Why the study?
Does providing written specialist feedback before a posttest audit improve the proportion of atrial fibrillation patients receiving oral anticoagulation compared to providing feedback after the audit?
Does providing written specialist feedback before a posttest audit improve the proportion of atrial fibrillation patients receiving oral anticoagulation compared to providing feedback after the audit?
The STOP STROKE in AF study protocol outlines a cluster randomized trial evaluating whether augmenting academic detailing with expert feedback improves oral anticoagulation prescribing for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation.
BACKGROUND: Suboptimal uptake of anticoagulation for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation has persisted for over 20 years, despite high-level evidence demonstrating its effectiveness in reducing the risk of fatal and disabling stroke. METHODS: The STOP STROKE in AF study is a national, cluster randomised controlled trial designed to improve the uptake of anticoagulation in primary care. General practitioners from around Australia enrolling in this 'distance education' program are mailed written educational materials, followed by an academic detailing session delivered via telephone by a medical peer, during which participants discuss patient de-identified cases. General practitioners are then randomised to receive written specialist feedback about the patient de-identified cases either before or after completing a three-month posttest audit. Specialist feedback is designed to provide participants with support and confidence to prescribe anticoagulation. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients with atrial fibrillation receiving oral anticoagulation at the time of the posttest audit. DISCUSSION: The STOP STROKE in AF study aims to evaluate a feasible intervention via distance education to prevent avoidable stroke due to atrial fibrillation. It provides a systematic test of augmenting academic detailing with expert feedback about patient management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gattellari et al. (2012) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: