement Sci
                Implementation Science : IS
                BioMed Central (London )
                1748-5908
                30 October 2018
                30 October 2018
                2018
                : 13
                : 136
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; UCMC Area 3, 3350 Hospital Drive NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Physician Learning Program, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; HSC G302, 3330 Hospital Dr. NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada
                [4 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Division of Endocrinology & Metabolism, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada
                [5 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7697, GRID grid.22072.35, Department of Family Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, , University of Calgary, ; 3330 Hospital Dr NW, Calgary, AB T2N 4N1 Canada
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5417-571X
                Article
                829
                10.1186/s13012-018-0829-3
                6208022
                30376848
                8f568964-dacd-4fba-be5b-9b7f716ceb21
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 7 May 2018
                : 18 October 2018
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Medicine
                audit and feedback,feedback,social learning theory,framework,practice improvement,professional development,comparative case study,physician learning,implementation,knowledge translation

                Comments

                Comment on this article