Can we do better? Bridging the research to practice gap in patient blood management–optimizing ‘audit & feedback’ and the challenges of undertaking a national cluster‐randomized controlled trial

Simon Stanworth, Fabiana Lorencatto, Natalie Gould, John Grant-Casey, Alison Deary, Suzanne Hartley, Stephen McIntyre, Lauren Moreau, Thomas Morris, Riya Patel, Isabelle Smith, James Smith, Amanda Farrin, Robbie Foy, Jill Francis, The AFFINITIE Programme

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a frequently used quality improvement strategy, which aims to improve patient care and outcomes. The impact of A&F has been subjected to research scrutiny; systematic reviews document only modest and variable effects, despite the likely high costs of A&F programmes, such as those undertaken nationally. To understand and enhance A&F, a programme of research termed AFFINITIE ‘Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence‐based Transfusion practice'; http://www.ccf.nihr.ac.uk/ PGfAR/about/Pages/Abstract.aspx?ID=12588) has been completed. AFFINITIE adopted a multidisciplinary approach that applied behavioural theory and evidence to optimize the design and delivery of feedback on transfusion practice. These interventions were then tested by embedding them in the context of transfusion national audits in two national randomized cluster trials. The audit topics were preoperative surgery management and use of blood in patients with haematological malignancies. Emerging findings included the scope to improve the design of feedback reports by the inclusion of additional behaviour change techniques and increasing the specificity and relevance of feedback (i.e. clarity around who the feedback is targeted at, providing feedback only on behaviours relevant to audit standards, selecting fewer, more concrete, and relevant standards). Other findings recognized the importance of robust data collection based on agreed and clearly stated standards. Also, given wide variation in how hospitals received, shared and responded to feedback, a consequent need was identified to better support hospitals to plan their response to feedback, including disseminating the reports to all relevant stakeholders with agreement on selecting local goals and plans.
    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)129-135
    Number of pages7
    JournalInternational Society of Blood Transfusion
    Volume14
    Issue number1
    Early online date30 Sep 2018
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 1 Feb 2019

    Fingerprint

    Research
    Professional Practice Gaps
    Hematologic Neoplasms
    Quality Improvement
    Patient Care
    Costs and Cost Analysis

    Bibliographical note

    Free access

    Keywords

    • audit and feedback
    • clinical trial
    • patient blood management
    • transfusion medicine

    Cite this

    Can we do better? Bridging the research to practice gap in patient blood management–optimizing ‘audit & feedback’ and the challenges of undertaking a national cluster‐randomized controlled trial. / Stanworth, Simon ; Lorencatto, Fabiana; Gould, Natalie; Grant-Casey, John; Deary, Alison; Hartley, Suzanne; McIntyre, Stephen; Moreau, Lauren; Morris, Thomas; Patel, Riya; Smith, Isabelle; Smith, James; Farrin, Amanda; Foy, Robbie; Francis, Jill; The AFFINITIE Programme.

    In: International Society of Blood Transfusion, Vol. 14, No. 1, 01.02.2019, p. 129-135.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Stanworth, S, Lorencatto, F, Gould, N, Grant-Casey, J, Deary, A, Hartley, S, McIntyre, S, Moreau, L, Morris, T, Patel, R, Smith, I, Smith, J, Farrin, A, Foy, R, Francis, J & The AFFINITIE Programme 2019, 'Can we do better? Bridging the research to practice gap in patient blood management–optimizing ‘audit & feedback’ and the challenges of undertaking a national cluster‐randomized controlled trial' International Society of Blood Transfusion, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 129-135. https://doi.org/10.1111/voxs.12447
    Stanworth, Simon ; Lorencatto, Fabiana ; Gould, Natalie ; Grant-Casey, John ; Deary, Alison ; Hartley, Suzanne ; McIntyre, Stephen ; Moreau, Lauren ; Morris, Thomas ; Patel, Riya ; Smith, Isabelle ; Smith, James ; Farrin, Amanda ; Foy, Robbie ; Francis, Jill ; The AFFINITIE Programme. / Can we do better? Bridging the research to practice gap in patient blood management–optimizing ‘audit & feedback’ and the challenges of undertaking a national cluster‐randomized controlled trial. In: International Society of Blood Transfusion. 2019 ; Vol. 14, No. 1. pp. 129-135.
    @article{b037a4e084e843f8a49ead4131ba6dd4,
    title = "Can we do better? Bridging the research to practice gap in patient blood management–optimizing ‘audit & feedback’ and the challenges of undertaking a national cluster‐randomized controlled trial",
    abstract = "Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a frequently used quality improvement strategy, which aims to improve patient care and outcomes. The impact of A&F has been subjected to research scrutiny; systematic reviews document only modest and variable effects, despite the likely high costs of A&F programmes, such as those undertaken nationally. To understand and enhance A&F, a programme of research termed AFFINITIE ‘Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence‐based Transfusion practice'; http://www.ccf.nihr.ac.uk/ PGfAR/about/Pages/Abstract.aspx?ID=12588) has been completed. AFFINITIE adopted a multidisciplinary approach that applied behavioural theory and evidence to optimize the design and delivery of feedback on transfusion practice. These interventions were then tested by embedding them in the context of transfusion national audits in two national randomized cluster trials. The audit topics were preoperative surgery management and use of blood in patients with haematological malignancies. Emerging findings included the scope to improve the design of feedback reports by the inclusion of additional behaviour change techniques and increasing the specificity and relevance of feedback (i.e. clarity around who the feedback is targeted at, providing feedback only on behaviours relevant to audit standards, selecting fewer, more concrete, and relevant standards). Other findings recognized the importance of robust data collection based on agreed and clearly stated standards. Also, given wide variation in how hospitals received, shared and responded to feedback, a consequent need was identified to better support hospitals to plan their response to feedback, including disseminating the reports to all relevant stakeholders with agreement on selecting local goals and plans.",
    keywords = "audit and feedback, clinical trial, patient blood management, transfusion medicine",
    author = "Simon Stanworth and Fabiana Lorencatto and Natalie Gould and John Grant-Casey and Alison Deary and Suzanne Hartley and Stephen McIntyre and Lauren Moreau and Thomas Morris and Riya Patel and Isabelle Smith and James Smith and Amanda Farrin and Robbie Foy and Jill Francis and {The AFFINITIE Programme}",
    note = "Free access",
    year = "2019",
    month = "2",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1111/voxs.12447",
    language = "English",
    volume = "14",
    pages = "129--135",
    journal = "International Society of Blood Transfusion",
    number = "1",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Can we do better? Bridging the research to practice gap in patient blood management–optimizing ‘audit & feedback’ and the challenges of undertaking a national cluster‐randomized controlled trial

