Audit and Feedback for General Practitioners in the Intego Network

Audit and feedback is an extensively investigated quality intervention, which according to the last Cochrane review leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. There is some evidence that feedback can improve EHR registration but the effect and important features of feedback are still the subject of debate. Previous work has identified some testable and theory-informed hypotheses for designing an audit and feedback intervention and suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the intervention are available in literature. There are several criteria feedback could meet to have an impact on the registration level of GP's in the EHR. The researchers now want to evaluate if the effort to make an extended feedback intervention has an effect on the registration behavior of the GP.

The research question is: Does an audit and extended feedback intervention improves the quality of registration in the EHR of the general physician compared to basic feedback?

Study Overview

• Status: Withdrawn
• Conditions: Heart Failure; Diabetes Mellitus; Chronic Kidney Diseases
• Intervention / Treatment: Other: Extended audit and feedback in GPs electronic health record

Detailed Description

Intego is a Belgian general practice-based morbidity registration network at the Department of General Practice of the University of Leuven. Intego collects data on health parameters, incidence and prevalence rates, laboratory results, and prescribed drugs for all relevant subgroups. It is unique in Belgium. These data are used as a basis for teaching, quality improvement interventions, and research, as well as for policy making by both physicians' organizations and governmental bodies. The health ministry of the Flemish government mainly funds the network. Ad hoc research projects serve as an additional funding source.

Up until 2017, 97 general practitioners (GP's) of 55 practices evenly spread throughout Flanders, Belgium, collaborated in Intego. GP's applied for inclusion in the registry. Before acceptance of their data, registration performance was audited using algorithms to compare their results with those of all other applicants. Only data of practices with optimal registration performance that met our three quality requirements were included in the database. First, the average number of new diagnoses per patient per year should be higher than one. Second, diagnoses have to be entered in the practice software using keywords. The Intego GP's prospectively and routinely registered all new diagnoses and new drug prescriptions, as well as laboratory test results and patient information. The registration made use of computer-generated keywords internally linked to codes [International Classification of Primary Care (ICPC-2) and International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision (ICD-10) for diagnoses and WHO's Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification system for drugs]. The percentage of diagnoses recorded without using keywords should be less than 5%. Finally, these parameters must remain stable for at least three years.

In 2017, Intego made a transition in data infrastructure and size of the network.

Further information technology development for the electronic health record (EHR) 'Medidoc' was terminated, and all its users were urged by the vendor to migrate to a new EHR, called CareConnect (Corilus), a cloud-based EHR. This transition marked the moment to redesign the data collection for this registry, which had not changed since its start. To comply with the new General Data Protection Regulation legislation, the Healthdata.be platform was identified as a partner for this task.

Moreover, the number of practices was increased and now counts 107 practices (410 GPs). However, new GP practices might not meet the quality requirements for good registration yet.

The data completeness of the EHR is thus an important factor to consider when reusing data stored in the EHR. Other pitfalls and sources of bias when using EHR data have also been identified. In order to improve registration, we want to implement extended electronically delivered feedback and evaluate its effects on correctly registering the diagnosis of chronic diseases and lifestyle habits in the EHR.

Audit and feedback is an extensively investigated quality intervention, which according to the last Cochrane review leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice. There is some evidence that feedback can improve EHR registration but the effect and important features of feedback are still the subject of debate. Previous work has identified some testable and theory-informed hypotheses for designing an audit and feedback intervention and suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the intervention are available in literature. There are several criteria feedback could meet to have an impact on the registration level of GP's in the EHR. We now want to evaluate if the effort to make an extended feedback intervention has an effect on the registration behavior of the GP.

The research question is: Does an audit and extended feedback intervention improves the quality of registration in the EHR of the general physician compared to basic feedback?

• Study Type: Interventional
• Phase: Not Applicable

Participation Criteria

Eligibility Criteria

• Ages Eligible for Study: Child; Adult; Older Adult
• Accepts Healthy Volunteers: Yes
• Genders Eligible for Study: All

Description

inclusion criteria:

• This trial has the general practices as the level of allocation.
• All GPs in the Intego network will be asked to participate in this trial.
• For GPs working in a group, the whole group will be asked to collaborate.

Exclusion criteria:

- If not all GPs in a group practice want to collaborate in the intervention study, the whole GP practice will not be included in this study.

