Effectiveness of Enhanced Performance Feedback on Appropriate Use of Blood Transfusions: A Comparison of 2 Cluster Randomized Trials.
Journal
JAMA network open
ISSN: 2574-3805
Titre abrégé: JAMA Netw Open
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101729235
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
01 02 2022
01 02 2022
Historique:
entrez:
24
2
2022
pubmed:
25
2
2022
medline:
8
3
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Auditing and feedback are frequently used to improve patient care. However, it remains unclear how to optimize feedback effectiveness for the appropriate use of treatments such as blood transfusion, a common but costly procedure that is more often overused than underused. To evaluate 2 theoretically informed feedback interventions to improve the appropriate use of blood transfusions. Two sequential, linked 2 × 2 cluster randomized trials were performed in hospitals in the UK participating in national audits of transfusion for perioperative anemia and management of hematological disorders. Data were collected for a surgical trial from October 1, 2014, to October 31, 2016, with follow-up completed on October 31, 2016. Data were collected for a hematological trial through follow-up from July 1, 2015, to June 30, 2017. Trial data were analyzed from November 1, 2016, to June 1, 2019. Hospitals were randomized to standard content or enhanced content to improve feedback clarity and usability and to standard support or enhanced support for staff to act on feedback. The primary end point was appropriateness of transfusions audited at 12 months. Secondary end points included volume of transfusions (aiming for reductions at patient and cluster levels) and transfusion-related adverse events and reactions. One hundred thirty-five of 152 eligible clusters participated in the surgical audit (2714 patients; mean [SD] age, 74.9 [14.0] years; 1809 women [66.7%]), and 134 of 141 participated in the hematological audit (4439 patients; median age, 72.0 [IQR, 64.0-80.0] years; 2641 men [59.5%]). Fifty-seven of 69 clusters (82.6%) in the surgical audit randomized to enhanced content downloaded reports compared with 52 of 66 clusters (78.8%) randomized to standard reports. Fifty-nine of 68 clusters (86.8%) randomized to enhanced support logged onto the toolkit. The proportion of patients with appropriate transfusions was 0.184 for standard content and 0.176 for enhanced content (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 0.91 [97.5% CI, 0.61-1.36]) and 0.181 for standard support and 0.180 for enhanced support (adjusted OR, 1.05 [97.5% CI, 0.68-1.61]). For the hematological audit, 53 of 66 clusters (80.3%) randomized to enhanced content downloaded the reports compared with 53 of 68 clusters (77.9%) randomized to standard content. Forty-nine of 67 clusters sites (73.1%) assigned to enhanced support logged into the toolkit at least once. The proportion of patients with appropriate transfusions was 0.744 for standard content and 0.714 for enhanced content (adjusted OR, 0.81 [97.5% CI, 0.56-1.12]), and 0.739 for standard support and 0.721 for enhanced support (adjusted OR, 0.96 [97.5% CI, 0.67-1.38]). This comparison of cluster randomized trials found that interventions to improve feedback usability and guide local action were no more effective than standard feedback in increasing the appropriate use of blood transfusions. Auditing and feedback delivered at scale is a complex and costly program; therefore, effective responses may depend on developing robust local quality improvement arrangements, which can be evaluated using rigorous experimental designs embedded within national programs. isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN15490813.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35201305
pii: 2789396
doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.0364
pmc: PMC8874348
doi:
Banques de données
ISRCTN
['ISRCTN15490813']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e220364Subventions
Organisme : Department of Health
ID : RP-PG-1210-12010
Pays : United Kingdom
Investigateurs
John Bird
(J)
Susan Michie
(S)
Liz Glidewell
(L)
Camilla During
(C)
Stephen McIntyre
(S)
Riya Patel
(R)
James Smith
(J)
Alison Deary
(A)
Michelle Collinson
(M)
Debbi Poles
(D)
Sue Cotton
(S)
Robert Cicero
(R)
Thomas Smith
(T)
Isabelle Smith
(I)
Ellen Mason
(E)
Zoe Craig
(Z)
Karla Diaz-Ordaz
(K)
Références
JAMA. 2019 Mar 12;321(10):983-997
pubmed: 30860564
N Engl J Med. 2019 Sep 19;381(12):1175-1179
pubmed: 31532967
JAMA. 2008 Mar 12;299(10):1182-4
pubmed: 18334694
PLoS One. 2018 Nov 1;13(11):e0206676
pubmed: 30383792
Implement Sci. 2014 Jul 29;9:92
pubmed: 25070404
Implement Sci. 2014 Jan 17;9:14
pubmed: 24438584
Implement Sci. 2016 Dec 12;11(1):163
pubmed: 27955683
BMJ. 2004 Feb 7;328(7435):343-5
pubmed: 14764503
Lancet. 2016 Aug 6;388(10044):547-8
pubmed: 27511773
BMJ. 2016 Feb 01;352:i154
pubmed: 26830458
Milbank Q. 1989;67(2):268-317
pubmed: 2698446
Implement Sci. 2019 Dec 5;14(1):102
pubmed: 31806037
Ann Intern Med. 2016 Mar 15;164(6):435-41
pubmed: 26903136
BMJ Qual Saf. 2019 May;28(5):416-423
pubmed: 30852557
BMJ. 2020 Feb 27;368:m213
pubmed: 32107249
BMJ. 2008 Sep 29;337:a1655
pubmed: 18824488
Soc Sci Med. 2010 May;70(10):1618-25
pubmed: 20207464
Clin Trials. 2004;1(3):315-25
pubmed: 16279257
BMJ. 2017 May 30;357:j2582
pubmed: 28559288
Am Heart J. 2018 Jun;200:96-101
pubmed: 29898855
BMJ. 2013 Jul 16;347:f4303
pubmed: 23861410
Implement Sci. 2017 Jul 3;12(1):84
pubmed: 28673310
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 13;(6):CD000259
pubmed: 22696318
BMJ. 2011 Feb 03;342:d195
pubmed: 21292719
Clin Trials. 2005;2(2):99-107
pubmed: 16279131
Health Psychol. 2004 Sep;23(5):443-51
pubmed: 15367063
Ann Intern Med. 2010 Feb 16;152(4):247-58
pubmed: 20157139
Lancet. 2019 Jun 1;393(10187):2213-2221
pubmed: 31030986