[Audit & Feedback: how it works.]

This article is the first of a series that aims to describe the Audit & Feedback (A&F) methodology. Some key elements focus on what A&F is and how it works. While it is an effective tool for promoting change in professional behaviour and improving the quality of care, there is still substantial uncertainty concerning how to implement A&F interventions to maximize its effects. The article explains how to design effective A&F on relevant issues, considering the available literature and direct experiences conducted in the National Health System (NHS). A&F interventions should aim to achieve clear, attainable, and evaluable objectives, which concern aspects of care for which there is solid evidence of literature and potential space for improvement. Based on data that measure any distance between what is expected and observed in local practice, the feedback must turn to those who can pursue the proposed change and who must trust the data collection and analysis process. Feedback should be provided more than once, in verbal and written form, and might include explicit objectives and an action plan. When planning A&F interventions, it is essential to provide specific data (e.g., aggregated at the level of a team, department, or individual doctor) rather than general, sending them directly to the professional or department involved rather than generically to the healthcare organization involved. In addition, it is essential to simplify the message so that the staff who receives the feedback can quickly understand the quality of the performance addressed and how to change it. Finally, it is necessary to encourage collaboration between the various healthcare professionals responsible for the quality of care and competence for improvement interventions (health professions, health management, quality expert personnel, and methodologists). Networking between staff improves the knowledge and effectiveness of A&F. This article finally proposes practical examples of two main aspects of A&F planning from the context of the EASY-NET program: how to increase the participation and involvement of the recipients of the intervention and the related pros and cons regarding the choice between the use of routinely available data from health information systems (SIS) and data collected ad hoc.