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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |