Implementation of an audit with feedback knowledge translation intervention to promote medication error reporting in health care: a protocol

Using audit and feedback to guide tailored implementations of measurement-based care in community mental health: a multiple case study

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback (A&F) is an implementation strategy that can facilitate implementation tailoring by identifying gaps between desired and actual clinical care. While there are several theory-based propositions on which A&F components lead to better implementation outcomes, many have not been empirically investigated, and there is limited guidance for stakeholders when applying A&F in practice. The current study aims to illustrate A&F procedures in six community mental health clinics, with an emphasis on reporting A&F components that are relevant to theories of how feedback elicits behavior change.

METHODS

Six clinics from a larger trial using a tailored approach to implement measurement-based care (MBC) were analyzed for feedback content, delivery mechanisms, barriers to feedback, and outcomes of feedback using archival data. Pattern analysis was conducted to examine relations between A&F components and changes in MBC use.

RESULTS

Several sites utilized both aggregate and individualized data summaries, and data accuracy concerns were common. Feedback cycles featuring individual-level clinician data, data relevant to MBC barriers, and information requested by data recipients were related to patterns of increased MBC use.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings support extant theory, such as Feedback Intervention Theory. Mental health professionals wishing to apply A&F should consider establishing reciprocal feedback mechanisms on the quality and amount of data being received and adopting specific roles communicating and addressing data quality concerns.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02266134.

Interventions targeted at reducing diagnostic error: systematic review

BACKGROUND

Incorrect, delayed and missed diagnoses can contribute to significant adverse health outcomes. Intervention options have proliferated in recent years necessitating an update to McDonald et al's 2013 systematic review of interventions to reduce diagnostic error.

OBJECTIVES

(1) To describe the types of published interventions for reducing diagnostic error that have been evaluated in terms of an objective patient outcome; (2) to assess the risk of bias in the included interventions and perform a sensitivity analysis of the findings; and (3) to determine the effectiveness of included interventions with respect to their intervention type.

METHODS

MEDLINE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from 1 January 2012 to 31 December 2019. Publications were included if they delivered patient-related outcomes relating to diagnostic accuracy, management outcomes and/or morbidity and mortality. The interventions in each included study were categorised and analysed using the six intervention types described by McDonald et al (technique, technology-based system interventions, educational interventions, personnel changes, structured process changes and additional review methods).

RESULTS

Twenty studies met the inclusion criteria. Eighteen of the 20 included studies (including three randomised controlled trials (RCTs)) demonstrated improvements in objective patient outcomes following the intervention. These three RCTs individually evaluated a technique-based intervention, a technology-based system intervention and a structured process change. The inclusion or exclusion of two higher risk of bias studies did not affect the results.

CONCLUSION

Technique-based interventions, technology-based system interventions and structured process changes have been the most studied interventions over the time period of this review and hence are seen to be effective in reducing diagnostic error. However, more high-quality RCTs are required, particularly evaluating educational interventions and personnel changes, to demonstrate the value of these interventions in diverse settings.

Impact of an educational intervention on WHO surgical safety checklist and pre-operative antibiotic use at a referral hospital in southwestern Uganda

INTRODUCTION

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends adherence to its surgical safety checklist (SSC) to optimize patient safety and reduce cesarean surgical site infection (SSI). Educational interventions combined with audit and feedback mechanisms on the checklist use by clinicians have the potential to improve adherence and clinical outcomes. Despite the increase in cesarean delivery rates, there is a paucity of data on how such interventions can improve adherence in resource-limited settings.

OBJECTIVE

We performed a quality improvement project to measure the impact of an educational intervention with daily audit and feedback procedures on rates of WHO SSC adherence, including pre-operative antibiotic administration and SSI at Mbarara Regional Referral Hospital maternity ward in Uganda.

METHODS

The study involved chart abstraction of WHO SSC and pre-operative antibiotic use during cesarean deliveries and signs of subsequent SSI in three phases. First, we conducted a retrospective review of all charts from May to June 2018 (pre-intervention phase). Second, we instituted an educational intervention on the WHO SSC and pre-operative antibiotics use, followed by a daily audit of charts and feedback to clinicians from July to August 2018 (the intervention phase). Third, we reviewed charts from September to October 2018 (the post-intervention phase). The WHO SSC adherence, pre-operative antibiotic administration and SSI rates were measured as the proportion of the total cesarean deliveries per study phase and then compared across the three phases.

