ArticleFrontiers in health services2026
Implementing a digital audit-and-feedback surveillance system for diabetic ketoacidosis: study protocol for the DEKODE programme.
Article in Frontiers in health services, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Diabetic ketoacidosis is one of the leading causes of unplanned hospital admission among people with diabetes, yet adherence to treatment guidelines remains inconsistent, contributing to variation in care and suboptimal outcomes. Conventional audit approaches are limited by non-standardised data collection, restricting benchmarking and shared learning. The Digital Evaluation of Ketosis and Other Diabetic Emergencies (DEKODE) platform was developed as a cloud-based audit-and-feedback system to support near real-time performance monitoring and continuous quality improvement, but its implementation requires theory-informed evaluation. Methods: This multi-site, mixed-methods study involves six National Health Service hospitals, including early adopters and sites new to DEKODE. Guided by an implementation research logic model, the study links contextual determinants to tailored strategies. Quantitative outcomes, including episode duration, guideline adherence, complications, and clinical outcomes, will be analysed using interrupted time series methods. Qualitative stakeholder interviews will be analysed thematically, and findings integrated using triangulation. Results: The study will assess the impact of DEKODE on clinical and process outcomes and identify determinants influencing adoption, fidelity, and sustainability. Discussion: Findings will inform scalable implementation of digital audit-and-feedback systems to reduce variation in acute diabetes care and improve patient outcomes. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN17096714, identifier ISRCTN17096714.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.