Knowledge mobilization through audit and feedback: a scoping review of applications in rehabilitation

PURPOSE: To explore the scope of the methodologies reported for Audit & Feedback (A&F) in rehabilitation settings. METHOD: The keyword search strategy was validated by a specialized librarian and conducted in the PubMed and CINAHL databases. Two reviewers screened the studies using Covidence software, and conflicts were resolved by a third person. The inclusion criteria were 1) to take place in a physical rehabilitation setting, 2) to use the A & F, and 3) to be written in English or French. Data were extracted into an Excel grid, and descriptive analyses were conducted to summarize the characteristics of the studies and A&F methodologies. RESULTS: Sixty studies were included. A&F are primarily used in the context of implementing a new program/intervention (40.0%), or to ensure adherence to guidelines and recommendations (55.5%). Principal data collection methods are audit of medical files (51.7%) and observations (6.7%). Nineteen studies (31.7%) provided both written and verbal feedback, yet thirteen studies (21.7%) did not clarify the feedback recipients (e.g. managers, clinicians). Research gaps identified included a lack of guiding frameworks for A&F reported in the studies and the absence of a detailed feedback procedure. CONCLUSION: Our study reflects the importance of thorough reflections on best practices.