Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2010 Dec 17:5:98.
doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-98.

Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Noah M Ivers  1 , Karen Tu, Jill Francis, Jan Barnsley, Baiju Shah, Ross Upshur, Alex Kiss, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Merrick Zwarenstein
Affiliations

Feedback GAP: study protocol for a cluster-randomized trial of goal setting and action plans to increase the effectiveness of audit and feedback interventions in primary care

Noah M Ivers et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: Audit and feedback to physicians is commonly used alone or as part of multifaceted interventions. While it can play an important role in quality improvement, the optimal design of audit and feedback is unknown. This study explores how feedback can be improved to increase acceptability and usability in primary care. The trial seeks to determine whether a theory-informed worksheet appended to feedback reports can help family physicians improve quality of care for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease.

Methods: Two-arm cluster trial was conducted with participating primary care practices allocated using minimization to simple feedback or enhanced feedback group. The simple feedback group receives performance feedback reports every six months for two years regarding the proportion of their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease who are meeting quality targets. The enhanced feedback group receives these same reports as well as a theory-informed worksheet designed to facilitate goal setting and action plan development in response to the feedback reports. Participants are family physicians from across Ontario who use electronic medical records; data for rostered patients are used to produce the feedback reports and for analysis.

Outcomes: The primary disease outcomes are the blood pressure (BP), and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) levels. The primary process measure is a composite score indicating the number of recommended activities (e.g., tests and prescriptions) conducted by the family physicians for their patients with diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease within the appropriate timeframe. Secondary outcomes are the proportion of patients whose results meet targets for glucose, LDL, and BP as well as the percent of patients receiving relevant prescriptions. A qualitative process evaluation using semi-structured interviews will explore perceived barriers to behaviour change in response to feedback reports and preferences with regard to feedback design.

Analysis: Intention-to-treat approach will be used to analyze the trial. Analysis will be performed on patient-level variables using generalized estimating equation models to adjust for covariates and account for the clustered nature of the data. The trial is powered to show small, but clinically important differences of 7 mmHG in systolic BP and 0.32 mmol/L in LDL.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00996645.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Illustration of hypothesized role played by goal-setting and action-plan worksheet to promote increased effort to improve care.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial Design and Cluster-Patient Flow.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Ronnemaa T, Pyorala K, Laakso M. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998;339(4):229–234. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199807233390404. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Burge FI, Bower K, Putnam W, Cox JL. Quality indicators for cardiovascular primary care. Can J Cardiol. 2007;23(5):383–388. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Narayan KM, Benjamin E, Gregg EW, Norris SL, Engelgau MM. Diabetes translation research: where are we and where do we want to be? Ann Intern Med. 2004;140(11):958–963. - PubMed
    1. Davis D, Davis N. In: Knowledge Translation in Health Care - Moving from Evidence to Practice. Straus S, Tetroe J, Graham ID, editor. UK: Wiley-Blackwell; 2009. Educational Interventions; p. 116.
    1. Shojania KG, Ranji SR, McDonald KM, Grimshaw JM, Sundaram V, Rushakoff RJ, Owens DK. Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2006;296(4):427–440. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.4.427. - DOI - PubMed

Associated data