This is a repository copy of Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. Effectiveness of a national quality improvement programme to improve survival after emergency abdominal surgery (EPOCH) : a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial. The Lancet. ISSN 0140-6736 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)32521-2 eprints@whiterose.ac.uk https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/ ReuseThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs (CC BY-NC-ND) licence. This licence only allows you to download this work and share it with others as long as you credit the authors, but you can't change the article in any way or use it commercially. More information and the full terms of the licence here: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/ Implications of all the available evidenceDespite the success of some smaller projects, there was no survival benefit from a national quality improvement programme to implement a care pathway for patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery. To succeed, large national quality improvement programmes need to allow for differences between hospitals and ensure teams have both the time and resources needed to improve patient care.

Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

After recent UK policy developments, considerable attention has been focused upon how clinical specialties measure and report on the quality of care delivered to patients. Defining the right indicators alone is insufficient to close the feedback loop. This narrative review aims to describe and synthesize a diverse body of research relevant to the question of how information from quality indicators can be fed back and used effectively to improve care. Anaesthesia poses certain challenges in the identification of valid outcome indicators sensitive to variations in anaesthetic care. Metrics collected during the immediate post-anaesthetic recovery period, such as patient temperature, patient-reported quality of recovery, and pain and nausea, provide potentially useful information for the anaesthetist, yet this information is not routinely fed back. Reviews of the effects of feeding back performance data to healthcare providers suggest that this may result in small to moderate positive effects upon outcomes and professional practice, with stronger effects where feedback is integrated within a broader quality improvement strategy. The dominant model for use of data within quality improvement is based upon the industrial process control approach, in which care processes are monitored continuously for process changes which are rapidly detectable for corrective action. From this review and experience of implementing these principles in practice, effective feedback from quality indicators is timely, credible, confidential, tailored to the recipient, and continuous. Considerable further work is needed to understand how information from quality indicators can be fed back in an effective way to clinicians and clinical units, in order to support revalidation and continuous improvement.

EudraCT 2009-017153-35; ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01199276.

For clinicians to engage with effective quality monitoring and feedback, the perceived local relevance of indicators and trust in the credibility of the resulting data are paramount.