Cargando…

Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) enjoys widespread use, but often achieves only marginal improvements in care. Providing recipients of A&F with suggested actions to overcome barriers (action implementation toolbox) may increase effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of adding an...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Roos-Blom, Marie-José, Gude, Wouter T, de Jonge, Evert, Spijkstra, Jan Jaap, van der Veer, Sabine N, Peek, Niels, Dongelmans, Dave A, de Keizer, Nicolette F
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31263017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009588
_version_ 1783483350832381952
author Roos-Blom, Marie-José
Gude, Wouter T
de Jonge, Evert
Spijkstra, Jan Jaap
van der Veer, Sabine N
Peek, Niels
Dongelmans, Dave A
de Keizer, Nicolette F
author_facet Roos-Blom, Marie-José
Gude, Wouter T
de Jonge, Evert
Spijkstra, Jan Jaap
van der Veer, Sabine N
Peek, Niels
Dongelmans, Dave A
de Keizer, Nicolette F
author_sort Roos-Blom, Marie-José
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) enjoys widespread use, but often achieves only marginal improvements in care. Providing recipients of A&F with suggested actions to overcome barriers (action implementation toolbox) may increase effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of adding an action implementation toolbox to an electronic A&F intervention targeting quality of pain management in intensive care units (ICUs). TRIAL DESIGN: Two-armed cluster-randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was computer generated, with allocation concealment by a researcher, unaffiliated with the study. Investigators were not blinded to the group assignment of an ICU. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one Dutch ICUs and patients eligible for pain measurement. INTERVENTIONS: Feedback-only versus feedback with action implementation toolbox. OUTCOME: Proportion of patient-shift observations where pain management was adequate; composed by two process (measuring pain at least once per patient in each shift; re-measuring unacceptable pain scores within 1 hour) and two outcome indicators (acceptable pain scores; unacceptable pain scores normalised within 1 hour). RESULTS: 21 ICUs (feedback-only n=11; feedback-with-toolbox n=10) with a total of 253 530 patient-shift observations were analysed. We found absolute improvement on adequate pain management in the feedback-with-toolbox group (14.8%; 95% CI 14.0% to 15.5%) and the feedback-only group (4.8%; 95% CI 4.2% to 5.5%). Improvement was limited to the two process indicators. The feedback-with-toolbox group achieved larger effects than the feedback-only group both on the composite adequate pain management (p<0.05) and on measuring pain each shift (p<0.001). No important adverse effects have occurred. CONCLUSION: Feedback with toolbox improved the number of shifts where patients received adequate pain management compared with feedback alone, but only in process and not outcome indicators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02922101.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6934240
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69342402020-01-06 Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial Roos-Blom, Marie-José Gude, Wouter T de Jonge, Evert Spijkstra, Jan Jaap van der Veer, Sabine N Peek, Niels Dongelmans, Dave A de Keizer, Nicolette F BMJ Qual Saf Original Research BACKGROUND: Audit and feedback (A&F) enjoys widespread use, but often achieves only marginal improvements in care. Providing recipients of A&F with suggested actions to overcome barriers (action implementation toolbox) may increase effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of adding an action implementation toolbox to an electronic A&F intervention targeting quality of pain management in intensive care units (ICUs). TRIAL DESIGN: Two-armed cluster-randomised controlled trial. Randomisation was computer generated, with allocation concealment by a researcher, unaffiliated with the study. Investigators were not blinded to the group assignment of an ICU. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-one Dutch ICUs and patients eligible for pain measurement. INTERVENTIONS: Feedback-only versus feedback with action implementation toolbox. OUTCOME: Proportion of patient-shift observations where pain management was adequate; composed by two process (measuring pain at least once per patient in each shift; re-measuring unacceptable pain scores within 1 hour) and two outcome indicators (acceptable pain scores; unacceptable pain scores normalised within 1 hour). RESULTS: 21 ICUs (feedback-only n=11; feedback-with-toolbox n=10) with a total of 253 530 patient-shift observations were analysed. We found absolute improvement on adequate pain management in the feedback-with-toolbox group (14.8%; 95% CI 14.0% to 15.5%) and the feedback-only group (4.8%; 95% CI 4.2% to 5.5%). Improvement was limited to the two process indicators. The feedback-with-toolbox group achieved larger effects than the feedback-only group both on the composite adequate pain management (p<0.05) and on measuring pain each shift (p<0.001). No important adverse effects have occurred. CONCLUSION: Feedback with toolbox improved the number of shifts where patients received adequate pain management compared with feedback alone, but only in process and not outcome indicators. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02922101. BMJ Publishing Group 2019-12 2019-07-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6934240/ /pubmed/31263017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009588 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Original Research
Roos-Blom, Marie-José
Gude, Wouter T
de Jonge, Evert
Spijkstra, Jan Jaap
van der Veer, Sabine N
Peek, Niels
Dongelmans, Dave A
de Keizer, Nicolette F
Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
title Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
title_full Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
title_fullStr Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
title_full_unstemmed Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
title_short Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
title_sort impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving icu pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6934240/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31263017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009588
work_keys_str_mv AT roosblommariejose impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT gudewoutert impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT dejongeevert impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT spijkstrajanjaap impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT vanderveersabinen impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT peekniels impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT dongelmansdavea impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial
AT dekeizernicolettef impactofauditandfeedbackwithactionimplementationtoolboxonimprovingicupainmanagementclusterrandomisedcontrolledtrial