ArticleInternational journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care2026
Development and early implementation of automated audit and feedback monitoring instruments in Belgian primary care: lessons for scalable systems.
Article in International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundElectronic health records (EHRs) can potentially revolutionize primary care by enhancing data storage, -communication, and quality measure reporting. The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the adoption of digital tools in Belgium, highlighting the potential of EHR data in audit and feedback (A&F) strategies. This study aims to outline the design and national implementation process of automated A&F monitoring instruments (locally known as barometers), in Belgian -primary care.
methodsUsing Clinical Performance Feedback Intervention Theory, we developed three monitoring instruments for primary care: COVID-19 vaccination coverage, type 2 diabetes management, and appropriate antibiotic use. Quality indicators were selected at the national level using a Rand-modified Delphi method and validated by the Flemish Institute for Quality of Health Care (VIKZ). Data were collected from general practitioners' EHR systems, aggregated at the practice level, and analyzed using the Healthdata.be platform. Feedback was provided through the Healthstat.be interface, incorporating local and regional benchmarks and evidence-based recommendations.
resultsThe COVID-19 vaccination monitoring instrument included 5223 GPs from 2269 practices, the type 2 diabetes monitoring instrument involved 9373 GPs from 3596 practices, and the antibiotics monitoring instrument covered 10 486 GPs from 3724 practices. These monitoring instruments collectively covered approximately eight million patients. Feedback reports were designed to be low in cognitive load, frequent, and benchmarked against the best-performing decile of practices. Integration of active, in-EHR delivery and formal evaluation of use are planned for future phases.
conclusionThe implementation of automated A&F instruments in Belgian primary care demonstrated the feasibility and scalability of such systems. These monitoring instruments can provide valuable insights for quality improvement and support the transition toward a Learning Health System. Future work will focus on expanding the range of monitoring instruments and integrating active feedback mechanisms within EHR systems.
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.