Dataset Information

Key activities used by community based primary care practices to improve the quality of diabetes care in response to practice facilitation.

ABSTRACT: A recent systematic review suggests that practice facilitation (PF) is a robust intervention for implementing evidence-based preventive care guidelines in primary care, but the ability of PF to improve chronic illness care remains unclear.To examine the specific activities and Chronic Care model (CCM) components that primary care practices implemented and sustained in response to a 12-month PF intervention.The ABC trial tested the effectiveness of PF to improve care for diabetes in 40 small community-based primary care practices that were randomized to "initial" or "delayed" intervention arms. A trained facilitator met with each practice over 12-months. Facilitators used interactive consensus building to help practices implement one or more of quality improvement activities based on the CCM. Facilitators prospectively recorded implementation activities reported by practice teams during monthly meetings and confirmed which of these were sustained at the end of the intervention.37 practices implemented and sustained a total of 43 unique activities [range 1-15, average 6.5 (SD=2.9)]. The number (%) of practices that implemented 1 or more key activities in each CCM component varied: Patient Self-Management Support: 37 (100%); Clinical Information Systems: 24 (64.9%), Delivery System Design: 14 (37.8%), Decision Support: 13 (35.1%), Community Linkages: 2 (5.4%); Healthcare System Support: 2 (2.7%). The majority of practices (59%) only implemented activities from 1 or 2 CCM components. The number of sustained activities was associated with the number of PF visits, but not with practice characteristics.In spite of the PF intervention, it was difficult for these small practices to implement comprehensive CCM changes. Although practices implemented and sustained a remarkable number and variety of key activities, the majority of these focused on patient self-management support, as opposed to other components of the CCM, such as clinical information systems, decision support, delivery system redesign, and community linkages.

SUBMITTER: Noel PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4326068 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Key activities used by community based primary care practices to improve the quality of diabetes care in response to practice facilitation.

Noël Polly Hitchcock PH Romero Raquel Lozano RL Robertson Michaela M Parchman Michael L ML

Quality in primary care 20140101 4

<h4>Background</h4>A recent systematic review suggests that practice facilitation (PF) is a robust intervention for implementing evidence-based preventive care guidelines in primary care, but the ability of PF to improve chronic illness care remains unclear.<h4>Aims</h4>To examine the specific activities and Chronic Care model (CCM) components that primary care practices implemented and sustained in response to a 12-month PF intervention.<h4>Methods</h4>The ABC trial tested the effectiveness of ...[more]

PMID: 25685075

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundLean management has been successfully employed in healthcare to improve outcomes and efficiencies. Facilitation is increasingly being used to support evidence-based practice uptake in healthcare. However, while both Lean and Facilitation are used in healthcare quality improvement, limited research has explored their integration and the sustainability of their combined effects.ObjectiveTo improve hepatitis C virus (HCV) screening rates among persons born between 1945 and 1965 through the design and evaluation of a multi-modal Lean-Facilitation intervention (LFI) for Department of Veterans Affairs primary care community clinics.DesignWe conducted a mixed methods quasi-experimental evaluation in eight clinics, guided by the integrated Promoting Action on Research Implementation in Health Services framework.ParticipantsWe engaged regional and local leadership (N = 9), implemented our LFI with clinicians and staff (N = 68), and conducted summative interviews with participants (N = 13).InterventionThe LFI included six implementation strategies: (1) external facilitation, (2) stakeholder engagement, (3) champion activation, (4) rapid process improvement sessions, (5) Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, and (6) audit-feedback.MeasuresThe primary outcome was rate of new HCV screening among previously untested patients with a primary care visit. Using interrupted time series, we analyzed intervention and time effects on HCV testing rates, and administered organizational readiness surveys, conducted summative qualitative interviews, and tracked facilitation events.ResultsThe LFI was associated with significant, immediate, and sustained increases in HCV testing. No change was detected at matched comparison clinics. Staff accepted the LFI and the philosophy of "bottom-up" solution development yet had mixed feedback on its appropriateness and feasibility. Enablers of implementation and early sustainment included lower satisfaction with baseline HCV testing processes and staff culture, while later sustainment was related to implementation climate support, measurement, and evaluation.ConclusionsHigh-reach and relatively low effort, but persistent intervention led to significant improvement in guideline-concordant HCV testing rates which were sustained.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02936648.

