Skip to main content
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 1999 Jun 26;318(7200):1738–1739. doi: 10.1136/bmj.318.7200.1738

Improvement in clinical work through feedback: intervention study

Rolf Jorde 1, Arne Nordøy 1
PMCID: PMC31103  PMID: 10381710

We have frequently found an unacceptable number of hospital records and discharge reports lacking even the most basic information. To improve on this, we reviewed our hospital records and discharge reports on a regular basis, and we sent out questionnaires on quality of care to patients shortly after discharge. The hospital’s medical staff received the results as a summarised report every other week. We deliberately disclosed only half of the variables studied. At the end of one year, the results were compared with those obtained before the intervention.

Subjects, methods, and results

Our study took place from September 1994 to October 1995 at the Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital of Tromsø (120 beds and 45 doctors). We reviewed the hospital records for two sets of information: variables that were disclosed to the staff (past or present occupation, smoking habits, general physical condition, and blood pressure) and variables that were not disclosed (marital status, alcohol consumption, glandular enlargements, and pulse). We noted whether a copy of the initial discharge letter was in the hospital record and, although not disclosed to staff, whether the discharge letter had information on drugs prescribed and time and place for next follow up. Similarly, we reviewed the final discharge reports for information on drugs prescribed and, not disclosed, for time and place for next follow up.

In September 1994 and October 1995 we sent out 500 questionnaires to discharged patients. Questions included (a) at discharge, were you given time to speak with your doctor alone? (If so, for how many minutes?) (b) (did your doctor give you a discharge letter that included which drugs to use?) (c) considering politeness, respect, and humaneness, was the behaviour of the doctors and nurses excellent, very good, good, fair, or poor? Answers to the questions in parentheses were not disclosed to staff.

We analysed the data with two sided Pearson χ2 and Fisher’s exact tests.

The table shows the effects of intervention on the hospital records, discharge letters, and reports, and on the doctors’ and nurses’ behaviour.

Of the 500 patient questionnaires sent out in September 1994 and October 1995, 323 (65%) and 330 (66%) were returned respectively. There was no significant change between whether the patients had a chance to talk alone with their doctor before discharge (85.6% versus 88.4%) or the time allotted to them (<10 minutes in more than 50% of patients).

Comment

For an intervention to work, the methods used must be acceptable to the target group.1 We therefore gave feedback in such a way that individual doctors could not be identified, and the variables studied were such that no one could argue their relevance. When feedback was given to the doctors every other week, we found a highly significant improvement in almost all variables relating to hospital records, initial discharge letters, and final discharge reports.

The results, however, could not be considered satisfactory. Almost 15% of the final discharge reports had no information on drugs, and 12% of the patients had not talked to their doctor alone before they left. Furthermore, no significant change was seen in doctors’ behaviour, although there was a potential for improvement. This shows the difficulty in inducing changes that are considered time consuming or that involve personal conduct.2

If substantial improvement in quality of clinical work is to be achieved then perhaps there is a need for information,3 administrative interventions, incentives, and penalties.1,4 Furthermore, patients should be made aware of their rights about talking to their doctor and getting a proper discharge letter before they leave hospital.

We looked at only a small aspect of work done in our department. Despite this, the study was very time consuming. Therefore if improvements in the quality of clinical work are to be achieved the necessary investments must be made and costs must be met.

Table.

Number of variables found in hospital records, discharge letters, and final reports, and patients’ evaluation of doctors’ and nurses’ behaviour, in September 1994 before intervention and again in October 1995

September 1994
October 1995
P value*
No
evaluated
No (%)
found
No
evaluated
No (%)
found
Hospital record
Occupation 324 121 (37) 500 264 (53) <0.001
Marital status 324 201 (62) 500 325 (65) 0.41
Smoking 324 172 (53) 496 343 (69) <0.001
Alcohol 324  74 (23) 496 165 (33) <0.01
General physical condition 338 211 (62) 532 379 (71) <0.01
Glandular enlargement 338 208 (62) 532 221 (42) <0.001
Blood pressure 338 307 (91) 532 487 (92) 0.71
Pulse 338 310 (92) 532 482 (91) 0.63
Initial discharge letter
Copy in hospital record: 447 166 (37) 601 424 (71) <0.001
Information on drugs 166 138 (83) 424 397 (94) <0.001
Next follow up 166 107 (65) 424 267 (63) 0.81
Final discharge report
Information on drugs 444 345 (78) 606 521 (86) <0.01
Next follow up 444 274 (62) 606 356 (59) 0.34
Behaviour of doctors 322 328 0.059
Excellent 133 (41) 163 (50)
Very good 127 (39) 113 (35)
Good  53 (17)  49 (15)
Fair  4 (1)  3 (1)
Poor  5 (2)  0 (0)
Behaviour of nurses 322 328 0.395
Excellent 189 (59) 191 (58)
Very good 103 (32) 103 (31)
Good 30 (9)  31 (10)
Fair  0 (0)  3 (1)
Poor  0 (0)  0 (0)
*

September 1994 v October 1995. 

Fewer records evaluated for history taking than for physical examination as some patients gave inadequate information. 

Not disclosed to staff during intervention. 

Footnotes

Funding: University Hospital of Tromsø and the Norwegian Medical Association.

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  • 1.Greco PJ, Eisenberg JM. Changing physicians’ practices. N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1271–1273. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199310213291714. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Robertson N, Baker R, Hearnshaw H. Changing the clinical behaviour of doctors: a psychological framework. Qual Health Care. 1996;5:51–54. doi: 10.1136/qshc.5.1.51. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mugford M, Banfield P, O’Hanlon M. Effects of feedback of information on clinical practice: a review. BMJ. 1991;303:398–402. doi: 10.1136/bmj.303.6799.398. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Stocking B. Promoting change in clinical care. Qual Health Care. 1992;1:56–60. doi: 10.1136/qshc.1.1.56. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES