Effectiveness of Enhanced Performance Feedback on Appropriate Use of Blood Transfusions: A Comparison of 2 Cluster Randomized Trials.

Importance: 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. Objective: To evaluate 2 theoretically informed feedback interventions to improve the appropriate use of blood transfusions. Design, Setting, and Participants: 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. Interventions: 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. Main Outcomes and Measures: 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. Results: 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]). Conclusions and Relevance: 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. Trial Registration: isrctn.org Identifier: ISRCTN15490813.

One to one specialling and sitters in acute care hospitals: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: One to one specialling is a type of care which is provided to ensure the safety of patients who may be suffering from cognitive impairment, exhibit challenging behaviour, or may be at risk of falls or of causing harm to themselves or others. Care such as this, often referred to as 'specialling' or 'sitting' is common practice in most hospitals around the world, but there is a lack of evidence regarding its cost effectiveness and the quality of care provided. AIM: The aim of this scoping review was to explore the breadth and scope of literature on one to one specialling, sitters and similar types of care in acute secondary care settings, in order to identify the challenges and concerns relating to the quality of care (process and outcomes) and cost effectiveness emerging from the literature, and determine the implications of this for policy, practice and future research. DESIGN: This review was based on scoping review methodology following a five stage scoping review process. A keyword search was conducted in the following databases: MEDLINE, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, ProQuest Social Science, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health. The time limit placed on the search was January 2000 to April 2016. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool was used to assess the quality of primary research articles. FINDINGS: Forty-four articles were included in the review. We found a lack of clarity in the terms used to describe one to one specialling and variability in what this type of care entails, who provides the care and the needs of patients requiring this type of care. High costs of specialling are often seen as a concern, but there was a lack of economic evaluations considering the full cost of specialling and balancing these against the benefits. Some of the articles proposed alternatives to one to one specialling or the use of sitters, but only some of these were evaluated. CONCLUSION: There is wide variation in what specialling and one to one care entails, which can in turn lead to the provision of poor quality care. A reduction in this variation and improved quality care might be achieved through the development of guidelines, training and standardized decision-making tools. Further research on the impact of one to one specialling on patient outcomes and cost would be beneficial, as well as robust evaluations of the alternatives to specialling.

Evidence use in decision-making on introducing innovations: a systematic scoping review with stakeholder feedback.

BACKGROUND: A range of evidence informs decision-making on innovation in health care, including formal research findings, local data and professional opinion. However, cultural and organisational factors often prevent the translation of evidence for innovations into practice. In addition to the characteristics of evidence, it is known that processes at the individual level influence its impact on decision-making. Less is known about the ways in which processes at the professional, organisational and local system level shape evidence use and its role in decisions to adopt innovations. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was used to review the health literature on innovations within acute and primary care and map processes at the professional, organisational and local system levels which influence how evidence informs decision-making on innovation. Stakeholder feedback on the themes identified was collected via focus groups to test and develop the findings. RESULTS: Following database and manual searches, 31 studies reporting primary qualitative data met the inclusion criteria: 24 were of sufficient methodological quality to be included in the thematic analysis. Evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by multi-level processes (professional, organisational, local system) and interactions across these levels. Preferences for evidence vary by professional group and health service setting. Organisations can shape professional behaviour by requiring particular forms of evidence to inform decision-making. Pan-regional organisations shape innovation decision-making at lower levels. Political processes at all levels shape the selection and use of evidence in decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: The synthesis of results from primary qualitative studies found that evidence use in decision-making on innovation is influenced by processes at multiple levels. Interactions between different levels shape evidence use in decision-making (e.g. professional groups and organisations can use local systems to validate evidence and legitimise innovations, while local systems can tailor or frame evidence to influence activity at lower levels). Organisational leaders need to consider whether the environment in which decisions are made values diverse evidence and stakeholder perspectives. Further qualitative research on decision-making practices that highlights how and why different types of evidence come to count during decisions, and tracks the political aspects of decisions about innovation, is needed.