Project description:Practice facilitation has been associated with meaningful improvements in disease prevention and quality of patient care. Using practice facilitation, the Improved Delivery of Cardiovascular Care (IDOCC) project aimed to improve the delivery of evidence-based cardiovascular care in primary care practices across a large health region. Our goal was to evaluate IDOCC's impact on adherence to processes of care delivery.A pragmatic stepped wedge cluster randomized trial recruiting primary care providers in practices located in Eastern Ontario, Canada (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00574808). Participants were randomly assigned by region to one of three steps. Practice facilitators were intended to visit practices every 3-4 (year 1-intensive) or 6-12 weeks (year 2-sustainability) to support changes in practice behavior. The primary outcome was mean adherence to indicators of evidence-based care measured at the patient level. Adherence was assessed by chart review of a randomly selected cohort of 66 patients per practice in each pre-intervention year, as well as in year 1 and year 2 post-intervention.Eighty-four practices (182 physicians) participated. On average, facilitators had 6.6 (min: 2, max: 11) face-to-face visits with practices in year 1 and 2.5 (min: 0 max: 10) visits in year 2. We collected chart data from 5292 patients. After adjustment for patient and provider characteristics, there was a 1.9 % (95 % confidence interval (CI): -2.9 to -0.9 %) and 4.2 % (95 % CI: -5.7 to -2.6 %) absolute decrease in mean adherence from baseline to intensive and sustainability years, respectively.IDOCC did not improve adherence to best-practice guidelines. Our results showed a small statistically significant decrease in mean adherence of questionable clinical significance. Potential reasons for this result include implementation challenges, competing priorities in practices, a broad focus on multiple chronic disease indicators, and use of an overall index of adherence. These results contrast with findings from previously reported facilitation trials and highlight the complexities and challenges of translating research findings into clinical practice.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00574808.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the comparative effectiveness of external facilitation (EF) vs external + internal facilitation (EF/IF), on uptake of a collaborative chronic care model (CCM) in community practices that were slower to implement under low-level implementation support.Study settingPrimary data were collected from 43 community practices in Michigan and Colorado at baseline and for 12 months following randomization.Study designSites that failed to meet a pre-established implementation benchmark after six months of low-level implementation support were randomized to add either EF or EF/IF support for up to 12 months. Key outcomes were change in number of patients receiving the CCM and number of patients receiving a clinically significant dose of the CCM. Moderators' analyses further examined whether comparative effectiveness was dependent on prerandomization adoption, number of providers trained or practice size. Facilitation log data were used for exploratory follow-up analyses.Data collectionSites reported monthly on number of patients that had received the CCM. Facilitation logs were completed by study EF and site IFs and shared with the study team.Principal findingsN = 21 sites were randomized to EF and 22 to EF/IF. Overall, EF/IF practices saw more uptake than EF sites after 12 months (ΔEF/IF-EF = 4.4 patients, 95% CI = 1.87-6.87). Moderators' analyses, however, revealed that it was only sites with no prerandomization uptake of the CCM (nonadopter sites) that saw significantly more benefit from EF/IF (ΔEF/IF-EF = 9.2 patients, 95% CI: 5.72, 12.63). For sites with prerandomization uptake (adopter sites), EF/IF offered no additional benefit (ΔEF/IF-EF = -0.9; 95% CI: -4.40, 2.60). Number of providers trained and practice size were not significant moderators.ConclusionsAlthough stepping up to the more intensive EF/IF did outperform EF overall, its benefit was limited to sites that failed to deliver any CCM under the low-level strategy. Once one or more providers were delivering the CCM, additional on-site personnel did not appear to add value to the implementation effort.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Few studies have systematically and rigorously examined the quality of care provided in educational practice sites. OBJECTIVE: The objectives of this study were to (1) describe the patient population cared for by trainees in internal medicine residency clinics; (2) assess the quality of preventive cardiology care provided to these patients; (3) characterize the practice-based systems that currently exist in internal medicine residency clinics; and (4) examine the relationships between quality, practice-based systems, and features of the program: size, type of program, and presence of an electronic medical record. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: This study was conducted in 15 Internal Medicine residency programs (23 sites) throughout the USA. PARTICIPANTS: The participants included site champions at residency programs and 709 residents. MEASUREMENTS: Abstracted charts provided data about patient demographics, coronary heart disease risk factors, processes of care, and clinical outcomes. Patients completed surveys regarding satisfaction. Site teams completed a practice systems survey. RESULTS: Chart abstraction of 4,783 patients showed substantial variability across sites. On average, patients had between 3 and 4 of the 9 potential risk factors for coronary heart disease, and approximately 21% had at least 1 important barrier of care. Patients received an average of 57% (range, 30-77%) of the appropriate interventions. Reported satisfaction with care was high. Sites with an electronic medical record showed better overall information management (81% vs 27%) and better modes of communication (79% vs 43%). CONCLUSIONS: This study has provided insight into the current state of practice in residency sites including aspects of the practice environment and quality of preventive cardiology care delivered. Substantial heterogeneity among the training sites exists. Continuous measurement of the quality of care provided and a better understanding of the training environment in which this care is delivered are important goals for delivering high quality patient care.

Dataset Information

Key activities used by community based primary care practices to improve the quality of diabetes care in response to practice facilitation.

Publications

Key activities used by community based primary care practices to improve the quality of diabetes care in response to practice facilitation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets