ArticleImplementation science : IS2017
Electronic audit and feedback intervention with action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care: protocol for a laboratory experiment and cluster randomised trial.
Article in Implementation science : IS, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02922101 (Increasing the Effectiveness and Understanding of Audit and Feedback Interventions in Intensive Care), which is not on this map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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.
Increasing the Effectiveness and Understanding of Audit and Feedback Interventions in Intensive Care: Protocol for a Mixed-methods Study
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026Pooled it
- How well do critical care audit and feedback interventions adhere to best practice? Development and application of the REFLECT-52 evaluation tool.Implementation science : IS · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of audit and feedback with action implementation toolbox on improving ICU pain management: cluster-randomised controlled trial.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Trial
- Health professionals' perceptions about their clinical performance and the influence of audit and feedback on their intentions to improve practice: a theory-based study in Dutch intensive care units.Implementation science : IS · 2018Trial
- Adaptation and implementation of a clinical protocol for pre-eclampsia with severe features and eclampsia in a teaching hospital in Ghana: a study protocol.Critical care science · 2026Article
- Using audit and feedback to guide tailored implementations of measurement-based care in community mental health: a multiple case study.Implementation science communications · 2023Article
- International comparison of variation in performance between hospitals for THA and TKA: Is it even possible? A systematic review including 33 studies and 8 arthroplasty register reports.EFORT open reviews · 2022Review
- Awareness of performance on outcomes after total hip and knee arthroplasty among Dutch orthopedic surgeons: how to improve feedback from arthroplasty registries.Acta orthopaedica · 2021Article
- Implementation of clinical practice changes in the PICU: a qualitative study using and refining the iPARIHS framework.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Facilitating action planning within audit and feedback interventions: a mixed-methods process evaluation of an action implementation toolbox in intensive care.Implementation science : IS · 2019Article
- Measurement without management: qualitative evaluation of a voluntary audit & feedback intervention for primary care teams.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- Reinvigorating stagnant science: implementation laboratories and a meta-laboratory to efficiently advance the science of audit and feedback.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Clinical performance comparators in audit and feedback: a review of theory and evidence.Implementation science : IS · 2019Review
- Development of a quality indicator set to measure and improve quality of ICU care for patients with traumatic brain injury.Critical care (London, England) · 2019Article
- Enhancing the Impact of Implementation Strategies in Healthcare: A Research Agenda.Frontiers in public health · 2019Article
- Article
- General practitioners' views and preferences about quality improvement feedback in preventive care: a cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.Implementation science : IS · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAudit and feedback is often used as a strategy to improve quality of care, however, its effects are variable and often marginal. In order to learn how to design and deliver effective feedback, we need to understand their mechanisms of action. This theory-informed study will investigate how electronic audit and feedback affects improvement intentions (i.e. information-intention gap), and whether an action implementation toolbox with suggested actions and materials helps translating those intentions into action (i.e. intention-behaviour gap). The study will be executed in Dutch intensive care units (ICUs) and will be focused on pain management. METHODS AND
designWe will conduct a laboratory experiment with individual ICU professionals to assess the impact of feedback on their intentions to improve practice. Next, we will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial with ICUs allocated to feedback without or feedback with action implementation toolbox group. Participants will not be told explicitly what aspect of the intervention is randomised; they will only be aware that there are two variations of providing feedback. ICUs are eligible for participation if they submit indicator data to the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) quality registry and agree to allocate a quality improvement team that spends 4 h per month on the intervention. All participating ICUs will receive access to an online quality dashboard that provides two functionalities: gaining insight into clinical performance on pain management indicators and developing action plans. ICUs with access to the toolbox can develop their action plans guided by a list of potential barriers in the care process, associated suggested actions, and supporting materials to facilitate implementation of the actions. The primary outcome measure for the laboratory experiment is the proportion of improvement intentions set by participants that are consistent with recommendations based on peer comparisons; for the randomised trial it is the proportion of patient shifts during which pain has been adequately managed. We will also conduct a process evaluation to understand how the intervention is implemented and used in clinical practice, and how implementation and use affect the intervention's impact. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will inform care providers and managers in ICU and other clinical settings how to use indicator-based performance feedback in conjunction with an action implementation toolbox to improve quality of care. Within the ICU context, this study will produce concrete and directly applicable knowledge with respect to what is or is not effective for improving pain management, and under which circumstances. The results will further guide future research that aims to understand the mechanisms behind audit and feedback and contribute to identifying the active ingredients of successful interventions.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922101 . Registered 26 September 2016.
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.