RESULTS

We reviewed 678 patients' charts (200 in the pre-intervention phase, 230 in the intervention phase and 248 in the post-intervention phase). The mean patient age was 25 years. The use of the WHO SSC was 7% in the pre-intervention phase compared to 92% in the intervention phase (P < 0.001), and 77% in the post-intervention phase (P < 0.001). Pre-intervention antibiotic receipt was 18% compared to 90% in the intervention phase (P < 0.001) and 84% in the post-intervention phase (P < 0.001). The documented SSI rate in the pre-intervention phase was 15% compared to 7% in the intervention phase (P = 0.02) and 11% in the post-intervention phase (P = 0.20).

CONCLUSIONS

An educational intervention, daily audit and feedback to clinicians increased the use of the WHO SSC and prophylactic antibiotics for cesarean delivery-although the rates waned with time. Research to understand factors influencing the checklist use and antibiotic prophylaxis including prescriber knowledge, motivation and clinical process is required. Implementation interventions to sustain usage and impact on clinical outcomes need to be explored.

Use of an audit with feedback implementation strategy to promote medication error reporting by nurses

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To outline the development and effect of an audit with feedback implementation strategy that intended to increase the rate of voluntary medication error reporting by nurses.

BACKGROUND

Medication errors are a serious global health issue. Audit with feedback is a widely used implementation strategy that has potential to modify nurses' reporting behaviour and improve medication error reporting rates.

DESIGN

Quasi-experimental implementation study (fulfilling the TIDieR checklist) with two pairs of matched wards at a private hospital in Australia was conducted from March 2015-September 2016. One ward from each pair was randomised to either the intervention or control group.

METHOD

Nurses within intervention wards received audit with feedback on a quarterly basis over a 12-month implementation period. Control wards underwent quarterly audits only (without feedback). Feedback consisted of a one-page infographic poster, with content based on medication error data obtained from audits and the hospitals' risk management system (RiskMan). The primary outcome-rate of medication errors reported per month-was determined in both groups at pre-implementation, implementation and postimplementation phases. Differences between groups were compared using generalised linear mixed models with Poisson distribution and log link.

RESULTS

A nonsignificant intervention effect was found for rate of medication errors reported per month. Interestingly, when combining data from both groups, a significant increasing time trend was observed for medication errors reported per month across pre-implementation and implementation phases (80% increase).

CONCLUSIONS

The audit with feedback strategy developed in the present study did not effectively influence the voluntary reporting of medication errors by nurses.

RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE

Despite the lack of intervention effects, the use of a published checklist to optimise the reporting quality of this study will contribute to the field by furthering the understanding of how to enhance audit with feedback implementation strategies for nurses.

Ethical leadership, nursing error and error reporting from the nurses’ perspective

Background:

Nursing errors endanger patient safety, and error reporting helps identify errors and system vulnerabilities. Nursing managers play a key role in preventing nursing errors by using leadership skills. One of the leadership approaches is ethical leadership.

Aim:

This study determined the level of ethical leadership from the nurses’ perspective and its effect on nursing error and error reporting in teaching hospitals affiliated to Shahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences, Yazd, Iran.

Research design:

This was a cross-sectional descriptive study.

Participants and research context:

A total of 171 nurses working in medical-surgical wards were selected through random sampling. Data collection was carried out using “ethical leadership in nursing, nursing errors and error reporting” questionnaires. Data were analyzed with SPSS20 using descriptive and analytical statistics.

Ethical considerations:

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee for Medical Research. Ethical considerations such as completing informed consent form, ensuring confidentiality of information, explaining research objectives, and voluntary participation were observed in the present study.

Findings:

The results showed that the level of nursing managers’ ethical leadership was moderate from the nurses’ point of view. The highest and the lowest levels were related to the power-sharing and task-oriented dimensions, respectively. There was a significant relationship between nursing managers’ level of ethical leadership with error rates and error reporting.

