Abstract:Review question/objective The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize the best available evidence for the effectiveness of audit and feedback as a quality improvement strategy. More specifically, the objectives are to identify: 1. What characteristics contribute to an effective audit and feedback cycle in aged care. 2. Whether audit and feedback is an effective quality improvement strategy for improving health outcomes for older people in residential aged care facilities. 3. What the most effective feedback mechanisms as part of an audit and feedback cycle in implementing practice change are. Background Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of audit and feedback as a quality improvement strategy to improve practice and health care outcomes have been reported since 2000 with varying effects being identified.1 Traditionally, these reviews have examined medical practices and the acute health care sector. The most recent systematic review ‐ conducted in 2012 ‐ on audit and feedback outlined that this process has been widely used as a quality improvement tool and concluded that the implication for practice “generally leads to small but potentially important improvements in professional practice”.2(p.2) It also concluded that “the effectiveness of feedback seems to depend on baseline performance and how feedback is provided”.2(p.2) This review only included randomized controlled trials, the participants were healthcare professionals including physicians, pharmacists and nurses responsible for patient care and it included both inpatient and outpatient settings.2 Audit and feedback and clinical audit appear to be used interchangeably in the literature. In the United Kingdom a clinical audit was seen as one approach to improving the quality of patient care and was introduce in the 1990s. One article defined clinical audit as: ‘the systematic, critical analysis of the quality of medical care, including the procedures used for diagnosis and treatment, the use of resources, and the resulting outcome and quality of life for the patient’ or “audit is the process of reviewing the delivery of care to identify deficiencies so that they may be remedied”.1(p.24) PubMed defines clinical audit as ‘a detailed review and evaluation of selected clinical records by qualified professional personnel to improve the quality of patient care and outcome’. Interestingly there was no definition on PubMed for audit and feedback. Audit and feedback was defined in a systematic review in 2006 as “the provision of any summary of clinical performance over a specified period of time”.3 However, Pearson et al. 2007 provide a clearer description of clinical audit describing it as a tool that addresses all components of clinical effectiveness where health professionals examine their care practices against clinical guidelines or best practice statements. Pearson et al also explain that clinical effectiveness includes “best‐practice activities such as systematic reviews, clinical guidelines and clinical audit”.4(p.134) The authors describe the clinical audit and feedback process as a method of promoting evidence utilization and how it can be utilized an “internal mechanism for health professionals to use for quality improvement”.4(p.138) However, an initial search of various databases indicated that the term clinical audit is not commonly used in studies involving residential aged care facilities and more often the term audit and feedback is used. Therefore this review will include both audit and feedback, and clinical audit, in its search strategy focusing on implementation of evidence‐based practice. A literature review conducted in 2009, identified eight factors that might influence the implementation (utilization) of evidence‐based practice in aged care in Australia.5 These included:“a receptive context for change;having a model of change to guide implementation;adequate resources;staff with the necessary skills;stakeholder engagement, participation and commitment;the nature of the change in practice;systems in place to support the use of evidence; anddemonstrable benefits of the change”.5 Whilst this review did not specifically look at audit and feedback the underlying assumption was that ‘evidence‐based practice is about taking something new (the evidence) from one domain (research) and implementing it in another domain (practice), which describes a process used in clinical audit.5 Ives et al also stated: “in an audit and feedback process, an individual's professional practice or performance is measured and then compared to professional standards or targets”.2(p.2) There is evidence to confirm that audit and feedback on its own or as part of a multifaceted change process can have some effect on health outcomes and practice change.1 Implementation and utilization of evidence‐based practice is a challenge for researchers, educators, policy makers and health practitioners. A review that can provide evidence that the audit and feedback cycle, when used as a quality improvement strategy, can impact on clinical outcomes for a high risk population with co‐morbidities, is warranted. This is supported by Masso's literature review that outlines the Encouraging Best Practice in Residential Aged Care (EBPRAC) program, funded by the Australian Government, which was introduced in 2007 to implement evidence‐based practice in residential aged care facilities.5 The program involved 13 projects working with facilities in 108 locations across six states.5 The impact of this project is outlined in the Encouraging Best Practice in Residential Aged Care Program: Final Evaluation Report (2011) which states “collectively, the projects had a positive impact on residents, staff and facilities, with considerable variation between individual projects, and within each project”.6(p.97) Changes to the care received by residents were diverse. Many of the changes built on work that had been done previously in participating facilities and were relatively small scale and incremental in nature. In part this reflects the focus of the program and the available evidence. It is also indicative of the capacity of the sector to change; however this is dependent on the availability of resources, including the knowledge and skills of staff, the nature of daily work and the influence that a wide range of factors that are largely outside the control of those trying to bring about change can have e.g. turnover of facility managers which had a significant impact on some facilities and some projects.6 This report and the literature review by Masso et al. both confirm that aged care as a profession is willing to change depending on a number of variables as outlined in both papers.5,6 A total of $12,918,238 in Commonwealth funding was allocated to round one and two of this project.6 In 2010, EBPRAC was expanded to include community aged care that consequently resulted in the name being change to: ‘Encouraging Better Practice in Aged Care’ (EBPAC) program. In the 2011‐2012 Australian federal budget, the EBPAC initiative was incorporated into the Aged Care Services Improvement and Healthy Ageing Grants Fund. This confirms that implementing better practice in aged care is still on the political agenda and funding is being made available. The Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency (previously the auditing body for aged care in Australia) has facilitated the “Better Practice” in aged care award annually. The criteria for an award were as follows:Is the program based on the findings of research/feedback?Has the program's effectiveness been measured and monitored?Is the program focused on achieving better outcomes for the residents?Does the program demonstrate evolving and improving, finding the best way of doing things?How does it link with the residential aged care home's continuous improvement system? This demonstrates that implementing better practice is being supported by funding and auditing bodies nationally in Australia. A systematic review of audit and feedback as an evidence‐based quality improvement strategy is essential to provide the aged care industry (including policy makers, educators, medical professionals, allied health and nursing professionals, care staff, residents, families and consumers) with a review of the effectiveness of this process in improving health outcomes and the implementation of evidence‐based practice. A study using a cross‐sectional post feedback survey, conducted in Canada and published in 2013, examined unregulated care provider's perceptions of audit and feedback reports.7 This report concluded that “unregulated care providers can understand and feel positively about using audit with feedback reports to make changes to resident care”.7(p.1) This report recommended “further research should explore ways to promote fuller engagement of unregulated care providers in decision‐making to improve quality of care in long‐term care settings”.7(p.1) A search of the Cochrane Library identified 36 systematic reviews on audit and feedback and confirmed that only one of these related to aged care and had reviewed the prevention of the transmission of meticillin‐resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) in nursing homes for older people.8 This search also identified 63 systematic reviews on clinical audit and there were no systematic reviews relevant to residential aged care. A search of the Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Studies also revealed no systematic reviews or protocols had been conducted on this topic. The most recent systematic review in the Cochrane Library by Ives et al confirms that audit and feedback is effective, however it will “continue to be unreliable approach to quality improvement until we learn how and when it works best”.2(p.5) The lack of literature on audit and feedback and/or clinical audit in aged care suggests that the healthcare sector needs more information on how useful this tool could be as a quality improvement strategy to improve outcomes for residents in their care. Notwithstanding this, there are studies that have used audit and feedback as a change process in aged care some of which are randomized controlled trials. A review of these studies may provide the necessary evidence to increase the uptake of audit and feedback as a quality improvement strategy that may support the implementation and utilization of evidence‐based practice. This is a quantitative systematic review as it seeks to establish the effectiveness of audit and feedback as a quality improvement strategy. While it is acknowledged that qualitative data may inform this review, it is not within the proposed scope of this review. Whilst this protocol has predominately reflected on the Australian aged care sector, to obtain enough studies to be included in this review, evidence will be sought globally. It is hope that the lessons learnt internationally will be transferable to the local context as the review is focusing on evidence‐based practice and not local legislative requirements.

Abstract:Review question/objective: The objective of this review is to critically appraise and synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of professional oral health care intervention on the oral health of aged care residents with dementia.More specifically the objectives are to identify the efficacy of professional oral health care interventions on general oral health, the presence of plaque and the number of decayed or missing teeth. Background: Dementia poses a significant challenge for health and social policy in Australia. The quality of life of individuals, their families and friends is impacted by dementia. Older people with dementia often have other health comorbidities resulting in the need for a higher level of care. From 2009 to 2010, 53% of permanent residents in Residential Aged Care Facilities (RACFs) had dementia on admission. Older Australians are retaining more of their natural teeth, therefore residents entering RACFs will have more of their natural teeth and require complex dental work than they did in previous generations. Data from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare showed that more than half the residents in RACFs are now partially dentate with an average of 12 teeth each. Furthermore, coronal and root caries are significant problems, especially in older Australians who are cognitively impaired.Residents in aged care facilities frequently have poor oral health and hygiene with moderate to high levels of oral disease and overall dental neglect. This is reinforced by aged care staff who acknowledge that the demands of feeding, toileting and behavioral issues amongst residents often take precedence over oral health care regimens. Current literature shows that there is a general reluctance on the part of aged care staff to prioritize oral care due to limited knowledge as well as existing psychological barriers to working on another person's mouth. Although staff routinely deal with residents' urinary and faecal incontinence, deep psychological barriers exist when working on someone's mouth due to their own personal values of oral health or their views that residents should be looking after their own teeth or dentures. Furthermore, residents with behavioral issues associated with dementia frequently have their oral hygiene neglected as they may be resistant and violent towards receiving oral care from aged care staff. Studies have shown that residents with dementia will often refuse to open their mouth or partake in oral hygiene care by aged care staff. The aged care staff in return often do not pursue an oral care regimen for these "difficult" residents, perpetuating the cycle of oral neglect and resultant disease.Dental hygienists are qualified oral health professionals who are specifically trained to develop individualized oral health care plans and preventative programs to reduce oral health disease in the community. Residents with dementia in aged care facilities have the right to live their lives comfortably and free of oral discomfort or pain. A Victorian study conducted by Hopcraft et al. investigated the ability of a dental hygienist to undertake a dental examination/screening for residents in aged care facilities, to develop a preventative and periodontal treatment plan and to refer patients appropriately to a dentist. Results from this study demonstrated that there was an excellent agreement between the dentist and dental hygienist regarding the decision to refer residents to a dentist for treatment, demonstrating high sensitivity (99.6%) and high specificity (82.9%). Residents from 31 Victorian RACFs (n=510) were examined by a single experienced dental epidemiologist and one of four dental hygienists using a simple mouth mirror and probe. Hopcraft et al. concluded that hygienists should be utilized more widely in providing holistic oral health care to residents in aged care facilities.Recently, Lewis et al. discussed the need to develop models of care to improve access to dental care for frail and functionally dependent elderly people in aged care facilities, with the model of care involving dental hygienists/oral health therapists having merit.The concept of professional oral care involves an oral health professional such as a dental hygienist or oral health therapist supervising or assisting residents with their oral care. Oral care involves the mechanical removal of plaque and food debris using a toothbrush, interproximal brush and floss.In 2014, Morino et al. explored the efficacy of short term professional oral care from dental hygienists once a week after breakfast for one month. In this study, the dental hygienists did not perform dental scaling but brushed subjects' teeth using a toothbrush and interdental brush. Dental plaque scores decreased significantly (Fisher's two-tailed tests, p<0.05) in the professional oral health intervention group. Interestingly, the positive effects of this short term intervention were sustained for the following three months (Wilcoxon test, p<0.05).A pilot study in Arkansas was conducted by Amerine et al. and utilized the dental hygienist as the "oral health champion" in the residential aged care facility using the Oral Health Assessment Tool (OHAT) and Geriatric Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) scores to measure oral health. The results from this study showed improvements in three measured areas (tongue health, denture status and oral cleanliness) in the dental hygiene champion group. These findings suggest that the presence of a dental hygiene champion in long term care facilities may positively impact the oral health of residents requiring assistance with their oral care. However, the authors noted further research in this concept is required.Van Der Putten GJ et al. explored the effectiveness of a supervised implementation of an oral health care guideline in care homes. In each ward of the care homes, a nurse who acted as the ward oral health care organiser (WOO) was appointed. The dental hygienist and an investigator would attend the RACFs every six weeks to support them. The dental hygienist would train the WOO, and the WOO would train the ward nurses and nurse assistants. Participants were allocated into an intervention or a control group. The intervention group received supervised oral care. Statistically significant differences in mean dental and denture plaque scores at six months in both groups occurred (student t-test, p < 0.0001). This research study implemented an intervention using the train-the-trainer approach and although improvements in dental and denture plaque scores were seen in the six-month period, the long-term effects of this intervention are unknown. Further studies exploring the long-term effects of staff training on oral health education are needed as well as ongoing staff training in aged care facilities.A systematic review on oral health and aspiration pneumonia conducted by Vander Maarel-Wierink et al. has suggested that, in the frail elderly, the best intervention to reduce the incidence of aspiration pneumonia is brushing of teeth after each meal, cleaning dentures once a day, and receiving professional oral health care once a week.The need to advocate for a new model of geriatric dentistry is critical. A holistic multi-disciplinary approach to health care for residents entering aged care homes is imperative to achieve better oral health and comfort for residents, especially with Australia's ageing dentate population. A dental examination and assessment on admission to a RACF should be conducted by a Registered Nurse (RN), followed by an oral health professional such as a dentist, dental hygienist or oral health therapist. Current practice in the majority of Australian government funded nursing homes is that the RN or the Assistant in Nursing (AIN) conduct the oral health assessment as part of the aged care funding instrument (ACFI). Ongoing oral health care supported by an oral health professional is important throughout the individual's residency and eventual palliation whilst in an aged care facility.No systematic reviews conducted on the impact of professional oral care on the oral health of elderly people living in residential aged care facilities could be located, despite extensive searching of Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Trials and Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source (DOSS) databases. A JBI systematic review was conducted in 2004, titled, "Oral hygiene care for adults with dementia in residential aged care facilities"; however, this review examined the prevalence, incidence and increments of oral diseases; the use of assessment tools to evaluate oral health; preventative oral hygiene care strategies; and the provision of dental treatment and so had a different clinical focus. Twenty studies were included for analysis in the review conducted by Weening-Verbree et al, The studies in this review addressed oral health knowledge of aged care staff and mostly were conducted as an educational session delivered by dental hygienists or dentists.Overall, the current evidence available on interventions to improve oral health for residents living in aged care facilities is inadequate and should be explored further.

