Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence: a report of an interrupted time series trial of feedback in home care.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial evidence about the effectiveness of audit with feedback, but none that we know have been conducted in home care settings. The primary purpose of the Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence - Home Care (DICE-HC) project was to evaluate the effects of an audit and feedback delivered to care providers on home care client outcomes. The objective of this paper is to report the effects of feedback on four specific quality indicators: pain, falls, delirium, and hospital visits. METHODS: A 10-month audit with feedback intervention study was conducted with care providers in seven home care offices in Alberta, Canada, which involved delivery of four quarterly feedback reports consisting of data derived from the Resident Assessment Instrument - Home Care (RAI-HC). The primary evaluation employed an interrupted time series design using segmented regression analysis to assess the effects of feedback reporting on the four quality indicators: pain, falls, delirium, and hospitalization. Changes in level and trend of the quality indicators were measured before, during, and after the implementation of feedback reports. Pressure ulcer reporting was analyzed as a comparator condition not included in the feedback report. Care providers were surveyed on responses to feedback reporting which informed a process evaluation. RESULTS: At initiation of feedback report implementation, the percentage of clients reporting pain and falls significantly increased. Though the percentage of clients reporting pain and falls tended to increase and reporting of delirium and hospital visits tended to decrease relative to the pre-intervention period, there was no significant effect of feedback reporting on quality indicators during the 10-month intervention. The percentage of clients reporting falls, delirium, and hospital visits significantly increased in the 6-month period following feedback reporting relative to the intervention period. About 50% of the care providers that read and understand the feedback reports found the reports useful to make changes to the way clients are cared for. CONCLUSIONS: Routinely collected data used over time for feedback is feasible in home care settings. A high proportion of care providers find feedback reports useful for informing how they care for clients. Since reporting on the frequency of quality indicators increased in the post-intervention period, this study suggests that ongoing use of audit with feedback to enhance health outcomes in home care may promote improved reporting on standardized instruments.

Understanding feedback report uptake: process evaluation findings from a 13-month feedback intervention in long-term care settings.

BACKGROUND: Long-term care settings provide care to a large proportion of predominantly older, highly disabled adults across the United States and Canada. Managing and improving quality of care is challenging, in part because staffing is highly dependent on relatively non-professional health care aides and resources are limited. Feedback interventions in these settings are relatively rare, and there has been little published information about the process of feedback intervention. Our objectives were to describe the key components of uptake of the feedback reports, as well as other indicators of participant response to the intervention. METHODS: We conducted this project in nine long-term care units in four facilities in Edmonton, Canada. We used mixed methods, including observations during a 13-month feedback report intervention with nine post-feedback survey cycles, to conduct a process evaluation of a feedback report intervention in these units. We included all facility-based direct care providers (staff) in the feedback report distribution and survey administration. We conducted descriptive analyses of the data from observations and surveys, presenting this in tabular and graphic form. We constructed a short scale to measure uptake of the feedback reports. Our analysis evaluated feedback report uptake by provider type over the 13 months of the intervention. RESULTS: We received a total of 1,080 survey responses over the period of the intervention, which varied by type of provider, facility, and survey month. Total number of reports distributed ranged from 103 in cycle 12 to 229 in cycle 3, although the method of delivery varied widely across the period, from 12% to 65% delivered directly to individuals and 15% to 84% left for later distribution. The key elements of feedback uptake, including receiving, reading, understanding, discussing, and reporting a perception that the reports were useful, varied by survey cycle and provider type, as well as by facility. Uptake, as we measured it, was consistently high overall, but varied widely by provider type and time period. CONCLUSIONS: We report detailed process data describing the aspects of uptake of a feedback report during an intensive, longitudinal feedback intervention in long-term care facilities. Uptake is a complex process for which we used multiple measures. We demonstrate the feasibility of conducting a complex longitudinal feedback intervention in relatively resource-poor long-term care facilities to a wider range of provider types than have been included in prior feedback interventions.

Data for improvement and clinical excellence: report of an interrupted time series trial of feedback in long-term care.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable evidence about the effectiveness of audit coupled with feedback for provider behavior change, although few feedback interventions have been conducted in long-term care settings. The primary purpose of the Data for Improvement and Clinical Excellence-Long-Term Care (DICE-LTC) project was to assess the effects of a feedback intervention delivered to all direct care providers on resident outcomes. Our objective in this report is to assess the effect of feedback reporting on rates of pain assessment, depression screening, and falls over time. METHODS: The intervention consisted of monthly feedback reports delivered to all direct care providers, facility and unit administrators, and support staff, delivered over 13 months in nine LTC units across four facilities. Data for feedback reports came from the Resident Assessment Instrument Minimum Data Set (RAI) version 2.0, a standardized instrument mandated in LTC facilities throughout Alberta. The primary evaluation used an interrupted time series design with a comparison group (units not included in the feedback intervention) and a comparison condition (pressure ulcers). We used segmented regression analysis to assess the effect of the feedback intervention. RESULTS: The primary outcome of the study, falls, showed little change over the period of the intervention, except for a small increase in the rate of falls during the intervention period. The only outcome that improved during the intervention period was the proportion of residents with high pain scores, which decreased at the beginning of the intervention. The proportion of residents with high depression scores appeared to worsen during the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Maintaining all nine units in the study for its 13-month duration was a positive outcome. The feedback reports, without any other intervention included, did not achieve the desired reduction in proportion of falls and elevated depression scores. The survey on intention to change pain assessment practice which was conducted shortly after most of the feedback distribution cycles may have acted as a co-intervention supporting a reduction in pain scores. The processing and delivery of feedback reports could be accomplished at relatively low cost because the data are mandated and could be added to other intervention approaches to support implementation of evidence-based practices.

