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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Dec 9;11(1):160.
doi: 10.1186/s13012-016-0516-1.

Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation

Wouter T Gude  1 , Mariëtte M van Engen-Verheul  2 , Sabine N van der Veer  3 , Hareld M C Kemps  4 , Monique W M Jaspers  2 , Nicolette F de Keizer  2 , Niels Peek  3
Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of a web-based audit and feedback intervention with outreach visits on the clinical performance of multidisciplinary teams: a cluster-randomized trial in cardiac rehabilitation

Wouter T Gude et al. Implement Sci. .

Abstract

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the effect of a web-based audit and feedback (A&F) intervention with outreach visits to support decision-making by multidisciplinary teams.

Methods: We performed a multicentre cluster-randomized trial within the field of comprehensive cardiac rehabilitation (CR) in the Netherlands. Our participants were multidisciplinary teams in Dutch CR centres who were enrolled in the study between July 2012 and December 2013 and received the intervention for at least 1 year. The intervention included web-based A&F with feedback on clinical performance, facilities for goal setting and action planning, and educational outreach visits. Teams were randomized either to receive feedback that was limited to psychosocial rehabilitation (study group A) or to physical rehabilitation (study group B). The main outcome measure was the difference in performance between study groups in 11 care processes and six patient outcomes, measured at patient level. Secondary outcomes included effects on guideline concordance for the four main CR therapies.

Results: Data from 18 centres (14,847 patients) were analysed, of which 12 centres (9353 patients) were assigned to group A and six (5494 patients) to group B. During the intervention, a total of 233 quality improvement goals was identified by participating teams, of which 49 (21%) were achieved during the study period. Except for a modest improvement in data completeness (4.5% improvement per year; 95% CI 0.65 to 8.36), we found no effect of our intervention on any of our primary or secondary outcome measures.

Conclusions: Within a multidisciplinary setting, our web-based A&F intervention engaged teams to define local performance improvement goals but failed to support them in actually completing the improvement actions that were needed to achieve those goals. Future research should focus on improving the actionability of feedback on clinical performance and on addressing the socio-technical perspective of the implementation process.

Trial registration: NTR3251.

Keywords: Cardiac rehabilitation; Feedback; Guideline adherence; Health care; Quality improvement; Quality indicators.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Example feedback report for a centre in study group A. Group A received feedback on performance in the psychosocial rehabilitation (indicators 1 through 8) and on general processes (indicators 18 through 21) and structures (indicators 22 through 26). The indicator scores in this report are fictitious but representative for the scores seen in real reports. Abbreviations: CR cardiac rehabilitation, GP general practitioner
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Flow of centres through the trial
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Wolff JL, Starfield B, Anderson G. Prevalence, expenditures, and complications of multiple chronic conditions in the elderly. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(20):2269–76. doi: 10.1001/archinte.162.20.2269. - DOI - PubMed
    1. van Oostrom SH, Picavet HS, van Gelder BM, Lemmens LC, Hoeymans N, van Dijk CE, et al. Multimorbidity and comorbidity in the Dutch population—data from general practices. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:715. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-715. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Friedman C, Rubin J, Brown J, Buntin M, Corn M, Etheredge L, et al. Toward a science of learning systems: a research agenda for the high-functioning Learning Health System. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2015;22(1):43–50. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Papadakis S, Oldridge NB, Coyle D, Mayhew A, Reid RD, Beaton L, et al. Economic evaluation of cardiac rehabilitation: a systematic review. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2005;12(6):513–20. doi: 10.1097/00149831-200512000-00001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Piepoli MF, Corra U, Adamopoulos S, Benzer W, Bjarnason-Wehrens B, Cupples M, et al. Secondary prevention in the clinical management of patients with cardiovascular diseases. Core components, standards and outcome measures for referral and delivery: a policy statement from the cardiac rehabilitation section of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation. Endorsed by the Committee for Practice Guidelines of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2014;21(6):664–81. doi: 10.1177/2047487312449597. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data