Cargando…

Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is more effective if it facilitates action planning, but little is known about how best to do this. We developed an electronic A&F intervention with an action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care units (ICUs); the toolbox co...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gude, Wouter T., Roos-Blom, Marie-José, van der Veer, Sabine N., Dongelmans, Dave A., de Jonge, Evert, Peek, Niels, de Keizer, Nicolette F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31533841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0937-8
_version_ 1783452658976161792
author Gude, Wouter T.
Roos-Blom, Marie-José
van der Veer, Sabine N.
Dongelmans, Dave A.
de Jonge, Evert
Peek, Niels
de Keizer, Nicolette F.
author_facet Gude, Wouter T.
Roos-Blom, Marie-José
van der Veer, Sabine N.
Dongelmans, Dave A.
de Jonge, Evert
Peek, Niels
de Keizer, Nicolette F.
author_sort Gude, Wouter T.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is more effective if it facilitates action planning, but little is known about how best to do this. We developed an electronic A&F intervention with an action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care units (ICUs); the toolbox contained suggested actions for improvement. A head-to-head randomised trial demonstrated that the toolbox moderately increased the intervention’s effectiveness when compared with A&F only. OBJECTIVE: To understand the mechanisms through which A&F with action implementation toolbox facilitates action planning by ICUs to increase A&F effectiveness. METHODS: We extracted all individual actions from action plans developed by ICUs that received A&F with (n = 10) and without (n = 11) toolbox for 6 months and classified them using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We held semi-structured interviews with participants during the trial. We compared the number and type of planned and completed actions between study groups and explored barriers and facilitators to effective action planning. RESULTS: ICUs with toolbox planned more actions directly aimed at improving practice (p = 0.037) and targeted a wider range of practice determinants compared to ICUs without toolbox. ICUs with toolbox also completed more actions during the study period, but not significantly (p = 0.142). ICUs without toolbox reported more difficulties in identifying what actions they could take. Regardless of the toolbox, all ICUs still experienced barriers relating to the feedback (low controllability, accuracy) and organisational context (competing priorities, resources, cost). CONCLUSIONS: The toolbox helped health professionals to broaden their mindset about actions they could take to change clinical practice. Without the toolbox, professionals tended to focus more on feedback verification and exploring solutions without developing intentions for actual change. All feedback recipients experienced organisational barriers that inhibited eventual completion of actions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02922101. Registered on 26 September 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0937-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6751678
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-67516782019-09-23 Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care Gude, Wouter T. Roos-Blom, Marie-José van der Veer, Sabine N. Dongelmans, Dave A. de Jonge, Evert Peek, Niels de Keizer, Nicolette F. Implement Sci Research BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) is more effective if it facilitates action planning, but little is known about how best to do this. We developed an electronic A&F intervention with an action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care units (ICUs); the toolbox contained suggested actions for improvement. A head-to-head randomised trial demonstrated that the toolbox moderately increased the intervention’s effectiveness when compared with A&F only. OBJECTIVE: To understand the mechanisms through which A&F with action implementation toolbox facilitates action planning by ICUs to increase A&F effectiveness. METHODS: We extracted all individual actions from action plans developed by ICUs that received A&F with (n = 10) and without (n = 11) toolbox for 6 months and classified them using Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory. We held semi-structured interviews with participants during the trial. We compared the number and type of planned and completed actions between study groups and explored barriers and facilitators to effective action planning. RESULTS: ICUs with toolbox planned more actions directly aimed at improving practice (p = 0.037) and targeted a wider range of practice determinants compared to ICUs without toolbox. ICUs with toolbox also completed more actions during the study period, but not significantly (p = 0.142). ICUs without toolbox reported more difficulties in identifying what actions they could take. Regardless of the toolbox, all ICUs still experienced barriers relating to the feedback (low controllability, accuracy) and organisational context (competing priorities, resources, cost). CONCLUSIONS: The toolbox helped health professionals to broaden their mindset about actions they could take to change clinical practice. Without the toolbox, professionals tended to focus more on feedback verification and exploring solutions without developing intentions for actual change. All feedback recipients experienced organisational barriers that inhibited eventual completion of actions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02922101. Registered on 26 September 2016. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-019-0937-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-09-18 /pmc/articles/PMC6751678/ /pubmed/31533841 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0937-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Gude, Wouter T.
Roos-Blom, Marie-José
van der Veer, Sabine N.
Dongelmans, Dave A.
de Jonge, Evert
Peek, Niels
de Keizer, Nicolette F.
Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
title Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
title_full Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
title_fullStr Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
title_full_unstemmed Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
title_short Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
title_sort facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6751678/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31533841
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0937-8
work_keys_str_mv AT gudewoutert facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare
AT roosblommariejose facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare
AT vanderveersabinen facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare
AT dongelmansdavea facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare
AT dejongeevert facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare
AT peekniels facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare
AT dekeizernicolettef facilitatingactionplanningwithinauditandfeedbackinterventionsamixedmethodsprocessevaluationofanactionimplementationtoolboxinintensivecare