Background Audit and feedback continues to be widely used as a strategy to improve professional practice. It appears logical that healthcare professionals would be prompted to modify their practice if given feedback that their clinical practice was inconsistent with that of their peers or accepted guidelines. Yet, audit and feedback has not been found to be consistently effective. Objectives To assess the effects of audit and feedback on the practice of healthcare professionals and patient outcomes. Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group's register up to January 2001. This was supplemented with searches of MEDLINE and reference lists, which did not yield additional relevant studies. Selection criteria Randomised trials of audit and feedback (defined as any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time) that reported objectively measured professional practice in a healthcare setting or healthcare outcomes. Data collection and analysis Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed study quality. Quantitative (meta-regression), visual and qualitative analyses were undertaken. Main results We included 85 studies, 48 of which have been added to the previous version of this review. There were 52 comparisons of dichotomous outcomes from 47 trials with over 3500 health professionals that compared audit and feedback to no intervention. The adjusted RDs of non-compliance with desired practice varied from 0.09 (a 9% absolute increase in non-compliance) to 0.71 (a 71% decrease in non-compliance) (median = 0.07, inter-quartile range = 0.02 to 0.11). The one factor that appeared to predict the effectiveness of audit and feedback across studies was baseline non-compliance with recommended practice. Reviewer's conclusions Audit and feedback can be effective in improving professional practice. When it is effective, the effects are generally small to moderate. The absolute effects of audit and feedback are more likely to be larger when baseline adherence to recommended practice is low.

Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes

D iabetes mellitus is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payers, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. Specifically titled sections of the standards address children with diabetes, pregnant women, and people with prediabetes. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A large number of these interventions have been shown to be cost-effective (4). A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) andmodeled after existingmethods, was utilized to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA’s multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, incorporating new evidence. For the current revision, committee members systematically searched Medline for human studies related to each subsection and published since 1 January 2010. Recommendations (bulleted at the beginning of each subsection and also listed in the “Executive Summary: Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012”) were revised based on new evidence or, in some cases, to clarify the prior recommendation or match the strength of the wording to the strength of the evidence. A table linking the changes in recommendations to new evidence can be reviewed at http:// professional.diabetes.org/CPR_Search. aspx. Subsequently, as is the case for all Position Statements, the standards of care were reviewed and approved by the ExecutiveCommittee of ADA’s Board ofDirectors, which includes health care professionals, scientists, and lay people. Feedback from the larger clinical community was valuable for the 2012 revision of the standards. Readers who wish to comment on the “Standards of Medical Care in Diabetesd2012” are invited to do so at http://professional.diabetes.org/ CPR_Search.aspx. Members of the Professional Practice Committee disclose all potential financial conflicts of interest with industry. These disclosures were discussed at the onset of the standards revisionmeeting. Members of the committee, their employer, and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the “Professional PracticeCommitteeMembers” table (see pg. S109). The AmericanDiabetes Association funds development of the standards and all its position statements out of its general revenues and does not utilize industry support for these purposes.

https://www.science-open.com/document_file/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279/PubMedCentral/bb04d9d0-b3df-4133-9494-e71e300f4279.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2012

D iabetes is a chronic illness that requires continuing medical care and ongoing patient self-management education and support to prevent acute complications and to reduce the risk of long-term complications. Diabetes care is complex and requires that many issues, beyond glycemic control, be addressed. A large body of evidence exists that supports a range of interventions to improve diabetes outcomes. These standards of care are intended to provide clinicians, patients, researchers, payors, and other interested individuals with the components of diabetes care, general treatment goals, and tools to evaluate the quality of care. While individual preferences, comorbidities, and other patient factors may require modification of goals, targets that are desirable for most patients with diabetes are provided. These standards are not intended to preclude clinical judgment or more extensive evaluation and management of the patient by other specialists as needed. For more detailed information about management of diabetes, refer to references 1–3. The recommendations included are screening, diagnostic, and therapeutic actions that are known or believed to favorably affect health outcomes of patients with diabetes. A grading system (Table 1), developed by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) and modeled after existing methods, was used to clarify and codify the evidence that forms the basis for the recommendations. The level of evidence that supports each recommendation is listed after each recommendation using the letters A, B, C, or E. These standards of care are revised annually by the ADA multidisciplinary Professional Practice Committee, and new evidence is incorporated. Members of the Professional Practice Committee and their disclosed conflicts of interest are listed in the Introduction. Subsequently, as with all position statements, the standards of care are reviewed and approved by the Executive Committee of ADA’s Board of Directors.

