Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29104769›Full record

ArticleBMJ global health2017

Does audit and feedback improve the adoption of recommended practices? Evidence from a longitudinal observational study of an emerging clinical network in Kenya.

Susan Gachau, Philip Ayieko, David Gathara, Paul Mwaniki, Morris Ogero, Samuel Akech, Michuki Maina, Ambrose Agweyu, Jacquie Oliwa, Jacqiue Oliwa and 6 more

Erratum issuedAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ global health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Observational
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Susan GachauKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Philip AyiekoKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
David GatharaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Paul MwanikiKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Morris OgeroKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Samuel AkechKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Michuki MainaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Ambrose AgweyuKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Jacquie Oliwa
Jacqiue Oliwa *Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Thomas JuliusKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Lucas MallaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
James WafulaKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
George MbeviKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Grace IrimuKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.
Mike EnglishKenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI), Wellcome Trust Research Programme, Nairobi, Kenya.

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Audit and feedback (A&F) is widely used in healthcare but there are few examples of how to deploy it at scale in low-income countries. Establishing the Clinical Information Network (CIN) in Kenya provided an opportunity to examine the effect of A&F delivered as part of a wider set of activities to promote paediatric guideline adherence. Methods: We analysed data collected from medical records on discharge for children aged 2-59 months from 14 Kenyan hospitals in the CIN. Hospitals joined CIN in phases and for each we analysed their initial 25 months of participation that occurred between December 2013 and March 2016. A total of 34 indicators of adherence to recommendations were selected for evaluation each classified by form of feedback (passive, active and none) and type of task (simple or difficult documentation and those requiring cognitive work). Performance change was explored graphically and using generalised linear mixed models with attention given to the effects of time and use of a standardised paediatric admission record (PAR) form. Results: Data from 60 214 admissions were eligible for analysis. Adherence to recommendations across hospitals significantly improved for 24/34 indicators. Improvements were not obviously related to nature of feedback, may be related to task type and were related to PAR use in the case of documentation indicators. There was, however, marked variability in adoption and adherence to recommended practices across sites and indicators. Hospital-specific factors, low baseline performance and specific contextual changes appeared to influence the magnitude of change in specific cases. Conclusion: Our observational data suggest some change in multiple indicators of adherence to recommendations (aspects of quality of care) can be achieved in low-resource hospitals using A&F and simple job aides in the context of a wider network approach.

Indexed as

audit and feedbackperformance change.quality improvement indicators

Identifiers

PMID29104769
PMCPMC5663259

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.