Audit and Feedback for Primary Care: a Cluster-randomized Trial

November 21, 2014 updated by: Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Optimizing Audit and Feedback for Primary Care - Testing Scalable Approaches to Providing Feedback Reports, a Cluster-randomized Trial

In a previous study, the investigators delivered graphs to family physicians that outlined the proportion of patients with a history of diabetes or heart disease achieving evidence-based quality targets derived from guideline recommendations. A qualitative evaluation found that participating family physicians did not act upon the feedback for two main reasons. First, they felt that targets recommended in guidelines often did not apply for particular patients. Second, they complained that had difficulty using the feedback reports that only provided aggregate level data for clinical action. In this cluster-randomized trial, the investigators test two approaches to conducting audit and feedback that aims to address these issues. The investigators hypothesize that feedback identifying a small number of patients at high-risk for cardiovascular events requiring action will more effectively lead to changes in clinical behavior than feedback identifying all patients not reaching optimal care targets.

Study Overview

Status

Status

Indicates the current recruitment status or the expanded access status.
Completed

Conditions

Conditions

The disease, disorder, syndrome, illness, or injury that is being studied. On ClinicalTrials.gov, conditions may also include other health-related issues, such as lifespan, quality of life, and health risks.

Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.

Detailed Description

For the last two years, all physicians contributing data to the Electronic Medical Record Administrative data Linked Database (EMRALD) have received two feedback reports. The first focused on diabetes and the second on patients with heart disease. The reports provide aggregate information regarding the proportion of the family physician's patients meeting quality targets, but no patient-specific information. Currently the feedback is sent to physicians by courier from the EMRALD team every six months.

The intervention arms in this trial are as follows:

  • Arm 1 - Standard, aggregate-level feedback reports focusing on the proportion of patients with hypertension and/or diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease meeting targets sent via courier every six months and available on a password protected website. Family physicians in this arm will also have access through this website to patient-level data to identify patients not achieving optimal quality of care targets.
  • Arm 2 - Aggregate-level feedback reports focusing on the proportion of patients with hypertension and/or diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease meeting criteria for high-risk sent via courier every six months and available on a password protected website. Family physicians in this arm will also have access through this website to a list of chart numbers identifying those patients at highest risk.

Both arms will have the opportunity to receive continuing medical education credits by completing worksheets that prompt them to reflect upon the data. Family physicians in Arm 1 are asked to complete a worksheet that follows continuous quality improvement principles, including setting an aim statement, engagement with team members in the clinic, testing change concepts at first on a small scale, and then scaling up in a effort to spread best practices. Family physicians in Arm 2 are asked to complete a worksheet that also includes goal setting and action planning, but focuses on reducing the number of patients with high-risk criteria and offers some suggested practice-based approaches.

Study Type

Study Type

Describes the nature of a clinical study. Study types include interventional studies (also called clinical trials), observational studies (including patient registries), and expanded access.
Interventional

Enrollment (Actual)

Enrollment

The number of participants in a clinical study. The "anticipated" enrollment is the target number of participants that the researchers need for the study.
177

Phase

Phase

The stage of a clinical trial studying a drug or biological product, based on definitions developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The phase is based on the study's objective, the number of participants, and other characteristics. There are five phases: Early Phase 1 (formerly listed as Phase 0), Phase 1, Phase 2, Phase 3, and Phase 4. Not Applicable is used to describe trials without FDA-defined phases, including trials of devices or behavioral interventions.
  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Locations

  • Canada
    • Ontario
      • Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4N 3M5
        • Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

The key requirements that people who want to participate in a clinical study must meet or the characteristics they must have. Eligibility criteria consist of both inclusion criteria (which are required for a person to participate in the study) and exclusion criteria (which prevent a person from participating). Types of eligibility criteria include whether a study accepts healthy volunteers, has age or age group requirements, or is limited by sex.

Ages Eligible for Study

18 years and older (Adult, Older Adult)

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

No

Genders Eligible for Study

All

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Family physicians belonging to and sharing data with the Electronic Medical Record Administrative Linked Database in Ontario
  • Patients rostered to these family physicians with diabetes or hypertension or ischemic heart disease

Exclusion Criteria:

  • Family physicians without at least two years of Electronic Medical Record data in EMRALD
  • Family physicians without at least 100 rostered, active patients

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Health Services Research
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
  • Masking: None (Open Label)

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm

Participant Group / Arm

A group or subgroup of participants in a clinical trial that receives a specific intervention/treatment, or no intervention, according to the trial's protocol.
Intervention / Treatment

Intervention / Treatment

A process or action that is the focus of a clinical study. Interventions include drugs, medical devices, procedures, vaccines, and other products that are either investigational or already available. Interventions can also include noninvasive approaches, such as education or modifying diet and exercise.
Experimental: High risk
Feedback reports focusing on the identification and management of patients who appear to have poorly managed diseases and who may require recall into clinic.
Other: High risk

Aggregate-level feedback reports focusing on the proportion of patients with hypertension and/or diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease meeting criteria for high-risk sent via courier every six months and available on a password protected website. Family physicians in this arm will also have access through this website to a list of chart numbers identifying those patients at highest risk.

Family physicians in Arm 2 are asked to complete a worksheet that also includes goal setting and action planning, but focuses on reducing the number of patients with high-risk criteria and offers some suggested practice-based approaches.
Experimental: Best Practice
Feedback reports focusing on the achievement of optimal care targets for patients with chronic disease.
Other: Best Practice

Standard, aggregate-level feedback reports focusing on the proportion of patients with hypertension and/or diabetes and/or ischemic heart disease meeting targets sent via courier every six months and available on a password protected website. Family physicians in this arm will also have access through this website to patient-level data to identify patients not achieving optimal quality of care targets.

Family physicians in Arm 1 are asked to complete a worksheet that follows continuous quality improvement principles, including setting an aim statement, engagement with team members in the clinic, testing change concepts at first on a small scale, and then scaling up in a effort to spread best practices.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Primary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, the planned outcome measure that is the most important for evaluating the effect of an intervention/treatment. Most clinical studies have one primary outcome measure, but some have more than one.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
composite quality score
Time Frame: 12 months
The number of best-practice quality indicators that a patient is achieving divided by the number for which they are eligible.
12 months
composite high risk score
Time Frame: 12 months
The number of high risk indicators a patient meets divided by the number for which they are eligible.
12 months
Proportion of patients with perfect composite quality score
Time Frame: 12 months
perfect composite quality score is equal to one hundred percent
12 months
Proportion of patients with perfect composite high risk score
Time Frame: 12 months
perfect composite high risk score is zero
12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Secondary Outcome Measures

In a clinical study's protocol, a planned outcome measure that is not as important as the primary outcome measure for evaluating the effect of an intervention but is still of interest. Most clinical studies have more than one secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Time Frame
Blood pressure
Time Frame: 12 months
12 months
cholesterol (LDL)
Time Frame: 12 months
12 months

Other Outcome Measures

Other Outcome Measures

For clinical trials, a planned measurement described in the protocol that is used to determine the effect of an intervention/treatment on participants. For observational studies, a measurement or observation that is used to describe patterns of diseases or traits, or associations with exposures, risk factors, or treatment. Types of outcome measures include primary outcome measure and secondary outcome measure.
Outcome Measure
Measure Description
Time Frame
Each metric within the composite scores
Time Frame: 12 months

For Hypertension (HTN):

Blood Pressure (BP) tested in 15 months (M) BP meeting target BP test in 4 M if >target Weight (WT) measured in 15 M Lipids measures in 15 M

For Diabetes:

HbA1c tested in 6 M HbA1c < 7 BP <130/80 Angiotensin agent (ACE/ARB) if also HTN WT measured within 15 M Lipids in 15 M LDL <2 Statin if >50yrs Albumin-creatinine ratio in 15 M

For Heart disease:

BP in 15 M BP meeting target Anti-platelet (or Anti-coagulant) WT within 15 M Lipids measured within 15 M LDL <2 Statin

For Diabetes High Risk:

no HbA1c 15 M HbA1c >9 no BP in 15 M BP >160/100 no ACE/ARB if also HTN no WT within 24 M no lipids measured within 36 M LDL >4

For Heart disease high risk:

no BP in 24 M BP >160/100 no anti-platelet (anti-coagulant) no WT within 24 M no lipids measured within 36 M LDL >4

For Hypertension high risk:

no BP in 24 M BP >160/100 no WT within 24 M no lipids in 36 M
12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Sponsor

The organization or person who initiates the study and who has authority and control over the study.
Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre

Collaborators

Collaborators

An organization other than the sponsor that provides support for a clinical study. This support may include activities related to funding, design, implementation, data analysis, or reporting.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences
Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada

Investigators

Investigators

A researcher involved in a clinical study. Related terms include site principal investigator, site sub-investigator, study chair, study director, and study principal investigator.
  • Principal Investigator: Karen Tu, MD MSc, Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start

Study Start

The actual date on which the first participant was enrolled in a clinical study. The "anticipated" study start date is the date that the researchers think will be the study start date.
June 1, 2013

Primary Completion (Actual)

Primary Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention to collect final data for the primary outcome measure. Whether the clinical study ended according to the protocol or was terminated does not affect this date. For clinical studies with more than one primary outcome measure with different completion dates, this term refers to the date on which data collection is completed for all the primary outcome measures. The "anticipated" primary completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the primary completion date for the study.
August 1, 2014

Study Completion (Actual)

Study Completion

The date on which the last participant in a clinical study was examined or received an intervention/treatment to collect final data for the primary outcome measures, secondary outcome measures, and adverse events (that is, the last participant's last visit). The "anticipated" study completion date is the date that the researchers think will be the study completion date.
August 1, 2014

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

First Submitted

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submitted a study record to ClinicalTrials.gov. There is typically a delay of a few days between the first submitted date and the record's availability on ClinicalTrials.gov (the first posted date).
June 12, 2013

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The date on which the study sponsor or investigator first submits a study record that is consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. The sponsor or investigator may need to revise and submit a study record one or more times before NLM's QC review criteria are met. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
June 13, 2013

First Posted (Estimate)

First Posted

The date on which the study record was first available on ClinicalTrials.gov after National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review has concluded. There is typically a delay of a few days between the date the study sponsor or investigator submitted the study record and the first posted date.
June 14, 2013

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Estimate)

Last Update Posted

The most recent date on which changes to a study record were made available on ClinicalTrials.gov. There may be a delay between when the changes were submitted to ClinicalTrials.gov by the study's sponsor or investigator (the last update submitted date) and the last update posted date.
November 24, 2014

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator submitted changes to a study record that are consistent with National Library of Medicine (NLM) quality control (QC) review criteria. It is the responsibility of the sponsor or investigator to ensure that the study record is consistent with the NLM QC review criteria.
November 21, 2014

Last Verified

Last Verified

The most recent date on which the study sponsor or investigator confirmed the information about a clinical study on ClinicalTrials.gov as accurate and current. If a study with a recruitment status of recruiting; not yet recruiting; or active, not recruiting has not been confirmed within the past 2 years, the study's recruitment status is shown as unknown.
November 1, 2014

More Information

Terms related to this study

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

Other Study ID Numbers

Identifiers or ID numbers other than the NCT number that are assigned to a clinical study by the study's sponsor, funders, or others. These numbers may include unique identifiers from other trial registries and National Institutes of Health grant numbers.
  • 075-2013

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Cookie Settings

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. For more details carefully read our Privacy and Cookies Policy. ...>>>You can change your preferences or withdraw your consent at any time by deleting the cookies from your website or computer as described in the policy. Please accept it and choose your preferences by ticking the corresponding boxes in the "Manage Settings" section below. Please carefully read our Terms of Service before you proceed with using any part of this website.
«Manage Settings