The effectiveness of audit and feedback as a quality improvement strategy in residential aged care: a systematic review protocol

The quality of care delivered to residents in long-term care in Australia: an indicator-based review of resident records (CareTrack Aged study)

Seeking residents' views regarding Australian residential aged care: A scoping review

Australian residential aged care home staff experiences of implementing an intervention to improve palliative and end-of-life care for residents: A qualitative study

Assessing infection prevention and control programs in residential aged care in Australia: A multi‐methods cross‐sectional study

Self-efficacy of direct care workers providing care to older people in residential aged care settings: a scoping review protocol

Promoting speaking‐up behaviours among nurses working in the care for older people: A scoping review

The use of data for process and quality improvement in long term care and home care: a systematic review of the literature

Protocol for a process evaluation of a stepped wedge randomised controlled trial to reduce unnecessary hospitalisations of older people from residential aged care: the EDDIE+ study

Effectiveness of professional oral health care intervention on the oral health of residents with dementia in residential aged care facilities: a systematic review protocol

Medical care in Australian residential aged care: Perspectives of residents, family, nurses and general practitioners

Longitudinal evaluation of an electronic audit and feedback system for patient safety in a large tertiary hospital setting

The quality of residential aged care in the context of the Australian aged care reforms: A scoping review

Exploring the Safewards Programme to Reduce Restrictive Practices in Residential Aged Care: Protocol for a Pilot and Feasibility Study

Opportunities to improve the impact of two national clinical audit programmes: a theory-guided analysis

How effective are programs at managing transition from hospital to home? A case study of the Australian Transition Care Program

Evaluation methodology for a home-based integrated care program targeting frequently hospitalized older adults in Singapore

Growing Literature, Stagnant Science? Systematic Review, Meta-Regression and Cumulative Analysis of Audit and Feedback Interventions in Health Care

Evaluation of a commissioned end-of-life care service in Australian aged care facilities

Mapping evidence on standards and quality of care for older persons in long-term care facilities: a scoping review protocol

Evaluation of an Infection surveillance program in residential aged care facilities in Victoria, Australia