Table 4.
Quantitative assessment of the performance feedback dashboard
| Outcomes Median (IQR) |
Overall (n = 21) |
Involved (n = 5) |
≥30% of network involveda (n = 7) |
< 30% of network involveda (n = 5) |
p-value Kruskal-Wallis test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perceived usefulness (1–7) | 4 (3–4.5) | 4.3 (4.2–4.5) | 4.2 (4–5.7) | 3.5 (2–4) | 0.36 |
| Perceived ease of use (1–7) | 5 (4.3–5.5) | 5.5 (5–6.2) | 5 (4.3–6) | 4.3 (3.8–5) | 0.12 |
| Importance of metrics (1–7) | |||||
| - LOS | 6 (4–6) | 6 (5–6) | 6 (6–7) | 4 (4–4) | 0.03 |
| - time to disposition decision | 6 (5–6) | 6 (6–7) | 6 (6–7) | 4 (2–4) | 0.02 |
| - tests ordered | 6 (5–6) | 5 (5–6) | 6 (6–7) | 4 (2–5) | 0.03 |
| - metrics overall | 6 (4–6) | 5 (5–6) | 6 (6–7) | 3 (2–4) | 0.02 |
| Ability to affect metrics (1–7) | |||||
| - LOS | 5 (4–6) | 6 (5–7) | 6 (5–6) | 5 (4–6) | 0.30 |
| - time to disposition decision | 6 (5–6) | 6 (5–7) | 6 (5–6) | 6 (5–6) | 0.85 |
| - tests ordered | 6 (5–7) | 6 (5–7) | 6 (5–7) | 6 (6–6) | 0.97 |
| - overall metrics | 6 (5–6) | 6 (5–7) | 6 (5–6) | 5 (4–6) | 0.30 |
| Recommend (0–10) | 6 (5–7) | 7 (6–7) | 6 (5–8) | 3 (2–5) | 0.16 |
Post-survey results of the assessment of the performance feedback dashboard. Separate for physicians who were involved in the development, those of which ≥ 30% of the people they discuss problems with were involved (high exposure), and those with < 30% (low exposure). No network data was available for the 2 physicians who didn’t fill out the pre-survey and for 2 physicians who didn’t fill out the network question
Abbreviations: IQR interquartile range, LOS length of stay, n number
aBased on the question “Who do you discuss problems with at work?”