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2010

I. CLASSIFICATION AND DIAGNOSIS OF DIABETES, p. S12 A. Classification of diabetes B. Diagnosis of diabetes C. Categories of increased risk for diabetes (prediabetes) II. TESTING FOR DIABETES IN ASYMPTOMATIC PATIENTS, p. S13 A. Testing for type 2 diabetes and risk of future diabetes in adults B. Testing for type 2 diabetes in children C. Screening for type 1 diabetes III. DETECTION AND DIAGNOSIS OF GESTATIONAL DIABETES MELLITUS, p. S15 IV. PREVENTION/DELAY OF TYPE 2 DIABETES, p. S16 V. DIABETES CARE, p. S16 A. Initial evaluation B. Management C. Glycemic control 1. Assessment of glycemic control a. Glucose monitoring b. A1C 2. Glycemic goals in adults D. Pharmacologic and overall approaches to treatment 1. Therapy for type 1 diabetes 2. Therapy for type 2 diabetes E. Diabetes self-management education F. Medical nutrition therapy G. Physical activity H. Psychosocial assessment and care I. When treatment goals are not met J. Hypoglycemia K. Intercurrent illness L. Bariatric surgery M. Immunization VI. PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT OF DIABETES COMPLICATIONS, p. S27 A. Cardiovascular disease 1. Hypertension/blood pressure control 2. Dyslipidemia/lipid management 3. Antiplatelet agents 4. Smoking cessation 5. Coronary heart disease screening and treatment B. Nephropathy screening and treatment C. Retinopathy screening and treatment D. Neuropathy screening and treatment E. Foot care VII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC POPULATIONS, p. S38 A. Children and adolescents 1. Type 1 diabetes Glycemic control a. Screening and management of chronic complications in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes i. Nephropathy ii. Hypertension iii. Dyslipidemia iv. Retinopathy v. Celiac disease vi. Hypothyroidism b. Self-management c. School and day care d. Transition from pediatric to adult care 2. Type 2 diabetes 3. Monogenic diabetes syndromes B. Preconception care C. Older adults D. Cystic fibrosis–related diabetes VIII. DIABETES CARE IN SPECIFIC SETTINGS, p. S43 A. Diabetes care in the hospital 1. Glycemic targets in hospitalized patients 2. Anti-hyperglycemic agents in hospitalized patients 3. Preventing hypoglycemia 4. Diabetes care providers in the hospital 5. Self-management in the hospital 6. Diabetes self-management education in the hospital 7. Medical nutrition therapy in the hospital 8. Bedside blood glucose monitoring 9. Discharge planning IX. STRATEGIES FOR IMPROVING DIABETES CARE, p. S46

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2011

https://www.scienceopen.com/document_file/8305f7ff-79d5-49cd-b9e1-28a26f4ca691/PubMedCentral/8305f7ff-79d5-49cd-b9e1-28a26f4ca691.pdf

Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes—2009

ContextThere have been numerous reports of interventions designed to improve the care of patients with diabetes, but the effectiveness of such interventions is unclearObjectiveTo assess the impact on glycemic control of 11 distinct strategies for quality improvement (QI) in adults with type 2 diabetesData Sources and Study SelectionMEDLINE (1966-April 2006) and the Cochrane Collaboration's Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group database, which covers multiple bibliographic databases Eligible studies included randomized or quasi-randomized controlled trials and controlled before-after studies that evaluated a QI intervention targeting some aspect of clinician behavior or organizational change and reported changes in glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) valuesData ExtractionPostintervention difference in HbA1c values were estimated using a meta-regression model that included baseline glycemic control and other key intervention and study features as predictorsData SynthesisFifty randomized controlled trials, 3 quasi-randomized trials, and 13 controlled before-after trials met all inclusion criteria Across these 66 trials, interventions reduced HbA1c values by a mean of 042% (95% confidence interval [CI], 029%-054%) over a median of 13 months of follow-up Trials with fewer patients than the median for all included trials reported significantly greater effects than did larger trials (061% vs 027%, P = 004), strongly suggesting publication bias Trials with mean baseline HbA1c values of 80% or greater also reported significantly larger effects (054% vs 020%, P = 005) Adjusting for these effects, 2 of the 11 categories of QI strategies were associated with reductions in HbA1c values of at least 050%: team changes (067%; 95% CI, 043%-091%; n = 26 trials) and case management (052%; 95% CI, 031%-073%; n = 26 trials); these also represented the only 2 strategies conferring significant incremental reductions in HbA1c values Interventions involving team changes reduced values by 033% more (95% CI, 012%-054%; P = 004) than those without this strategy, and those involving case management reduced values by 022% more (95% CI, 000%-044%; P = 04) than those without case management Interventions in which nurse or pharmacist case managers could make medication adjustments without awaiting physician authorization reduced values by 080% (95% CI, 051%-110%), vs only 032% (95% CI, 014%-049%) for all other interventions (P = 002)ConclusionsMost QI strategies produced small to modest improvements in glycemic control Team changes and case management showed more robust improvements, especially for interventions in which case managers could adjust medications without awaiting physician approval Estimates of the effectiveness of other specific QI strategies may have been limited by difficulty in classifying complex interventions, insufficient numbers of studies, and publication bias

Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis.

We sought to understand how diagnosis with HIV affects health-related quality of life. We assessed health-related quality of life using utility-based measures in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic and a University-based clinic. Respondents assessed health-related quality of life regarding their current health, and retrospectively assessed their health 1 month prior to and 2 months after diagnosis with HIV infection. Sixty-six patients completed the study. The overall mean utilities for health 1 month before and 2 months after diagnosis were 0.87 (standard error 0.037), and 0.80 (0.043) (p<0.005 by rank sign test), but the effect of diagnosis differed between the two clinics, with a substantial decrease in the university clinic and a small non-significant decrease in the VA clinic. The overall mean utility for current health was 0.85 (0.034), assessed on average 7.5 years after diagnosis. When asked directly whether diagnosis of HIV decreased health-related quality of life, 47% agreed, but 35% stated that HIV diagnosis positively affected health-related quality of life. Diagnosis with HIV decreased health-related quality of life at 2 months on average, but this effect diminished over time, and differed among patient populations. Years after diagnosis, although half of the patients believed that diagnosis reduced health-related quality of life, one-third reported improved health-related quality of life.

The Effect of Diagnosis with HIV Infection on Health-Related Quality of Life

Regionalization of bioterrorism preparedness and response.

Reviews the available evidence on the prevalence, diagnosis, management, and prevention of food allergies.

/pdf/prevalence-natural-history-diagnosis-and-treatment-of-food-52bdvcne1j.pdf

Prevalence, Natural History, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Food Allergy: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

Despite recommendations for voluntary HIV screening, few medical centres have implemented screening programmes. The objective of the study was to determine whether an intervention with computer-based reminders and feedback would increase screening for HIV in a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health-care system. The design of the study was a randomized controlled trial at five primary care clinics at the VA Palo Alto Health Care System. All primary care providers were eligible to participate in the study. The study intervention was computer-based reminders to either assess HIV risk behaviours or to offer HIV testing; feedback on adherence to reminders was provided. The main outcome measure was the difference in HIV testing rates between intervention and control group providers. The control group providers tested 1.0% (n = 67) and 1.4% (n = 106) of patients in the preintervention and intervention period, respectively; intervention providers tested 1.8% (n = 98) and 1.9% (n = 114), respectively (P = 0.75...

Vandana Sundaram

Papers

Effects of quality improvement strategies for type 2 diabetes on glycemic control: a meta-regression analysis.

The Effect of Diagnosis with HIV Infection on Health-Related Quality of Life

Regionalization of bioterrorism preparedness and response.

Prevalence, Natural History, Diagnosis, and Treatment of Food Allergy: A Systematic Review of the Evidence

A Randomized Trial of Computer-based Reminders and Audit and Feedback to Improve HIV Screening in a Primary Care Setting