Search

Abstract Background People living with diabetes must manage a range of factors for optimal control of glycaemia and to minimise the risk of diabetes-related complications. Diabetes practitioners are expected to follow guidelines for the key process of care and clinical outcomes, to help people living with diabetes achieve clinical targets. In Australia, the performance of diabetes centres against guidelines is evaluated by the Australian National Diabetes Audit, an annual clinical audit and feedback activity. Previous work has identified areas for improvement in the feedback provided to participating diabetes centres and suggested additional educational and support resources to assist in using audit feedback for the development of quality improvement activities. This cluster randomised trial will test the acceptability, utility and impact on selected clinical outcomes of the developed study intervention (audit feedback and a tailored educational and peer support cointervention). Methods Two-armed cluster randomised trial with Australian Diabetes Centres that participated in the Australian National Diabetes Audit in 2021 as the clusters, stratified by location and type of centre. We aim to recruit 35 diabetes centres in each arm. Both the intervention and control arms will receive an augmented feedback report, accompanied by a partially pre-populated slide deck. In addition, the intervention arm will receive a tailored theory-based intervention designed to address identified, modifiable barriers to utilising and implementing the recommendations from diabetes audit feedback. The co-primary outcomes are (1) HbA1c at the patient level, measured at 6 months after delivery of the intervention, and (2) the acceptability and utility of the augmented feedback and cointerventions at the practitioner level, measured at 3 months after delivery of the intervention. Discussion This trial aims to test the effects of systematic development and implementation of theory and evidence-informed changes to the audit feedback delivered to diabetes centres participating in an established national clinical diabetes audit. Potential benefits of improved audit feedback include more optimal engagement with the feedback by end clinical users which, ultimately, may lead to improvements in care for people living with diabetes. Trial registration Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000765820. Prospectively registered on June 21, 2021

Abstract Background Diabetes has high burden on the health system and the individual, and many people living with diabetes struggle to optimally manage their condition. In Australia, people living with diabetes attend a mixture of primary, secondary and tertiary care centres. Many of these Diabetes Centres participate in the Australian National Diabetes Audit (ANDA), a quality improvement (QI) activity that collects clinical information (audit) and feeds back collated information to participating sites (feedback). Despite receiving this feedback, many process and care outcomes for Diabetes Centres continue to show room for improvement. The purpose of this qualitative study was to inform improvement of the ANDA feedback, identify the needs of those receiving feedback and elicit the barriers to and enablers of optimal feedback use. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with representatives of Australian Diabetes Centres, underpinned by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). De-identified transcripts were analysed thematically, underpinned by the domains and constructs of the CFIR. Results Representatives from 14 Diabetes centres participated in this study, including a diverse range of staff typical of the Diabetes Centres who take part in ANDA. In general, participants wanted a shorter report with a more engaging, simplified data visualisation style. Identified barriers to use of feedback were time or resource constraints, as well as access to knowledge about how to use the data provided to inform the development of QI activities. Enablers included leadership engagement, peer mentoring and support, and external policy and incentives. Potential cointerventions to support use include exemplars from clinical change champions and peer leaders, and educational resources to help facilitate change. Conclusions This qualitative study supported our contention that the format of ANDA feedback presentation can be improved. Healthcare professionals suggested actionable changes to current feedback to optimise engagement and potential implementation of QI activities. These results will inform redesign of the ANDA feedback to consider the needs and preferences of end users and to provide feedback and other supportive cointerventions to improve care, and so health outcomes for people with diabetes. A subsequent cluster randomised trial will enable us to evaluate the impact of these changes.