InfluenzaNCT04579614
Performance Feedback in Health Care
A study testing The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers in people with Influenza, run by Kaiser Permanente at 1 site in United States.
Trial summary
The Southeast Permanente Medical Group (TSPMG) at Kaiser Permanente Georgia provides performance feedback to its providers. The performance feedback designs can vary and change over time in terms of targets, summary statistics, included measures, and frequency of delivery. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Any ageHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Influenza
- What is being tested?
- The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers
- Type of treatment
- Vaccines, Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 595 participants
- Where
- 1 siteUnited States
- Study dates
- 23 Sep 2019to 31 Dec 2019
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages Any age
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- A healthcare provider practicing at The Southeast Permanente Medical Group in a specialty for which the performance measure being studied is relevant.
- Health care providers include:
- Physicians, Nurse Practitioner, Certified Nurse Midwife, Psych Nurse Specialist, Optometrist, Podiatrist, and Physician Assistant
Who cannot join
- Non-Physicians: Registered Nurses excluding nurse practitioners
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
United States1 site
Kaiser Permanente Georgia Regional Offices
Atlanta, Georgia, 30305
About this study
The Southeast Permanente Medical Group (TSPMG) at Kaiser Permanente Georgia provides performance feedback to its providers. The performance feedback designs can vary and change over time in terms of targets, summary statistics, included measures, and frequency of delivery. The TSPMG health services research group seek to compare different performance feedback designs to identify which are most effective at contributing to performance improvement.
The research team will randomly assign providers into different performance feedback conditions, as specified in the protocol. Providers will receive performance feedback through the standard mechanism in which it is conveyed by their supervisor.
Read more
The objective is to investigate how to design performance feedback for providers to best motivate and support them in improving performance along with existing strategic priorities for care delivery.
The reserach team will test alternative designs of performance feedback that vary on the following dimension:
- targets for comparison of one's own performance
Read the detailed description
The Southeast Permanente Medical Group (TSPMG) provides performance feedback to its providers. The performance feedback designs can vary and change over time in terms of targets, summary statistics, included measures, and frequency of delivery. The TSPMG health services research team will seek to compare different performance feedback designs to identify which are most effective at contributing to performance improvement. .
The research team will randomly assign providers into different performance feedback conditions, as specified in the protocol. Providers will receive performance feedback through the standard mechanism in which it is conveyed by their supervisor.
The objective is to investigate how to design performance feedback for providers to best motivate and support them in improving performance along with existing strategic priorities for care delivery.
The research team will test alternative designs of performance feedback that vary on the following dimension:
- targets for comparison of one's own performance
The research team will provide feedback on performance by measures that the organization already tracks internally and uses for performance improvement. These include a provider's utilization of opportunities to provide flu vaccinations.
The study will randomly assign different designs of feedback to providers. In order to understand which designs of feedback have the best effects on performance, the research team will test the following hypotheses:
- Displaying the next-highest quartile will motivate improvement more than display of all quartiles. Theory: The next-highest quartile will serve as an injunctive norm, or suggested target, to repeatedly lift an individual's performance to the suggested level.
- The positive effect of displaying the next-highest quartile, relative to displaying all quartiles, will be most pronounced for initially low performers. Theory: The next highest quartile averts upward social comparison to a much higher level of peer performance, which can be discouraging and so negatively affect performance
- The positive effect of displaying the next-highest quartile, relative to displaying all quartiles, will diminish over time. Theory: Individuals may become worn out as they see a target ratchet higher when their performance improves.
- Displaying team relative performance along with individual relative performance will be more effective than displaying either type of information alone.
- Conditions
- Influenza
- Being tested
- The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers
- Keywords
- Flu Vaccination Provision, Performance Feedback, Variable Goal Setting, Flu Vaccination Success Rate, Health Care Providers
- Medical subject headings
- Influenza, Human
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of ProvidersBehavioural
A given provider will be involved in the study for a maximum of 6 months. This will involve, at the most frequent, the delivery of weekly performance feedback.
The performance feedback will be delivered using standard approaches already in place in the organization and there will not be a period of seeking out participants for enrollment.
Providers will receive performance feedback bi-weekly for the duration of the study period.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational Target | Active comparator | Providers are shown the flu success performance rate of their team (a "pod," or group of providers who practice together), in comparison to their own, and with the organizational target. These updates and targets are sent bi-weekly. Receives: Behavioral: The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers |
| Achievable Target | Experimental | Providers are shown the flu success performance rate of their team (a "pod," or group of providers who practice together), in comparison to their own. They will receive a static and achievable target based on their previous year's flu vaccination success rate. Receives: Behavioral: The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers |
| Variable | Experimental | Providers are shown the flu success performance rate of their team (a "pod," or group of providers who practice together), in comparison to their own. They will receive a variable target that will fluctuate bi-weekly, based on their previous bi-weekly flu vaccination success rate. Receives: Behavioral: The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Flu Vaccination Administered During Encounter
Whether or not the providers succeeded in administering flu vaccination during flu vaccination opportunity
Measured: 10 Weeks
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Oct 2020
- Study start23 Sep 2019
- Primary completion31 Dec 2019
- Study completion31 Dec 2019
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for InfluenzaStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Model description
- Providers are randomized to receive one of three designs of performance feedback, related to their rate of successful flu vaccinations among total flu opportunities
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 595 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Kaiser Permanente
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- London School of Economics and Political Science
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Felipe Lobelo, Kaiser Permanente
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04579614
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- 1535959-1
- Status last verified
- Oct 2020
- First submitted
- 9 Sep 2020
- Last updated
- 8 Oct 2020
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 8 Oct 2020. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Performance Feedback in Health Care
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT04579614
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- 1535959-1
- Conditions
- Influenza
- Keywords
- Flu Vaccination Provision, Performance Feedback, Variable Goal Setting, Flu Vaccination Success Rate, Health Care Providers
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 595 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Kaiser PermanenteUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- London School of Economics and Political Science
- Study start
- 23 Sep 2019 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 31 Dec 2019 (actual)
- Study completion
- 31 Dec 2019 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Oct 2020 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The Southeast Permanente Medical Group (TSPMG) at Kaiser Permanente Georgia provides performance feedback to its providers. The performance feedback designs can vary and change over time in terms of targets, summary statistics, included measures, and frequency of delivery. The TSPMG health services research group seek to compare different performance feedback designs to identify which are most effective at contributing to performance improvement.
