Electronic audit and feedback intervention with action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care: Protocol for a laboratory experiment and cluster randomised trial

Wouter T. Gude, Marie-José Roos-Blom, Sabine N. van der Veer, Evert de Jonge, Niels Peek, Dave A Dongelmans, Nicolette F. De Keizer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


Background: Audit and feedback is often used as a strategy to improve quality of care, however, its effects are variable and often marginal. In order to learn how to design and deliver effective feedback, we need to understand their mechanisms of action. This theory-informed study will investigate how electronic audit and feedback affects improvement intentions (i.e. information-intention gap), and whether an action implementation toolbox with suggested actions and materials helps translating those intentions into action (i.e. intention-behaviour gap). The study will be executed in Dutch intensive care units (ICUs) and will be focused on pain management. Methods and design: We will conduct a laboratory experiment with individual ICU professionals to assess the impact of feedback on their intentions to improve practice. Next, we will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial with ICUs allocated to feedback without or feedback with action implementation toolbox group. Participants will not be told explicitly what aspect of the intervention is randomised; they will only be aware that there are two variations of providing feedback. ICUs are eligible for participation if they submit indicator data to the Dutch National Intensive Care Evaluation (NICE) quality registry and agree to allocate a quality improvement team that spends 4 h per month on the intervention. All participating ICUs will receive access to an online quality dashboard that provides two functionalities: gaining insight into clinical performance on pain management indicators and developing action plans. ICUs with access to the toolbox can develop their action plans guided by a list of potential barriers in the care process, associated suggested actions, and supporting materials to facilitate implementation of the actions. The primary outcome measure for the laboratory experiment is the proportion of improvement intentions set by participants that are consistent with recommendations based on peer comparisons; for the randomised trial it is the proportion of patient shifts during which pain has been adequately managed. We will also conduct a process evaluation to understand how the intervention is implemented and used in clinical practice, and how implementation and use affect the intervention's impact. Discussion: The results of this study will inform care providers and managers in ICU and other clinical settings how to use indicator-based performance feedback in conjunction with an action implementation toolbox to improve quality of care. Within the ICU context, this study will produce concrete and directly applicable knowledge with respect to what is or is not effective for improving pain management, and under which circumstances. The results will further guide future research that aims to understand the mechanisms behind audit and feedback and contribute to identifying the active ingredients of successful interventions. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922101. Registered 26 September 2016.

Original languageEnglish
Article number68
JournalImplementation Science
Issue number1
Publication statusPublished - 25 May 2017


  • Feedback
  • Intensive care
  • Medical audit
  • Quality improvement
  • Quality indicators
  • Randomised controlled trial


Dive into the research topics of 'Electronic audit and feedback intervention with action implementation toolbox to improve pain management in intensive care: Protocol for a laboratory experiment and cluster randomised trial'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this