IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0206676.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation

Author

Listed:
  • Natalie J Gould
  • Fabiana Lorencatto
  • Camilla During
  • Megan Rowley
  • Liz Glidewell
  • Rebecca Walwyn
  • Susan Michie
  • Robbie Foy
  • Simon J Stanworth
  • Jeremy M Grimshaw
  • Jill J Francis

Abstract

National clinical audits play key roles in improving care and driving system-wide change. However, effects of audit and feedback depend upon both reach (e.g. relevant staff receiving the feedback) and response (e.g. staff regulating their behaviour accordingly). This study aimed to investigate which hospital staff initially receive feedback and formulate a response, how feedback is disseminated within hospitals, and how responses are enacted (including barriers and enablers to enactment). Using a multiple case study approach, we purposively sampled four UK hospitals for variation in infrastructure and resources. We conducted semi-structured interviews with staff from transfusion-related roles and observed Hospital Transfusion Committee meetings. Interviews and analysis were based on the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change. We coded interview transcripts into theoretical domains, then inductively identified themes within each domain to identify barriers and enablers. We also analysed data to identify which staff currently receive feedback and how dissemination is managed within the hospital. Members of the hospital’s transfusion team initially received feedback in all cases, and were primarily responsible for disseminating and responding, facilitated through the Hospital Transfusion Committee. At each hospital, key individuals involved in prescribing transfusions reported never having received feedback from a national audit. Whether audits were discussed and actions explicitly agreed in Committee meetings varied between hospitals. Key enablers of action across all cases included clear lines of responsibility and strategies to remind staff about recommendations. Barriers included difficulties disseminating to relevant staff and needing to amend feedback to make it appropriate for local use. Appropriate responses by hospital staff to feedback about blood transfusion practice depend upon supportive infrastructures and role clarity. Hospitals could benefit from support to disseminate feedback systematically, particularly to frontline staff involved in the behaviours being audited, and practical tools to support strategic decision-making (e.g. action-planning around local response to feedback).

Suggested Citation

  • Natalie J Gould & Fabiana Lorencatto & Camilla During & Megan Rowley & Liz Glidewell & Rebecca Walwyn & Susan Michie & Robbie Foy & Simon J Stanworth & Jeremy M Grimshaw & Jill J Francis, 2018. "How do hospitals respond to feedback about blood transfusion practice? A multiple case study investigation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206676
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0206676
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206676
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0206676&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0206676?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0206676. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.