Audit and Feedback as a Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation Strategy: A Model for Acute Care Nurse Practitioners
Abstract
Background: The transfer of research evidence into practice and changing provider behavior is challenging, even when the advantages are strong. Despite the availability of supportive care clinical practice guidelines (CPG), consistent integration of these principles into practice has not been achieved. The failure of dissemination strategies has been identified as a key barrier to successful implementation. A potentially effective approach to facilitating the transfer of research evidence into practice is audit and feedback. Audit and feedback is a summary of provider performance over a specified period of time, with or without recommendations to improve practice. Rationale: Cancer pain is an optimal symptom to examine when studying the effect of an audit and feedback intervention. It is a common condition with important consequences, established CPG are available, measurable outcomes are defined, and there is potential for improvement in current practice. Acute care nurse practitioners (NPs) are often responsible for overseeing and directly managing symptoms such as pain and are well positioned to implement CPG and study the effects of adherence to guidelines on patients' pain outcomes. Methodology: A systematic review of published articles, MEDLINE®, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and the Cochrane Library computerized databases was performed to evaluate the state of the science on audit and feedback as a professional practice change strategy. A behavior change model is proposed for its application to advanced practice nursing. Implications for Practice: Recognized in medicine as a valuable intervention to improve healthcare quality, audit and feedback is a strategy that has not been widely studied in nursing. Although cancer pain cannot always be entirely eliminated, appropriate use of available therapies can effectively relieve pain in a majority of patients. This article is a review of the literature on audit and feedback as a professional practice change strategy and indicates a model for operationalizing the intervention.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Barriers included failure to adequately anticipate the amount of time and costs, including operational and training costs.
“Other related barriers included failure to adequately anticipate the amount of time and costs, including operational and training costs [34, 35, 44]”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
Concerns about reduced autonomy or trust, independence of practice or inability to practise to full scope impeded implementation.
“Concerns about reduced autonomy or trust, independence of practice or inability to practise to full scope were all shown to impede implementation [16, 31, 35, 39, 54, 55].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
Interventions that were complex were often associated with lower adoption.
“Interventions that were complex were often associated with lower adoption [3, 35, 39, 87, 88].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
Resistance to change caused by disagreement with the evidence, negative beliefs about the usefulness or added value of the intervention, or belief that the intervention was not part of their role were commonly described as a barrier to implementation.
“Resistance to change caused by disagreement with the evidence, negative beliefs about the usefulness or added value of the intervention or belief that the intervention was not part of their role were commonly described as a barrier to implementation [3, 14, 35, 41, 67–70, 76, 77, 80].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
Interventions that demonstrated clear and consistent clinical evidence of benefit or good applicability relevant to setting were shown to facilitate implementation.
“interventions that demonstrated clear and consistent clinical evidence of benefit [3, 16, 34, 35, 51, 55, 56, 68, 74, 89] or good applicability relevant to setting [3, 35, 68] were shown to facilitate implementation.”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
Interventions with good definitional clarity, such as well-organised guidelines with well-defined measurable actions based on clear strong recommendations, promoted implementation.
“interventions with good definitional clarity, such as well-organised guidelines with well-defined measurable actions that were based on clear strong recommendations, promoted implementation [35, 68].”
From Achieving change in primary care—causes of the evidence to practice gap: systematic reviews of reviews (2015) · cites this paper as [35]
Cites
Leviton, L. C., Goldenberg, R. L., Baker, C. S., Schwartz, R. M., Freda, M. C., Fish, L. J., Cliver, S. P., Rouse, D. J., Chazotte, C., Merkatz, I. R., et al. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.281.1.46 · Cited by 128 · see citing works
Using an office system intervention to increase breast cancer screening
Kinsinger, L. S., Harris, R., Qaqish, B., Strecher, V., & Kaluzny, A. (1998) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.1998.00160.x · Cited by 59 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0396-4 · Cited by 533 · see citing works
“time and costs, including operational and training costs [34, 35, 44], costs associated with ongoing maintenance”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialLau, R., Stevenson, F., Ong, B. N., Dziedzic, K., Treweek, S., Eldridge, S., Everitt, H., Kennedy, A., Qureshi, N., Rogers, A., et al. (2015) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009993 · Cited by 254 · see citing works
- Authors
- Dulko, D.
- Affiliations
- Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
- Corresponding author
- Dulko, Dorothy
- ORCID
- Dulko, Dorothy
- Venue
- Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-12
- Volume
- 4
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 200-209
- ISSN
- 1545-102X (ISSN-L)
- 1741-6787
- OpenAlex
- W2021662989
- Cited by
- 38
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 0.16
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
- Keywords
- audit and feedback, guideline implementation, acute care nurse practitioners, cancer pain management, evidence-based practice, behavior change models, advanced practice nursing, research dissemination, healthcare quality improvement
- MeSH terms
- Feedback, Health Plan Implementation, Humans, Models, Theoretical, Neoplasms, Nurse Practitioners, Nursing Audit, Pain, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review