Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31948447›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2020

Can feedback approaches reduce unwarranted clinical variation? A systematic rapid evidence synthesis.

Reema Harrison, Reece Amr Hinchcliff, Elizabeth Manias, Steven Mears, David Heslop, Victoria Walton, Ru Kwedza

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Reema HarrisonSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Samuels Building (f25), Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia. reema.harrison@unsw.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8609-9827
Reece Amr HinchcliffSchool of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, 4059, Australia.
Elizabeth ManiasMelbourne School of Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Steven MearsInformation Specialist, Hunter New England Medical Library, New Lambton, NSW, 2350, Australia.
David HeslopSchool of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales, Samuels Building (f25), Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.
Victoria WaltonCancer Institute New South Wales, Level 9, 8 Central Avenue, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh NSW 2015, PO Box 41, Alexandria, NSW, 1435, Australia.
Ru KwedzaCancer Institute New South Wales, Level 9, 8 Central Avenue, Australian Technology Park, Eveleigh NSW 2015, PO Box 41, Alexandria, NSW, 1435, Australia.

Funding

Cancer Institute NSW NA
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAssessment of clinical variation has attracted increasing interest in health systems internationally due to growing awareness about better value and appropriate health care as a mechanism for enhancing efficient, effective and timely care. Feedback using administrative databases to provide benchmarking data has been utilised in several countries to explore clinical care variation and to enhance guideline adherent care. Whilst methods for detecting variation are well-established, methods for determining variation that is unwarranted and addressing this are strongly debated. This study aimed to synthesize published evidence of the use of feedback approaches to address unwarranted clinical variation (UCV).

methodsA rapid review and narrative evidence synthesis was undertaken as a policy-focused review to understand how feedback approaches have been applied to address UCV specifically. Key words, synonyms and subject headings were used to search the major electronic databases Medline and PubMed between 2000 and 2018. Titles and abstracts of publications were screened by two reviewers and independently checked by a third reviewer. Full text articles were screened against the eligibility criteria. Key findings were extracted and integrated in a narrative synthesis.

resultsFeedback approaches that occurred over a duration of 1 month to 9 years to address clinical variation emerged from 27 publications with quantitative (20), theoretical/conceptual/descriptive work (4) and mixed or multi-method studies (3). Approaches ranged from presenting evidence to individuals, teams and organisations, to providing facilitated tailored feedback supported by a process of ongoing dialogue to enable change. Feedback approaches identified primarily focused on changing clinician decision-making and behaviour. Providing feedback to clinicians was identified, in a range of a settings, as associated with changes in variation such as reducing overuse of tests and treatments, reducing variations in optimal patient clinical outcomes and increasing guideline or protocol adherence.

conclusionsThe review findings suggest value in the use of feedback approaches to respond to clinical variation and understand when action is warranted. Evaluation of the effectiveness of particular feedback approaches is now required to determine if there is an optimal approach to create change where needed.

Indexed as

FeedbackDelivery of Health CareHealth Services ResearchHumansClinical variationClinician feedbackEffective careFacilitated feedbackHealth servicesUnwarranted clinical variation

Identifiers

PMID31948447
PMCPMC6966854

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.