    AU - Stanworth, Simon

    AU - Lorencatto, Fabiana

    AU - Gould, Natalie

    AU - Grant-Casey, John

    AU - Deary, Alison

    AU - Hartley, Suzanne

    AU - McIntyre, Stephen

    AU - Moreau, Lauren

    AU - Morris, Thomas

    AU - Patel, Riya

    AU - Smith, Isabelle

    AU - Smith, James

    AU - Farrin, Amanda

    AU - Foy, Robbie

    AU - Francis, Jill

    AU - The AFFINITIE Programme

    N1 - Free access

    PY - 2019/2/1

    Y1 - 2019/2/1

    N2 - Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a frequently used quality improvement strategy, which aims to improve patient care and outcomes. The impact of A&F has been subjected to research scrutiny; systematic reviews document only modest and variable effects, despite the likely high costs of A&F programmes, such as those undertaken nationally. To understand and enhance A&F, a programme of research termed AFFINITIE ‘Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence‐based Transfusion practice'; http://www.ccf.nihr.ac.uk/ PGfAR/about/Pages/Abstract.aspx?ID=12588) has been completed. AFFINITIE adopted a multidisciplinary approach that applied behavioural theory and evidence to optimize the design and delivery of feedback on transfusion practice. These interventions were then tested by embedding them in the context of transfusion national audits in two national randomized cluster trials. The audit topics were preoperative surgery management and use of blood in patients with haematological malignancies. Emerging findings included the scope to improve the design of feedback reports by the inclusion of additional behaviour change techniques and increasing the specificity and relevance of feedback (i.e. clarity around who the feedback is targeted at, providing feedback only on behaviours relevant to audit standards, selecting fewer, more concrete, and relevant standards). Other findings recognized the importance of robust data collection based on agreed and clearly stated standards. Also, given wide variation in how hospitals received, shared and responded to feedback, a consequent need was identified to better support hospitals to plan their response to feedback, including disseminating the reports to all relevant stakeholders with agreement on selecting local goals and plans.

    AB - Audit and Feedback (A&F) is a frequently used quality improvement strategy, which aims to improve patient care and outcomes. The impact of A&F has been subjected to research scrutiny; systematic reviews document only modest and variable effects, despite the likely high costs of A&F programmes, such as those undertaken nationally. To understand and enhance A&F, a programme of research termed AFFINITIE ‘Development & Evaluation of Audit and Feedback INterventions to Increase evidence‐based Transfusion practice'; http://www.ccf.nihr.ac.uk/ PGfAR/about/Pages/Abstract.aspx?ID=12588) has been completed. AFFINITIE adopted a multidisciplinary approach that applied behavioural theory and evidence to optimize the design and delivery of feedback on transfusion practice. These interventions were then tested by embedding them in the context of transfusion national audits in two national randomized cluster trials. The audit topics were preoperative surgery management and use of blood in patients with haematological malignancies. Emerging findings included the scope to improve the design of feedback reports by the inclusion of additional behaviour change techniques and increasing the specificity and relevance of feedback (i.e. clarity around who the feedback is targeted at, providing feedback only on behaviours relevant to audit standards, selecting fewer, more concrete, and relevant standards). Other findings recognized the importance of robust data collection based on agreed and clearly stated standards. Also, given wide variation in how hospitals received, shared and responded to feedback, a consequent need was identified to better support hospitals to plan their response to feedback, including disseminating the reports to all relevant stakeholders with agreement on selecting local goals and plans.

    KW - audit and feedback

    KW - clinical trial

    KW - patient blood management

    KW - transfusion medicine

    U2 - 10.1111/voxs.12447

    DO - 10.1111/voxs.12447

    M3 - Article

    VL - 14

    SP - 129

    EP - 135

    JO - International Society of Blood Transfusion

    JF - International Society of Blood Transfusion

    IS - 1

    ER -