Regulated provider perceptions of feedback reports.

AIM: This paper reports on regulated (or licensed) care providers' understanding and perceptions of feedback reports in a sample of Canadian long-term care settings using a cross-sectional survey design. BACKGROUND: Audit with feedback quality improvement studies have seldom targeted front-line providers in long-term care to receive feedback information. METHODS: Feedback reports were delivered to front-line regulated care providers in four long-term care facilities for 13 months in 2009-10. Providers completed a postfeedback survey. RESULTS: Most (78%) regulated care providers (n = 126) understood the reports and felt they provided useful information for making changes to resident care (64%). Perceptions of the report differed, depending on the role of the regulated care provider. In multivariable logistic regression, the regulated nurses' understanding of more than half the report was negatively associated with 'usefulness of information for changing resident care', and perceiving the report as generally useful had a positive association. CONCLUSIONS: Front-line regulated providers are an appropriate target for feedback reports in long-term care. IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING MANAGEMENT: Long-term care administrators should share unit-level information on care quality with unit-level managers and other professional front-line direct care providers.

Unregulated provider perceptions of audit and feedback reports in long-term care: cross-sectional survey findings from a quality improvement intervention.

BACKGROUND: Audit with feedback is a moderately effective approach for improving professional practice in other health care settings. Although unregulated caregivers give the majority of direct care in long-term care settings, little is known about how they understand and perceive feedback reports because unregulated providers have not been directly targeted to receive audit with feedback in quality improvement interventions in long-term care. The purpose of this paper is to describe unregulated care providers' perceptions of usefulness of a feedback report in four Canadian long-term care facilities. METHODS: We delivered monthly feedback reports to unregulated care providers for 13 months in 2009-2010. The feedback reports described a unit's performance in relation to falls, depression, and pain as compared to eight other units in the study. Follow-up surveys captured participant perceptions of the feedback report. We conducted descriptive analyses of the variables related to participant perceptions and multivariable logistic regression to assess the association between perceived usefulness of the feedback report and a set of independent variables. RESULTS: The vast majority (80%) of unregulated care providers (n = 171) who responded said they understood the reports. Those who discussed the report with others and were interested in other forms of data were more likely to find the feedback report useful for making changes in resident care. CONCLUSIONS: This work suggests that unregulated care providers can understand and feel positively about using audit with feedback reports to make changes to resident care. Further research should explore ways to promote fuller engagement of unregulated care providers in decision-making to improve quality of care in long-term care settings.

A comparison of the National Center for Health Statistics and new World Health Organization growth references for school-age children and adolescents with the use of data from 11 low-income countries.

BACKGROUND: In 2007 new World Health Organization (WHO) growth references for children aged 5-19 y were introduced to replace the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) references. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the prevalence of stunting, wasting, and thinness estimated by the NCHS and WHO growth references. DESIGN: NCHS and WHO height-for-age z scores were calculated with the use of cross-sectional data from 20,605 schoolchildren aged 5-17 y in 11 low-income countries. The differences in the percentage of stunted children were estimated for each year of age and sex. The z scores of body mass index-for-age and weight-for-height were calculated with the use of the WHO and NCHS references, respectively, to compare differences in the prevalence of thinness and wasting. RESULTS: No systematic differences in mean z scores of height-for-age were observed between the WHO and NCHS growth references. However, z scores of height-for-age varied by sex and age, particularly during early adolescence. In children for whom weight-for-height could be calculated, the estimated prevalence of thinness (WHO reference) was consistently higher than the prevalence of wasting (NCHS reference) by as much as 9% in girls and 18% in boys. CONCLUSIONS: In undernourished populations, the application of the WHO (2007) references may result in differences in the prevalence of stunting for each sex compared with results shown when the NCHS references are used as well as a higher estimated prevalence of thinness than of wasting. An awareness of these differences is important for comparative studies or the evaluation of programs. For school-age children and adolescents across all ranges of anthropometric status, the same growth references should be applied when such studies are undertaken.

Weekly iron supplements given by teachers sustain the haemoglobin concentration of schoolchildren in the Philippines.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the effectiveness of weekly iron supplements given for 10 weeks by teachers to children in rural schools in the Philippines. METHODS: Forty-nine rural primary schools took part in the study and were randomly assigned to two groups: children in 25 schools received a weekly tablet providing 108 mg iron while children in 24 schools acted as controls. All children were dewormed before the start of the iron supplementation. The haemoglobin concentration of a systematic sample of one in three children in two classes in each school was estimated before and 5-17 weeks after the end of the iron supplementation. RESULTS: A total of 1510 children aged 7-12 years were studied at both surveys. The mean haemoglobin concentration of children in the intervention group did not change significantly; in the untreated group it fell by 3.8 g/l and the prevalence of anaemia rose from 14.3% to 25.6%. The difference between study groups was significantly larger amongst the younger children (7-8 years), and was observed in both anaemic and non-anaemic children. CONCLUSION: Even where anaemia is only a mild public health problem, weekly iron supplements given by teachers may prevent a fall in the haemoglobin concentration, and can benefit both anaemic and non-anaemic children.