Trent Stacy A, Havranek Edward P, Ginde Adit A, Haukoos Jason S
1 Denver Health Medical Center, Denver, CO.
2 University of Colorado, Aurora, CO.
Am J Med Qual. 2019 May/Jun;34(3):217-225. doi: 10.1177/1062860618796947. Epub 2018 Sep 12.
The objective was to estimate the effect of feedback with blinded peer comparison on emergency physician adherence to guidelines for appropriate antibiotic administration for inpatient pneumonia and completion of the 3-hour Surviving Sepsis Bundle for severe sepsis. The authors performed a quasi-experiment using a stepped wedge design at a single urban safety net hospital. Attending emergency physicians were randomized into 6 clusters. Once a cluster crossed into the intervention group, physicians in that cluster began receiving detailed feedback with blinded peer comparison on their adherence to guidelines for pneumonia and sepsis. Feedback with blinded peer comparison significantly improved guideline adherence from 52% without feedback to 65% with feedback (difference = 13%, 95% confidence interval = 4% to 22%). In adjusted analyses, the odds of providing guideline adherent care were 1.8 (95% confidence interval = 1.01-3.2) after the introduction of feedback with blinded peer comparison. Feedback with blinded peer comparison significantly improved emergency physician guideline adherence.
目的是评估采用盲法同行比较的反馈对急诊医生遵循住院肺炎适当抗生素使用指南以及完成严重脓毒症3小时脓毒症存活集束治疗的影响。作者在一家城市安全网医院采用阶梯楔形设计进行了一项准实验。主治急诊医生被随机分为6个群组。一旦一个群组进入干预组,该群组的医生就开始收到关于其遵循肺炎和脓毒症指南情况的采用盲法同行比较的详细反馈。采用盲法同行比较的反馈显著提高了指南遵循率,从无反馈时的52%提高到有反馈时的65%(差异=13%,95%置信区间=4%至22%)。在调整分析中,引入采用盲法同行比较的反馈后,提供遵循指南治疗的几率为1.8(95%置信区间=1.01-3.2)。采用盲法同行比较的反馈显著提高了急诊医生对指南的遵循率。