The effect of electronic audits and feedback in primary care and factors that contribute to their effectiveness: a systematic review.

clinical audit computerized medical records systems primary health care quality of healthcare systematic review

Journal

International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care
ISSN: 1464-3677
Titre abrégé: Int J Qual Health Care
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9434628

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
15 Dec 2020
Historique:
received: 17 04 2020
revised: 21 09 2020
accepted: 06 10 2020
pubmed: 16 10 2020
medline: 29 7 2021
entrez: 15 10 2020
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

The aim of this systematic review was (i) to assess whether electronic audit and feedback (A&F) is effective in primary care and (ii) to evaluate important features concerning content and delivery of the feedback in primary care, including the use of benchmarks, the frequency of feedback, the cognitive load of feedback and the evidence-based aspects of the feedback. The MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and CENTRAL databases were searched for articles published since 2010 by replicating the search strategy used in the last Cochrane review on A&F. Two independent reviewers assessed the records for their eligibility, performed the data extraction and evaluated the risk of bias. Our search resulted in 8744 records, including the 140 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the last Cochrane Review. The full texts of 431 articles were assessed to determine their eligibility. Finally, 29 articles were included. Two independent reviewers extracted standard data, data on the effectiveness and outcomes of the interventions, data on the kind of electronic feedback (static versus interactive) and data on the aforementioned feedback features. Twenty-two studies (76%) showed that electronic A&F was effective. All interventions targeting medication safety, preventive medicine, cholesterol management and depression showed an effect. Approximately 70% of the included studies used benchmarks and high-quality evidence in the content of the feedback. In almost half of the studies, the cognitive load of feedback was not reported. Due to high heterogeneity in the results, no meta-analysis was performed. This systematic review included 29 articles examining electronic A&F interventions in primary care, and 76% of the interventions were effective. Our findings suggest electronic A&F is effective in primary care for different conditions such as medication safety and preventive medicine. Some of the benefits of electronic A&F include its scalability and the potential to be cost effective. The use of benchmarks as comparators and feedback based on high-quality evidence are widely used and important features of electronic feedback in primary care. However, other important features such as the cognitive load of feedback and the frequency of feedback provision are poorly described in the design of many electronic A&F intervention, indicating that a better description or implementation of these features is needed. Developing a framework or methodology for automated A&F interventions in primary care could be useful for future research.

Identifiants

pubmed: 33057648
pii: 5924355
doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzaa128
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Systematic Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

708-720

Informations de copyright

© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of International Society for Quality in Health Care. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Auteurs

Steve Van Den Bulck (S)

Academic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

David Spitaels (D)

Academic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Bert Vaes (B)

Academic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Geert Goderis (G)

Academic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Rosella Hermens (R)

Academic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.
Scientific Institute for Quality of Healthcare (IQ Healthcare), Radboud Institute for Health Science (RIHS), Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud University Nijmegen, PO Box 9101, Nijmegen, 6500, HB, The Netherlands.

Patrik Vankrunkelsven (P)

Academic Center for General Practice, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 33, blok J, 3000, Leuven, Belgium.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH