You are not logged in.
Openly accessible

Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings

Sales, Anne E., Fraser, Kimberley, Baylon, Melba Andrea, O'Rourke, Hannah M., Gao, Gloria, Bucknall, Tracey and Maisey, Suzanne 2015, Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings, Implementation Science, vol. 10, no. 20, pp. 1-14, doi: 10.1186/s13012-015-0208-2.

Attached Files
Name Description MIMEType Size Downloads
bucknall-understandingfeedback-2015.pdf Published version application/pdf 803.59KB 29

Title Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings
Author(s) Sales, Anne E.
Fraser, Kimberley
Baylon, Melba Andrea
O'Rourke, Hannah M.
Gao, Gloria
Bucknall, Tracey
Maisey, Suzanne
Journal name Implementation Science
Volume number 10
Issue number 20
Start page 1
End page 14
Total pages 14
Publisher BioMed Central
Place of publication London, Eng.
Publication date 2015
ISSN 1748-5908
Keyword(s) Feedback intervention
Long-term care
Process evaluation
Quality improvement
Science & Technology
Life Sciences & Biomedicine
Health Care Sciences & Services
Health Policy & Services
QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INTERVENTIONS
BEHAVIOR-CHANGE
NURSING-HOMES
AUDIT
QUERI
INTENTIONS
MANAGEMENT
PROTOCOL
IMPACT
SERIES
Summary BACKGROUND: Long-term care settings provide care to a large proportion of predominantly older, highly disabled adults across the United States and Canada. Managing and improving quality of care is challenging, in part because staffing is highly dependent on relatively non-professional health care aides and resources are limited. Feedback interventions in these settings are relatively rare, and there has been little published information about the process of feedback intervention. Our objectives were to describe the key components of uptake of the feedback reports, as well as other indicators of participant response to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted this project in nine long-term care units in four facilities in Edmonton, Canada. We used mixed methods, including observations during a 13-month feedback report intervention with nine post-feedback survey cycles, to conduct a process evaluation of a feedback report intervention in these units. We included all facility-based direct care providers (staff) in the feedback report distribution and survey administration. We conducted descriptive analyses of the data from observations and surveys, presenting this in tabular and graphic form. We constructed a short scale to measure uptake of the feedback reports. Our analysis evaluated feedback report uptake by provider type over the 13 months of the intervention. RESULTS: We received a total of 1,080 survey responses over the period of the intervention, which varied by type of provider, facility, and survey month. Total number of reports distributed ranged from 103 in cycle 12 to 229 in cycle 3, although the method of delivery varied widely across the period, from 12% to 65% delivered directly to individuals and 15% to 84% left for later distribution. The key elements of feedback uptake, including receiving, reading, understanding, discussing, and reporting a perception that the reports were useful, varied by survey cycle and provider type, as well as by facility. Uptake, as we measured it, was consistently high overall, but varied widely by provider type and time period. CONCLUSIONS: We report detailed process data describing the aspects of uptake of a feedback report during an intensive, longitudinal feedback intervention in long-term care facilities. Uptake is a complex process for which we used multiple measures. We demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a complex longitudinal feedback intervention in relatively resource-poor long-term care facilities to a wider range of provider types than have been included in prior feedback interventions.
Language eng
DOI 10.1186/s13012-015-0208-2
Field of Research 111099 Nursing not elsewhere classified
Socio Economic Objective 920210 Nursing
HERDC Research category C1 Refereed article in a scholarly journal
ERA Research output type C Journal article
Copyright notice ©2015, BioMed Central
Free to Read? Yes
Use Rights Creative Commons Attribution licence
Persistent URL http://hdl.handle.net/10536/DRO/DU:30074597

Document type: Journal Article
Collections: School of Nursing and Midwifery
Open Access Collection
Connect to link resolver
 
Unless expressly stated otherwise, the copyright for items in DRO is owned by the author, with all rights reserved.

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.

Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 2 times in TR Web of Science
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Access Statistics: 130 Abstract Views, 30 File Downloads  -  Detailed Statistics
Created: Fri, 17 Jul 2015, 14:51:40 EST

Every reasonable effort has been made to ensure that permission has been obtained for items included in DRO. If you believe that your rights have been infringed by this repository, please contact drosupport@deakin.edu.au.