Conclusion:

The development of ethical leadership approach in nursing managers reduces error rate and increases error reporting. Programs designed to promote such approach in nursing managers at all levels can help reduce the level of error rate and maintain patient safety.

Canonical correlations between individual self-efficacy/organizational bottom-up approach and perceived barriers to reporting medication errors: a multicenter study

Background

Individual and organizational factors correlate with perceived barriers to error reporting. Understanding medication administration errors (MAEs) reduces confusion about error definitions, raises perceptions of MAEs, and allows healthcare providers to report perceived and identified errors more frequently. Therefore, an emphasis must be placed on medication competence, including medication administration knowledge and decision-making. It can be helpful to utilize an organizational approach, such as collaboration between nurses and physicians, but this type of approach is difficult to establish and maintain because patient-safety culture starts at the highest levels of the healthcare organization. This study aimed to examine the canonical correlations of an individual self-efficacy/bottom-up organizational approach variable set with perceived barriers to reporting MAEs among nurses.

Methods

We surveyed 218 staff nurses in Korea. The measurement tools included a questionnaire on knowledge of high-alert medication, nursing decision-making, nurse-physician collaboration satisfaction, and barriers to reporting MAEs. Descriptive statistics, t-tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), Pearson’s correlation coefficient, and canonical correlations were used to analyze results.

Results

Two canonical variables were significant. The first variate indicated that less knowledge about medication administration (− 0.83) and a higher perception of nurse-physician collaboration (0.42) were related to higher disagreement over medication error (0.64). The second variate showed that intuitive clinical decision-making (− 0.57) and a higher perception of nurse-physician collaboration (0.84) were related to lower perceived barriers to reporting MAEs.

Conclusions

Enhancing positive collaboration among healthcare professionals and promoting analytic decision-making supported by sufficient knowledge could facilitate MAE reporting by nurses. In the clinical phase, providing medication administration education and improving collaboration may reduce disagreement about the occurrence of errors and facilitate MAE reporting. In the policy phase, developing an evidence-based reporting system that informs analytic decision-making may reduce the perceived barriers to MAE reporting.

A systematic review of electronic audit and feedback: intervention effectiveness and use of behaviour change theory

BACKGROUND

Audit and feedback is a common intervention for supporting clinical behaviour change. Increasingly, health data are available in electronic format. Yet, little is known regarding if and how electronic audit and feedback (e-A&F) improves quality of care in practice.

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to assess the effectiveness of e-A&F interventions in a primary care and hospital context and to identify theoretical mechanisms of behaviour change underlying these interventions.

METHODS

In August 2016, we searched five electronic databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE via Ovid, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for published randomised controlled trials. We included studies that evaluated e-A&F interventions, defined as a summary of clinical performance delivered through an interactive computer interface to healthcare providers. Data on feedback characteristics, underlying theoretical domains, effect size and risk of bias were extracted by two independent review authors, who determined the domains within the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). We performed a meta-analysis of e-A&F effectiveness, and a narrative analysis of the nature and patterns of TDF domains and potential links with the intervention effect.

RESULTS

We included seven studies comprising of 81,700 patients being cared for by 329 healthcare professionals/primary care facilities. Given the extremely high heterogeneity of the e-A&F interventions and five studies having a medium or high risk of bias, the average effect was deemed unreliable. Only two studies explicitly used theory to guide intervention design. The most frequent theoretical domains targeted by the e-A&F interventions included 'knowledge', 'social influences', 'goals' and 'behaviour regulation', with each intervention targeting a combination of at least three. None of the interventions addressed the domains 'social/professional role and identity' or 'emotion'. Analyses identified the number of different domains coded in control arm to have the biggest role in heterogeneity in e-A&F effect size.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the high heterogeneity of identified studies, the effects of e-A&F were found to be highly variable. Additionally, e-A&F interventions tend to implicitly target only a fraction of known theoretical domains, even after omitting domains presumed not to be linked to e-A&F. Also, little evaluation of comparative effectiveness across trial arms was conducted. Future research should seek to further unpack the theoretical domains essential for effective e-A&F in order to better support strategic individual and team goals.