Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28545535›Full record

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.

Wouter T Gude, Marie-José Roos-Blom, Sabine N van der Veer, Evert de Jonge, Niels Peek, Dave A Dongelmans, Nicolette F de Keizer

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT02922101 nacompletednot on this map

Increasing the Effectiveness and Understanding of Audit and Feedback Interventions in Intensive Care: Protocol for a Mixed-methods Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorAcademisch Medisch Centrum - Universiteit van Amsterdam (AMC-UvA)Ran2016 to 2018Enrolled21ConditionsPain Management, Critical Care, Quality ImprovementArmsAudit and Feedback, Toolbox
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Tailored interventions to address determinants of practice.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Wouter T GudeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. w.t.gude@amc.uva.nl.
Marie-José Roos-BlomDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sabine N van der VeerMRC Health eResearch Centre, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Evert de JongeNational Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Niels PeekMRC Health eResearch Centre, Division of Informatics, Imaging and Data Sciences, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Dave A DongelmansNational Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) foundation, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nicolette F de KeizerDepartment of Medical Informatics, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
University of Amsterdam · NLAcademic Medical Center · NLLeiden University Medical Center · NLManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/K006665/1
6 · The paper itself

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

FeedbackPractice Guidelines as TopicCritical CareHumansMedical AuditNetherlandsPain ManagementQuality ImprovementQuality Indicators, Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesFeedbackIntensive careMedical auditQuality improvementQuality indicatorsRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID28545535
PMCPMC5445355
OpenAlexW2618483475

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.