Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32560666›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2020

Audit and feedback to improve laboratory test and transfusion ordering in critical care: a systematic review.

Madison Foster, Justin Presseau, Nicola McCleary, Kelly Carroll, Lauralyn McIntyre, Brian Hutton, Jamie Brehaut

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. [Laboratory testing in intensive care medicine].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020
    Review
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 3 institutions in 1 country.

Madison FosterSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Justin PresseauSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Nicola McClearySchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Kelly CarrollOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, 501 Smyth Road, Centre for Practice Changing Research, Box 201B, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Lauralyn McIntyreSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Brian HuttonSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada.
Jamie BrehautSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, ON, K1H 8M5, Canada. jbrehaut@ohri.ca.
University of Ottawa · CAOttawa Hospital · CAOttawa Hospital Research Institute

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLaboratory tests and transfusions are sometimes ordered inappropriately, particularly in the critical care setting, which sees frequent use of both. Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a potentially useful intervention for modifying healthcare provider behaviors, but its application to the complex, team-based environment of critical care is not well understood. We conducted a systematic review of the literature on A&F interventions for improving test or transfusion ordering in the critical care setting.

methodsFive databases, two registries, and the bibliographies of relevant articles were searched. We included critical care studies that assessed the use of A&F targeting healthcare provider behaviors, alone or in combination with other interventions to improve test and transfusion ordering, as compared to historical practice, no intervention, or another healthcare behaviour change intervention. Studies were included only if they reported laboratory test or transfusion orders, or the appropriateness of orders, as outcomes. There were no restrictions based on study design, date of publication, or follow-up time. Intervention characteristics and absolute differences in outcomes were summarized. The quality of individual studies was assessed using a modified version of the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Cochrane Review Group's criteria.

resultsWe identified 16 studies, including 13 uncontrolled before-after studies, one randomized controlled trial, one controlled before-after study, and one controlled clinical trial (quasi-experimental). These studies described 17 interventions, mostly (88%) multifaceted interventions with an A&F component. Feedback was most often provided in a written format only (41%), more than once (53%), and most often only provided data aggregated to the group-level (41%). Most studies saw a change in the hypothesized direction, but not all studies provided statistical analyses to formally test improvement. Overall study quality was low, with studies often lacking a concurrent control group.

conclusionsOur review summarizes characteristics of A&F interventions implemented in the critical care context, points to some mechanisms by which A&F might be made more effective in this setting, and provides an overview of how the appropriateness of orders was reported. Our findings suggest that A&F can be effective in the context of critical care; however, further research is required to characterize approaches that optimize the effectiveness in this setting alongside more rigorous evaluation methods.

trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42016051941.

Indexed as

Formative FeedbackBlood TransfusionClinical AuditCritical CareHumansMedical OveruseAuditCritical CareFeedbackIntensive CareLaboratory UtilizationTest UseTransfusion

Identifiers

PMID32560666
PMCPMC7303577
OpenAlexW3036230392

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.