Dataset Information

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol).

ABSTRACT:

Background

Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.

Methods

We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled trial comparing quality-indicator prioritisation with and without public involvement. In preparation for the trial, we developed a 'menu' of quality indicators, based on a systematic review of existing validated indicator sets. Participants (public representatives, clinicians, and managers) will be recruited from six participating sites. In intervention sites, public representatives will be involved through direct participation (public representatives, clinicians, and managers will deliberate together to agree on quality-indicator choice and use) and consultation (individual public recommendations for improvement will be collected and presented to decision makers). In control sites, only clinicians and managers will take part in the prioritisation process. Data on quality-indicator choice and intended use will be collected. Our primary outcome will compare quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities between intervention and control groups. A process evaluation based on direct observation, videorecording, and participants' assessment will be conducted to help explain the study's results. The marginal cost of public involvement will also be assessed.

Discussion

We identified 801 quality indicators that met our inclusion criteria. An expert panel agreed on a final set of 37 items containing validated quality indicators relevant for chronic disease prevention and management in primary care. We pilot tested our public-involvement intervention with 27 participants (11 public representatives and 16 clinicians and managers) and our study instruments with an additional 21 participants, which demonstrated the feasibility of the intervention and generated important insights and adaptations to engage public representatives more effectively. To our knowledge, this study is the first trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation, and its results could foster more effective upstream engagement of patients and the public in clinical practice improvement.

Trial registration

NTR2496 (Netherlands National Trial Register, http://www.trialregister.nl).

SUBMITTER: Boivin A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3118228 | biostudies-literature | 2011 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol).

Boivin Antoine A Lehoux Pascale P Lacombe Réal R Lacasse Anaïs A Burgers Jako J Grol Richard R

Implementation science : IS 20110509

<h4>Background</h4>Public priorities for improvement often differ from those of clinicians and managers. Public involvement has been proposed as a way to bridge the gap between professional and public clinical care priorities but has not been studied in the context of quality-indicator choice. Our objective is to assess the feasibility and impact of public involvement on quality-indicator choice and agreement with public priorities.<h4>Methods</h4>We will conduct a cluster randomised controlled ...[more]

PMID: 21554691

Similar Datasets

Project description:Interventions: Future Health Today (FHT) trial is testing a quality improvement (QI) program in order to reduce cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk in people with chronic kidney disease (CKD) and to facilitate earlier diagnosis of cancer in general practice. The intervention consists of: 1.Technology platform consisting of audit, point of care clinical decision support, and QI templates. Practices will generate a baseline cohort of patients using the audit tool at the beginning of the trial. The progress of the cohort will be automatically updated using the Future Health Today platform over the trial duration. Practices will be encouraged to review their progress and complete a minimum of three reviews of audit data as part of an accredited Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (RACGP) quality improvement activity. These can be carried out at any time during the trial, but we will recommend that they are conducted at least once every four months over the 12-month trial period. The point of care tool will automatically deploy when the electronic medical record of an eligible patient is opened and will provide a prompt regarding guideline-concordant care. The QI template has been developed specifically for this study, and aligns to RACGP requirements. 2.ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) education activities. ECHO sessions are delivered using the zoom videoconference platform. The 60-minute sessions consist of (1) Introductions of participants (2) Delivery of a short didactic lecture (approximately 10 minutes in duration), followed by question and answer session (3) Presentation of a clinical case by a participant followed by feedback from participants and an expert panel. Each arm will receive 3 ECHO sessions based on their allocation (see below). T Primary outcome(s): Proportion of eligible patients with CKD (coded diagnosis or pathology consistent with diagnosis of CKD) that are receiving ACE inhibitors or Angiotensin receptor blockers and/or statins consistent with Kidney Health Australia, RACGP Red Book and National Vascular Disease Prevention Alliance Guidelines.[ 12 months post-baseline];Proportion of eligible patients at risk of undiagnosed prostate, oesophageal, gastric, colorectal, endometrial, lung or ovarian cancer that have been assessed and investigated according to NICE, Cancer Council Australia, Victorian Government Department of Health and Human Services, Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia guidelines. This will be assessed utilising data extracted from electronic medical records and stored in the Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne Patron dataset. [ 12 months post-baseline] Study Design: Purpose: Educational / counselling / training; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Blinded (masking used);Assignment: Parallel;Type of endpoint: Efficacy

Project description:IntroductionThere are concerns of inappropriate use of subsidised antimalarials due to the large number of fevers treated in the informal sector with minimal access to diagnostic testing. Targeting antimalarial subsidies to confirmed malaria cases can lead to appropriate, effective therapy. There is evidence that community health volunteers (CHVs) can be trained to safely and correctly use rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs). This study seeks to evaluate the public health impact of targeted antimalarial subsidies delivered through a partnership between CHVs and the private retail sector.Methods and analysisWe are conducting a stratified cluster-randomised controlled trial in Western Kenya where 32 community units were randomly assigned to the intervention or control (usual care) arm. In the intervention arm, CHVs offer free RDT testing to febrile individuals and, conditional on a positive test result, a voucher to purchase a WHO-qualified artemisinin combination therapy (ACT) at a reduced fixed price in the retail sector.Study outcomes in individuals with a febrile illness in the previous 4 weeks will be ascertained through population-based cross-sectional household surveys at four time points: baseline, 6, 12 and 18 months postbaseline. The primary outcome is the proportion of fevers that receives a malaria test from any source (CHV or health facility). The main secondary outcome is the proportion of ACTs used by people with a malaria-positive test. Other secondary outcomes include: the proportion of ACTs used by people without a test and adherence to test results.Ethics and disseminationThe protocol has been approved by the National Institutes of Health, the Moi University School of Medicine Institutional Research and Ethics Committee and the Duke University Medical Center Institutional Review Board. Findings will be reported on clinicalstrials.gov, in peer-reviewed publications and through stakeholder meetings including those with the Kenyan Ministry of Health.Trial registration numberPre-results, NCT02461628.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty in elderly patients is associated with an increased risk of poor health outcomes, including falls, delirium, malnutrition, hospitalisation, and mortality. Because polypharmacy is recognised as a possible major contributor to the pathogenesis of geriatric frailty, reducing inappropriate medication exposure is supposed to be a promising approach to improve health-related quality of life and prevent adverse outcomes. A major challenge for the process of deprescribing of inappropriate polypharmacy is to improve the communication between general practitioner (GPs), patient and family carer. This study investigates the effects of a complex intervention in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy living at home. METHODS:This is a cluster randomised controlled trial including 136 GPs and 676 patients. Patients with a positive clinical screening for frailty are eligible if they are aged 70?years or older, receiving family or professional nursing care at home, and taking in five or more drugs per day. Exclusion criteria are higher grade of dementia and life expectancy of 6 months or less. The GPs of the intervention group receive an educational training promoting a deprescribing guideline and providing information on how to conduct a family conference focussing on prioritisation of treatment goals concerning drug therapy. During the 1-year intervention, GPs are expected to perform a total of three family conferences, each including a structured medication review with patients and their family carers. GPs of the control group will receive no training and will deliver care as usual. Geriatric assessment of all patients will be performed by study nurses during home visits at baseline and after 6 and 12 months. The primary outcome is the hospitalisation rate during the observation period of 12?months. Secondary outcomes are number and appropriateness of medications, mobility, weakness, cognition, depressive disorder, health-related quality of life, activities of daily living, weight, and costs of health care use. DISCUSSION:This study will provide evidence for a pragmatic co-operative and patient-centred educational intervention using family conferences to improve patient safety in frail elderly patients with polypharmacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION:German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00015055 (WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform [ICTRP]). Registered on 6 February 2019.

Project description:BackgroundThe uptake of evidence-based therapies in the intensive care environment is suboptimal, particularly in limited-resource countries. Checklists, daily goal assessments, and clinician prompts may improve compliance with best practice processes of care and, in turn, improve clinical outcomes. However, the available evidence on the effectiveness of checklists is unreliable and inconclusive, and the mechanisms are poorly understood. We aim to evaluate whether the use of a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including the use of a checklist and the definition of daily care goals during multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompts, can improve the in-hospital mortality of patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). Our secondary objectives are to assess the effects of the study intervention on specific processes of care, clinical outcomes, and the safety culture and to determine which factors (the processes of care and/or safety culture) mediate the effect of the study intervention on mortality.Methods/designThis is a cluster randomized trial involving 118 ICUs in Brazil conducted in two phases. In the observational preparatory phase, we collect baseline data on processes of care and clinical outcomes from 60 consecutive patients with lengths of ICU stay longer than 48 h and apply the Safety Attitudes Questionnaire (SAQ) to 75% or more of the health care staff in each ICU. In the randomized phase, we assign ICUs to the experimental or control arm and repeat data collection. Experimental arm ICUs receive the multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including a checklist and definition of daily care goals during daily multidisciplinary rounds, clinician prompting, and feedback on rates of adherence to selected care processes. Control arm ICUs maintain usual care. The primary outcome is in-hospital mortality, truncated at 60 days. Secondary outcomes include the rates of adherence to appropriate care processes, rates of other clinical outcomes, and scores on the SAQ domains. Analysis follows the intention-to-treat principle, and the primary outcome is analyzed using mixed effects logistic regression.DiscussionThis is a large scale, pragmatic cluster-randomized trial evaluating whether a multifaceted quality improvement intervention, including checklists applied during the multidisciplinary daily rounds and clinician prompting, can improve the adoption of proven therapies and decrease the mortality of critically ill patients. If this study finds that the intervention reduces mortality, it may be widely adopted in intensive care units, even those in limited-resource settings.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01785966.

Project description:BackgroundCommunity health workers (CHWs) play key roles in delivering health programmes in many countries worldwide. CHW programmes can improve coverage of maternal and child health services for the most disadvantaged and remote communities, leading to substantial benefits for mothers and children. However, there is limited evidence of effective mentoring and supervision approaches for CHWs.MethodsThis is a cluster randomised controlled trial to investigate the effectiveness of a continuous quality improvement (CQI) intervention amongst CHWs providing home-based education and support to pregnant women and mothers. Thirty CHW supervisors were randomly allocated to intervention (n = 15) and control (n = 15) arms. Four CHWs were randomly selected from those routinely supported by each supervisor (n = 60 per arm). In the intervention arm, these four CHWs and their supervisor formed a quality improvement team. Intervention CHWs received a 2-week training in WHO Community Case Management followed by CQI mentoring for 12 months (preceded by 3 months lead-in to establish QI processes). Baseline and follow-up surveys were conducted with mothers of infants <12 months old living in households served by participating CHWs.ResultsInterviews were conducted with 736 and 606 mothers at baseline and follow-up respectively; socio-demographic characteristics were similar in both study arms and at each time point. At follow-up, compared to mothers served by control CHWs, mothers served by intervention CHWs were more likely to have received a CHW visit during pregnancy (75.7 vs 29.0%, p < 0.0001) and the postnatal period (72.6 vs 30.3%, p < 0.0001). Intervention mothers had higher maternal and child health knowledge scores (49 vs 43%, p = 0.02) and reported higher exclusive breastfeeding rates to 6 weeks (76.7 vs 65.1%, p = 0.02). HIV-positive mothers served by intervention CHWs were more likely to have disclosed their HIV status to the CHW (78.7 vs 50.0%, p = 0.007). Uptake of facility-based interventions were not significantly different.ConclusionsImproved training and CQI-based mentoring of CHWs can improve quantity and quality of CHW-mother interactions at household level, leading to improvements in mothers' knowledge and infant feeding practices.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.Gov NCT01774136.

Dataset Information

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol).

Background

Methods

Discussion

Trial registration

Publications

Target for improvement: a cluster randomised trial of public involvement in quality-indicator prioritisation (intervention development and study protocol).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets