Imperial College London
Dr Glenn Arnold

DrGlennArnold

Faculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer

Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer
 
 
 
//

Contact

 

g.arnold Website

 
 
//

Location

 

Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother Wing (QEQM)St Mary's Campus

//

Summary

 

Publications

Citation

BibTex format

@article{D'Lima and Arnold:2017:bja/aex136,
author = {D'Lima and Arnold, G and Brett, SJ and Bottle, A and Smith, A and Benn, J},
doi = {bja/aex136},
journal = {British Journal of Anaesthesia},
pages = {115--124},
title = {Continuous monitoring and feedback of quality of recovery indicators for anaesthetists: A qualitative investigation of reported effects on professional behaviour},
url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex136},
volume = {119},
year = {2017}
}
Download

RIS format (EndNote, RefMan)

TY  - JOUR
AB  - Background: Research suggests that providing clinicians with feedback on their performance can result in professional behaviour change and improved clinical outcomes. Departments would benefit from understanding which characteristics of feedback support effective quality monitoring, professional behaviour change and service improvement. This study aimed to report the experience of anaesthetists participating in a long-term initiative to provide comprehensive personalized feedback to consultants on patient-reported quality of recovery indicators in a large London teaching hospital.Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 13 consultant anaesthetists, six surgical nursing leads, the theatre manager and the clinical coordinator for recovery. Transcripts were qualitatively analysed for themes linked to the perceived value of the initiative, its acceptability and its effects upon professional practice.Results: Analysis of qualitative data from participant interviews suggested that effective quality indicators must address areas that are within the control of the anaesthetist. Graphical data presentation, both longitudinal (personal variation over time) and comparative (peer-group distributions), was found to be preferable to summary statistics and provided useful and complementary perspectives for improvement. Developing trust in the reliability and credibility of the data through co-development of data reports with clinical input into areas such as case-mix adjustment was important for engagement. Making feedback specifically relevant to the recipient supported professional learning within a supportive and open collaborative environment.Conclusions: This study investigated the requirements for effective feedback on quality of anaesthetic care for anaesthetists, highlighting the mechanisms by which feedback may translate into improvements in practice at the individual and peer-group level.
AU  - D'Lima
AU  - Arnold,G
AU  - Brett,SJ
AU  - Bottle,A
AU  - Smith,A
AU  - Benn,J
DO  - bja/aex136
EP  - 124
PY  - 2017///
SN  - 1471-6771
SP  - 115
TI  - Continuous monitoring and feedback of quality of recovery indicators for anaesthetists: A qualitative investigation of reported effects on professional behaviour
T2  - British Journal of Anaesthesia
UR  - http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/bja/aex136
UR  - http://hdl.handle.net/10044/1/48237
VL  - 119
ER  -
Download