Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32912323›Full record

Trial reportImplementation science : IS2020

Comparing effects of two higher intensity feedback interventions with simple feedback on improving staff communication in nursing homes-the INFORM cluster-randomized controlled trial.

Matthias Hoben, Liane R Ginsburg, Adam Easterbrook, Peter G Norton, Ruth A Anderson, Elizabeth A Andersen, Anne-Marie Boström, Lisa A Cranley, Holly J Lanham, Lori E Weeks and 5 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialPragmatic Clinical Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Implementation science : IS, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02695836 (Improving Nursing Home Care Through Feedback On PerfoRMance Data), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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.

NCT02695836 nacompletednot on this map

Improving Nursing Home Care Through Feedback On PerfoRMance Data (INFORM)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of AlbertaRan2016 to 2019Enrolled119ConditionsOrganizational ContextArmsInitial face-to-face dissemination workshop, Face-to-face goal setting workshop, Virtual support workshops, Face-to-face support workshops, On-demand email and telephone support
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

15 authors at 10 institutions in 3 countries.

Matthias HobenFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada. mhoben@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-3465-315X
Liane R GinsburgSchool of Health Policy & Management, Faculty of Health, York University, Toronto, Ontario, M3J 1P3, Canada.
Adam EasterbrookFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Peter G NortonCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4 N1, Canada.
Ruth A AndersonSchool of Nursing, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599-7460, USA.
Elizabeth A AndersenSchool of Nursing, Thompson Rivers University, Kamloops, British Columbia, V2C 0C8, Canada.
Anne-Marie BoströmDivision of Nursing, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet, Huddinge, SE-104 35, Stockholm, Sweden.
Lisa A CranleyLawrence S Bloomberg Faculty of Nursing, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, M5T 1P8, Canada.
Holly J LanhamUniversity of Texas Health Science Center San Antonio, University of Texas, San Antonio, TX, 78229, USA.
Lori E WeeksSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, B3H 4R2, Canada.
Greta G CummingsFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
Jayna M Holroyd-LeducCumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, T2N 4 N1, Canada.
Janet E SquiresSchool of Nursing, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8 M5, Canada.
Adrian S WaggDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine & Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 2P4, Canada.
Carole A EstabrooksFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, 11405 87 Avenue, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.
University of Alberta · CAUniversity of Calgary · CADalhousie University · CAKarolinska Institutet · SEThe University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio · USThompson Rivers University · CAUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · USUniversity of Ottawa · CAUniversity of Toronto · CAYork University · CA

Funding

CIHR 341532
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEffective communication among interdisciplinary healthcare teams is essential for quality healthcare, especially in nursing homes (NHs). Care aides provide most direct care in NHs, yet are rarely included in formal communications about resident care (e.g., change of shift reports, family conferences). Audit and feedback is a potentially effective improvement intervention. This study compares the effect of simple and two higher intensity levels of feedback based on goal-setting theory on improving formal staff communication in NHs.

methodsThis pragmatic three-arm parallel cluster-randomized controlled trial included NHs participating in TREC (translating research in elder care) across the Canadian provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Facilities with at least one care unit with 10 or more care aide responses on the TREC baseline survey were eligible. At baseline, 4641 care aides and 1693 nurses cared for 8766 residents in 67 eligible NHs. NHs were randomly allocated to a simple (control) group (22 homes, 60 care units) or one of two higher intensity feedback intervention groups (based on goal-setting theory): basic assisted feedback (22 homes, 69 care units) and enhanced assisted feedback 2 (23 homes, 72 care units). Our primary outcome was the amount of formal communication about resident care that involved care aides, measured by the Alberta Context Tool and presented as adjusted mean differences [95% confidence interval] between study arms at 12-month follow-up.

resultsBaseline and follow-up data were available for 20 homes (57 care units, 751 care aides, 2428 residents) in the control group, 19 homes (61 care units, 836 care aides, 2387 residents) in the basic group, and 14 homes (45 care units, 615 care aides, 1584 residents) in the enhanced group. Compared to simple feedback, care aide involvement in formal communications at follow-up was 0.17 points higher in both the basic ([0.03; 0.32], p = 0.021) and enhanced groups ([0.01; 0.33], p = 0.035). We found no difference in this outcome between the two higher intensity groups.

conclusionsTheoretically informed feedback was superior to simple feedback in improving care aides' involvement in formal communications about resident care. This underlines that prior estimates for efficacy of audit and feedback may be constrained by the type of feedback intervention tested.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02695836 ), registered on March 1, 2016.

Indexed as

Nursing HomesQuality of Health CareAgedAlbertaCommunicationFeedbackHumansAudit and feedbackCare aidesFormal communicationNursing homesQuality improvementRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID32912323
PMCPMC7488270
OpenAlexW3084185291

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.