Study Plan

How is the study designed?

Design Details

• Primary Purpose: Other
• Allocation: Randomized
• Interventional Model: Parallel Assignment
• Masking: Single

Number of Arms

2

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm	Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Extended audit and feedback; The intervention consists of an extended electronically delivered feedback with multiple components which will be delivered 4 times electronically into general practices over 12 months. This extended feedback report consists of: Benchmarking of the results of the audit versus peers, versus guidelines and versus disease specific laboratory results.; A low cognitive load of the feedback where the results will be presented with the help of graphs.; Action plans to improve the quality of registration; A push system to minimize the effort the GP must make to consult the feedback.	Other: Extended audit and feedback in GPs electronic health record; The intervention consists of an extended electronically delivered feedback with multiple components which will be delivered 4 times electronically into general practices over 12 months. This extended feedback report consists of: Benchmarking of the results of the audit versus peers, versus guidelines and versus disease specific laboratory results.; A low cognitive load of the feedback where the results will be presented with the help of graphs.; Action plans to improve the quality of registration; A push system to minimize the effort the GP must make to consult the feedback.
Active Comparator: Basic feedback; In the past, all GPs received basic feedback on the level of registration in the EHR and this form of feedback will still be provided in the control group. By providing all GPs a basic level of feedback, we do not change the former protocol and all GPs will receive the opportunity to improve their registration performance. Only the way of receiving feedback is more straightforward, the GP needs to login to HealthStat.be.	Other: Extended audit and feedback in GPs electronic health record; The intervention consists of an extended electronically delivered feedback with multiple components which will be delivered 4 times electronically into general practices over 12 months. This extended feedback report consists of: Benchmarking of the results of the audit versus peers, versus guidelines and versus disease specific laboratory results.; A low cognitive load of the feedback where the results will be presented with the help of graphs.; Action plans to improve the quality of registration; A push system to minimize the effort the GP must make to consult the feedback.

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
percentage registered diagnoses of DM 2 in the EHR	Registered diagnosis of type II diabetes in GPs electronic health record	12 months

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
Percentage registered lifestyle factors	Registration of lifestyle habits such as alcohol and tobacco use	12 months
percentage registered diagnoses of heart failure	Registered diagnosis of heart failure in GPs electronic health record	12 months

Other Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure	Measure Description	Time Frame
CKD follow-up quality indicator	Percentage of patients with CKD in whom the GFR, albuminuria and total protein is determined at least once a year	12 months
CKD vaccination quality indicator	Percentage of patients with CKD who received a pneumococcal vaccination	12 months
Diabetes treatment quality indicator	Percentage of patients with diabetes and CKD who no longer receive metformin	12 months
Diabetes follow-up quality indicator	Percentage of patients with diabetes whose HbA1c level is measured at least once every 6 months	12 months

Collaborators and Investigators

• Sponsor: Tine De Burghraeve
• Investigators: Principal Investigator: Tine De Burghgraeve, PhD, KU Leuven

Publications and helpful links

General Publications

• Van den Bulck S, De Burghgraeve T, Raat W, Mamouris P, Coursier P, Vankrunkelsven P, Goderis G, Hermens R, Van Pottelbergh G, Vaes B. The effect of automated audit and feedback on data completeness in the electronic health record of the general physician: protocol for a cluster randomized controlled trial. Trials. 2021 May 4;22(1):325. doi: 10.1186/s13063-021-05259-9.

Study record dates

Study Major Dates

• Study Start (Actual): January 30, 2022
• Primary Completion (Actual): February 28, 2022
• Study Completion (Actual): February 28, 2022

Study Registration Dates

• First Submitted: May 11, 2020
• First Submitted That Met QC Criteria: May 11, 2020
• First Posted (Actual): May 14, 2020

Study Record Updates

• Last Update Posted (Actual): March 22, 2022
• Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria: March 8, 2022
• Last Verified: March 1, 2022

More Information

Terms related to this study

• Additional Relevant MeSH Terms: Urologic Diseases; Renal Insufficiency; Kidney Diseases; Renal Insufficiency, Chronic
• Other Study ID Numbers: S62753

Plan for Individual participant data (IPD)

• Plan to Share Individual Participant Data (IPD)?: NO

Drug and device information, study documents

• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product: No
• Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product: No