The research team will randomly assign providers into different performance feedback conditions, as specified in the protocol. Providers will receive performance feedback through the standard mechanism in which it is conveyed by their supervisor.
The objective is to investigate how to design performance feedback for providers to best motivate and support them in improving performance along with existing strategic priorities for care delivery.
The reserach team will test alternative designs of performance feedback that vary on the following dimension:
- targets for comparison of one's own performance
Detailed description
The Southeast Permanente Medical Group (TSPMG) provides performance feedback to its providers. The performance feedback designs can vary and change over time in terms of targets, summary statistics, included measures, and frequency of delivery. The TSPMG health services research team will seek to compare different performance feedback designs to identify which are most effective at contributing to performance improvement. .
The research team will randomly assign providers into different performance feedback conditions, as specified in the protocol. Providers will receive performance feedback through the standard mechanism in which it is conveyed by their supervisor.
The objective is to investigate how to design performance feedback for providers to best motivate and support them in improving performance along with existing strategic priorities for care delivery.
The research team will test alternative designs of performance feedback that vary on the following dimension:
- targets for comparison of one's own performance
The research team will provide feedback on performance by measures that the organization already tracks internally and uses for performance improvement. These include a provider's utilization of opportunities to provide flu vaccinations.
The study will randomly assign different designs of feedback to providers. In order to understand which designs of feedback have the best effects on performance, the research team will test the following hypotheses:
- Displaying the next-highest quartile will motivate improvement more than display of all quartiles. Theory: The next-highest quartile will serve as an injunctive norm, or suggested target, to repeatedly lift an individual's performance to the suggested level.
- The positive effect of displaying the next-highest quartile, relative to displaying all quartiles, will be most pronounced for initially low performers. Theory: The next highest quartile averts upward social comparison to a much higher level of peer performance, which can be discouraging and so negatively affect performance
- The positive effect of displaying the next-highest quartile, relative to displaying all quartiles, will diminish over time. Theory: Individuals may become worn out as they see a target ratchet higher when their performance improves.
- Displaying team relative performance along with individual relative performance will be more effective than displaying either type of information alone.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Health services research
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 3
- Model description
- Providers are randomized to receive one of three designs of performance feedback, related to their rate of successful flu vaccinations among total flu opportunities
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Organizational Target | Active comparator | Behavioral: The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of ProvidersProviders are shown the flu success performance rate of their team (a "pod," or group of providers who practice together), in comparison to their own, and with the organizational target. These updates and targets are sent bi-weekly. |
| Achievable Target | Experimental | Behavioral: The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of ProvidersProviders are shown the flu success performance rate of their team (a "pod," or group of providers who practice together), in comparison to their own. They will receive a static and achievable target based on their previous year's flu vaccination success rate. |
| Variable | Experimental | Behavioral: The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of ProvidersProviders are shown the flu success performance rate of their team (a "pod," or group of providers who practice together), in comparison to their own. They will receive a variable target that will fluctuate bi-weekly, based on their previous bi-weekly flu vaccination success rate. |
Who may qualify
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- A healthcare provider practicing at The Southeast Permanente Medical Group in a specialty for which the performance measure being studied is relevant.
- Physicians, Nurse Practitioner, Certified Nurse Midwife, Psych Nurse Specialist, Optometrist, Podiatrist, and Physician Assistant
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Non-Physicians: Registered Nurses excluding nurse practitioners
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of ProvidersA given provider will be involved in the study for a maximum of 6 months. This will involve, at the most frequent, the delivery of weekly performance feedback. The performance feedback will be delivered using standard approaches already in place in the organization and there will not be a period of seeking out participants for enrollment. Providers will receive performance feedback bi-weekly for the duration of the study period. | Behavioural | Achievable Target, Organizational Target, Variable |
Primary outcome
Flu Vaccination Administered During Encounter
Time frame: 10 Weeks
Whether or not the providers succeeded in administering flu vaccination during flu vaccination opportunity
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 8 Oct 2020.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Influenza
Not yet recruitingPhase 2/3
Evaluation of the Efficacy and Safety of 102D-6 in the Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Influenza
Influenza, Human
RecruitingPhase 2
COVID-19 Booster and IIV Schedule in Immunocompromised Hosts
COVID 19, Influenza
Not yet recruiting
Family Physician Nudges for Influenza Vaccination Among Older Adults
Influenza Vaccination
Recruiting
Light-based Immunomodulation for Guarding Against Human Respiratory Tract Infections
COVID-19 Respiratory Infection, Influenza
RecruitingPhase 2
BPL-1357 Against H1N1 Influenza Virus Challenge
Influenza, Human
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing The Impact of Performance Feedback and Variable Goal Setting on Flu Vaccination Success Rates of Providers in people with Influenza, run by Kaiser Permanente at 1 site in United States.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 8 Oct 2020. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in United States. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Flu Vaccination Administered During Encounter (time frame: 10 Weeks). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 8 Oct 2020.