Skip to main content

Table 4 Quantitative assessment of the performance feedback dashboard

From: Involving end-users in the design of an audit and feedback intervention in the emergency department setting – a mixed methods study

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
  1. 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
  2. Abbreviations: IQR interquartile range, LOS length of stay, n number
  3. aBased on the question “Who do you discuss problems with at work?”