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?”