ArticleBMC health services research2005
What do we know about how to do audit and feedback? Pitfalls in applying evidence from a systematic review.
Article in BMC health services research, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04356274 (Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback), which is not on this map. Cited by 112 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Participatory System Dynamics vs Audit and Feedback: A Cluster Randomized Trial of Mechanisms of Implementation Change to Expand Reach of Evidence-based Addiction and Mental Health Care
Who cites it
112 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Understanding how and why audits work in improving the quality of hospital care: A systematic realist review.PloS one · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory (CP-FIT): a new theory for designing, implementing, and evaluating feedback in health care based on a systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research.Implementation science : IS · 2019Pooled it
- A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory.Implementation science : IS · 2017Pooled it
- Growing literature, stagnant science? Systematic review, meta-regression and cumulative analysis of audit and feedback interventions in health care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2014Pooled it
- Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2012Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A randomised fractional factorial screening experiment to predict effective features of audit and feedback.Implementation science : IS · 2022Trial
- Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Trial
- Implementation of the SMART MOVE intervention in primary care: a qualitative study using normalisation process theory.BMC family practice · 2018Trial
- Effect of audit and feedback with peer review on general practitioners' prescribing and test ordering performance: a cluster-randomized controlled trial.BMC family practice · 2017Trial
- Implementation of an audit with feedback knowledge translation intervention to promote medication error reporting in health care: a protocol.Implementation science : IS · 2015Trial
- Effective Feedback to Improve Primary Care Prescribing Safety (EFIPPS) a pragmatic three-arm cluster randomised trial: designing the intervention (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT01602705).Implementation science : IS · 2014Trial
- Key activities used by community based primary care practices to improve the quality of diabetes care in response to practice facilitation.Quality in primary care · 2014Trial
- Feedback GAP: pragmatic, cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care.Implementation science : IS · 2013Trial
- Evaluating the effectiveness of a tailored multifaceted performance feedback intervention to improve the quality of care: protocol for a cluster randomized trial in intensive care.Implementation science : IS · 2011Trial
- A hospital-site controlled intervention using audit and feedback to implement guidelines concerning inappropriate treatment of catheter-associated asymptomatic bacteriuria.Implementation science : IS · 2011Trial
- Developing and evaluating interventions to reduce inappropriate prescribing by general practitioners of antibiotics for upper respiratory tract infections: a randomised controlled trial to compare paper-based and web-based modelling experiments.Implementation science : IS · 2011Trial
- Randomized trial of enhanced profiling in substance abuse treatment.Administration and policy in mental health · 2011Trial
- Improving professional practice in the disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia: a modeling experiment to evaluate a theory-based intervention.International journal of behavioral medicine · 2009Trial
- The development of a theory-based intervention to promote appropriate disclosure of a diagnosis of dementia.BMC health services research · 2007Trial
52 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundImproving the quality of health care requires a range of evidence-based activities. Audit and feedback is commonly used as a quality improvement tool in the UK National Health Service [NHS]. We set out to assess whether current guidance and systematic review evidence can sufficiently inform practical decisions about how to use audit and feedback to improve quality of care.
methodsWe selected an important chronic disease encountered in primary care: diabetes mellitus. We identified recommendations from National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on conducting audit and generated questions which would be relevant to any attempt to operationalise audit and feedback in a healthcare service setting. We explored the extent to which a systematic review of audit and feedback could provide practical guidance about whether audit and feedback should be used to improve quality of diabetes care and, if so, how audit and feedback could be optimised.
resultsNational guidance suggests the importance of securing the right organisational conditions and processes. Review evidence suggests that audit and feedback can be effective in changing healthcare professional practice. However, the available evidence says relatively little about the detail of how to use audit and feedback most efficiently.
conclusionAudit and feedback will continue to be an unreliable approach to quality improvement until we learn how and when it works best. Conceptualising audit and feedback within a theoretical framework offers a way forward.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.