RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparative performance reports in anaesthesia: impact on clinical outcomes and acceptability to clinicians
JF BMJ Open Quality
JO BMJ Open Qual
FD British Medical Journal Publishing Group
SP e000338
DO 10.1136/bmjoq-2018-000338
VO 7
IS 3
A1 Thomas Collyer
A1 Martyn Robertson
A1 Thomas Lawton
A1 Alice Rothwell
YR 2018
UL http://bmjopenquality.bmj.com/content/7/3/e000338.abstract
AB In anaesthesia, the use of comparative performance reports, their impact on patient care and their acceptability is yet to be fully clarified. Since April 2010, postoperative data on theatre cases in our trust have been analysed and individual comparative performance reports distributed to anaesthetists. Our primary aim was to investigate whether this process was associated with improvement in overall patient care. A short survey was used to assess our secondary aim, the usefulness and acceptability of the process. There were significant improvements in the odds of all outcomes other than vomiting: 39% improvement in hypothermia (p<0.001); 9.9% improvement in severe pain (p<0.001%); 9.6% improvement in moderate pain (p<0.001); 5.3% improvement in percentage pain free (p=0.04); 9.7% improvement in nausea (p=0.02); 30% improvement in unexpected admissions (p=0.001). 100% of consultant respondents agreed that performance reports prompted reflective practice and that this process had the potential to improve patient care. The provision of comparative performance reports was thus associated with an improvement in outcomes while remaining acceptable to the anaesthetists involved.