TY - JOUR
T1 - Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management
T2 - Cluster-randomised controlled trial
AU - Roos-Blom, Marie José
AU - Gude, Wouter T.
AU - De Jonge, Evert
AU - Spijkstra, Jan Jaap
AU - Van Der Veer, Sabine N.
AU - Peek, Niels
AU - Dongelmans, Dave A.
AU - De Keizer, Nicolette F.
PY - 2019/12/1
Y1 - 2019/12/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - action implementation toolbox
KW - dashboard
KW - feedback
KW - intensive care units
KW - pain
KW - quality improvement
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85068403556&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85068403556&origin=inward
UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31263017
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009588
DO - https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2019-009588
M3 - Article
C2 - 31263017
SN - 2044-5415
VL - 28
SP - 1007
EP - 1015
JO - BMJ Quality and Safety
JF - BMJ Quality and Safety
IS - 12
ER -