You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 10, Issue 1
  • Audit and feedback and educational outreach did not differ from printed educational materials for improving community nursing practice

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Quality improvement
Audit and feedback and educational outreach did not differ from printed educational materials for improving community nursing practice

https://doi.org/10.1136/ebn.10.1.26

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Cheater F, Baker R, Reddish S, et al. Cluster randomised controlled trial of the effectiveness of audit and feedback and educational outreach on improving nursing practice and patient outcomes. Med Care 2006;44:542–51.OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science

    Q Does audit and feedback (AF) and educational outreach (EO) improve community nursing practice and outcomes in patients with urinary incontinence (UI)?

    METHODS

    Embedded ImageDesign:

    cluster randomised controlled trial.

    Embedded ImageAllocation:

    concealed.

    Embedded ImageBlinding:

    blinded {patients, data collectors, and data analysts}.*

    Embedded ImageFollow up period:

    6 months.

    Embedded ImageSetting:

    157 local family practices in the counties of East Midlands, West Midlands, and Northwest Anglia, UK.

    Embedded ImageParticipants:

    176 community nurses (district nurses and specialist health visitors) attached to ⩾1 of the family practices and 1078 patients ⩾16 years of age (83% women) who had UI; patients with permanent indwelling urethral or suprapubic urinary catheters were excluded.

    Embedded ImageIntervention:

    38 practices (41 nurses, 276 patients) were allocated to AF, which comprised personal feedback sent by post to nurses on performance, emphasising good practice and suggestions for improvement; anonymous aggregated feedback on the performance …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • For correspondence: Professor F M Cheater, School of Healthcare, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK. f.m.cheater{at}leeds.ac.uk

    • Source of funding: UK NHS Research and Development program.