ArticlePloS one2014
Results from an audit feedback strategy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in-hospital care: a joint analysis from the AUDIPOC and European COPD audit studies.
Article in PloS one, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Strategies to reduce diagnostic errors: a systematic review.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Pooled it
- Improving dementia care: insights from audit and feedback in interdisciplinary primary care sites.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Sociodemographic and Clinical Variables Related to the Overburden of the Informal Caregivers of Patients Hospitalized for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Exacerbations.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2021Article
- National clinical audit for hospitalised exacerbations of COPD.ERJ open research · 2020Article
- Community Assessment of COPD Health Care (COACH) study: a clinical audit on primary care performance variability in COPD care.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Determinants of medical prescriptions for COPD care: an analysis of the EPOCONSUL clinical audit.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2018Observational
- Seasonal variability in clinical care of COPD outpatients: results from the Andalusian COPD audit.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2017Article
- Determinants for changing the treatment of COPD: a regression analysis from a clinical audit.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2016Article
- Guideline Adherence in Outpatient Clinics for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Results from a Clinical Audit.PloS one · 2016Article
- Clinical Audits in Outpatient Clinics for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Methodological Considerations and Workflow.PloS one · 2015Article
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
backgroundClinical audits have emerged as a potential tool to summarize the clinical performance of healthcare over a specified period of time. However, the effectiveness of audit and feedback has shown inconsistent results and the impact of audit and feedback on clinical performance has not been evaluated for COPD exacerbations. In the present study, we analyzed the results of two consecutive nationwide clinical audits performed in Spain to evaluate both the in-hospital clinical care provided and the feedback strategy.
methodsThe present study is an analysis of two clinical audits performed in Spain that evaluated the clinical care provided to COPD patients who were admitted to the hospital for a COPD exacerbation. The first audit was performed from November-December 2008. The feedback strategy consisted of personalized reports for each participant center, the presentation and discussion of the results at regional, national and international meetings and the creation of health-care quality standards for COPD. The second audit was part of a European study during January and February 2011. The impact of the feedback strategy was evaluated in term of clinical care provided and in-hospital survival.
resultsA total of 94 centers participated in the two audits, recruiting 8,143 admissions (audit 1∶3,493 and audit 2∶4,650). The initially provided clinical care was reasonably acceptable even though there was considerable variability. Several diagnostic and therapeutic procedures improved in the second audit. Although the differences were significant, the degree of improvement was small to moderate. We found no impact on in-hospital mortality.
conclusionsThe present study describes COPD hospital care in Spanish hospitals and evaluates the impact of peer-benchmarked, individually written and group-oral feedback strategy on the clinical outcomes for treating COPD exacerbations. It describes small to moderate improvements in the clinical care provided to COPD patients with no impact on in-hospital mortality.
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.