Cited by 38Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Policy Implementation ScienceHealth Sciences Research and Education

Audit and Feedback as a Clinical Practice Guideline Implementation Strategy: A Model for Acute Care Nurse Practitioners

Dulko, Dorothy·2007·Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing

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

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1741-6787.2007.00098.x

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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]”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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].”
  • 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.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Dulko, D.
Affiliations
Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
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