What type of feedback to clinicians best improves conformance to supportive care quality measures?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
102 Background: Supportive care is under-addressed in oncology and an important area for quality improvement. Regular, directed feedback is an important component of effective quality management. What type of feedback yields the highest conformance to supportive care measures? Methods: Within the Carolinas Palliative Care Consortium, we conducted a series of three PDSA cycles, each one month-long, to evaluate various types of clinician-directed feedback on conformance to two supportive care measures. We collected data using a web-based, mobile health platform called QDACT-PC (Quality Data Collection Tool for Palliative Care). Every four weeks, feedback to clinicians on performance was changed in a stepwise fashion, from “no feedback” to “personal feedback” to “comparative feedback” (personal conformance compared to the rest of the Consortium). We monitored weekly changes to conformance to two quality measures: documentation of timely management of constipation and dyspnea. To meet the measures, symptoms with intensity of >3/10 on the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale required documentation of intervention within 24 hours. Conformance rates were calculated and compared to a historical baseline. Results: 23 providers participated in this quality improvement project, which spanned 465 patient encounters across 104 unique patients. Baseline data generated from 3/2008-10/2011 demonstrated baseline conformance to the dyspnea and constipation measures at 6% (27/457) and 4% (14/398), respectively. After addition of an electronic, prospective quality monitoring system alone (QDACT-PC), conformance increased to 93% (42/45) and 92% (23/25), respectively. With personalized, weekly feedback, these rates increased to 94% for dyspnea and 100% for constipation. Feedback comparing personal performance to the average of the rest of the Consortium further increased this to 100% for both. Conclusions: Regular, weekly feedback on performance increases conformance to supportive care quality measures. Adding comparative feedback versus other peers solidifies this effect. Duration of the effect is being evaluated.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".