Dataset Information

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.

ABSTRACT: The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using this PDSA approach, the selection of PDSA topics by clinic leaders, and project leaders' reactions to using PDSA in pragmatic research.STOP CRC is a cluster-randomized pragmatic study that aims to test the effectiveness of a direct-mail fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) program involving eight Federally Qualified Health Centers in Oregon and California. We and a practice improvement specialist trained in the PDSA process delivered structured presentations to leaders of these centers; the presentations addressed how to apply the PDSA process to improve implementation of a mailed outreach program offering colorectal cancer screening through FIT tests. Center leaders submitted PDSA plans and delivered reports via webinar at quarterly meetings of the project's advisory board. Project staff conducted one-on-one, 45-min interviews with project leads from each health center to assess the reaction to and value of the PDSA process in supporting the implementation of STOP CRC.Clinic-selected PDSA activities included refining the intervention staffing model, improving outreach materials, and changing workflow steps. Common benefits of using PDSA cycles in pragmatic research were that it provided a structure for staff to focus on improving the program and it allowed staff to test the change they wanted to see. A commonly reported challenge was measuring the success of the PDSA process with the available electronic medical record tools.Understanding how the PDSA process can be applied to pragmatic trials and the reaction of clinic staff to their use may help clinics integrate evidence-based interventions into their everyday care processes.Clinicaltrials.gov NCT01742065 . Registered October 31, 2013.

SUBMITTER: Coury J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5477281 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.

Coury Jennifer J Schneider Jennifer L JL Rivelli Jennifer S JS Petrik Amanda F AF Seibel Evelyn E D'Agostini Brieshon B Taplin Stephen H SH Green Beverly B BB Coronado Gloria D GD

BMC health services research 20170619 1

<h4>Background</h4>The Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) cycle is a commonly used improvement process in health care settings, although its documented use in pragmatic clinical research is rare. A recent pragmatic clinical research study, called the Strategies and Opportunities to STOP Colon Cancer in Priority Populations (STOP CRC), used this process to optimize the research implementation of an automated colon cancer screening outreach program in intervention clinics. We describe the process of using t ...[more]

PMID: 28629348

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundQuality metrics, pay for performance (P4P), and value-based payments are prominent aspects of the current and future American healthcare system. However, linking clinic payment to clinic quality measures may financially disadvantage safety-net clinics and their patient population because safety-net clinics often have worse quality metric scores than non-safety net clinics. The Minnesota Safety Net Coalition's Quality Measurement Enhancement Project sought to collect data from primary care providers' (PCPs) experiences, which could assist Minnesota policymakers and state agencies as they create a new P4P system. Our research study aims are to identify PCPs' perspectives about 1) quality metrics at safety net clinics and non-safety net clinics, 2) how clinic quality measures affect patients and patient care, and 3) how payment for quality measures may influence healthcare.MethodsQualitative interviews with 14 PCPs (4 individual interviews and 3 focus groups) who had worked at both safety net and non-safety net primary care clinics in Minneapolis-St Paul Minnesota USA metropolitan area. Qualitative analyses identified major themes.ResultsThree themes with sub-themes emerged. Theme #1: Minnesota's current clinic quality scores are influenced more by patients and clinic systems than by clinicians. Theme #2: Collecting data for a set of specific quality measures is not the same as measuring quality healthcare. Subtheme #2.1: Current quality measures are not aligned with how patients and clinicians define quality healthcare. Theme #3: Current quality measures are a product of and embedded in social and structural inequities in the American health care system. Subtheme #3.1: The current inequitable healthcare system should not be reinforced with financial payments. Subtheme #3.2: Health equity requires new metrics and a new healthcare system. Overall, PCPs felt that the current inequitable quality metrics should be replaced by different metrics along with major changes to the healthcare system that could produce greater health equity.ConclusionAligning payment with the current quality metrics could perpetuate and exacerbate social inequities and health disparities. Policymakers should consider PCPs' perspectives and create a quality-payment framework that does not disadvantage patients who are affected by social and structural inequities as well as the clinics and providers who serve them.

Project description:BackgroundExisting tools to measure patient-centered medical home (PCMH) adoption are not designed for research evaluation in safety-net clinics.ObjectiveDevelop a scale to measure PCMH adoption in safety-net clinics.Research designCross-sectional survey.SubjectsSixty-five clinics in five states.Main measuresFifty-two-item Safety Net Medical Home Scale (SNMHS). The total score ranges from 0 (worst) to 100 (best) and is an average of multiple subscales (0-100): Access and Communication, Patient Tracking and Registry, Care Management, Test and Referral Tracking, Quality Improvement, and External Coordination. The scale was tested for internal consistency reliability and tested for convergent validity using The Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (ACIC) and the Patient-Centered Medical Home Assessment (PCMH-A). The scale was applied to centers in the sample. In addition, linear regression models were used to measure the association between clinic characteristics and medical home adoption.ResultsThe SNMHS had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha = 0.84). The SNMHS score correlated moderately with the ACIC score (r = 0.64, p < 0.0001) and the PCMH-A (r = 0.56, p < 0.001). The mean SNMHS score was 61 ± SD 13. Among the subscales, External Coordination (66 ± 16) and Access and Communication (65 ± 14) had the highest mean scores, while Quality Improvement (55 ± 17) and Care Management (55 ± 16) had lower mean scores. Clinic characteristics positively associated with total SNMHS score were having more providers (β 15.8 95% CI 8.1-23.4 >8 provider FTEs compared to <4 FTEs) and participation in financial incentive programs (β 8.4 95% 1.6-15.3).ConclusionThe SNMHS demonstrated reliability and convergent validity for measuring PCMH adoption in safety-net clinics. Some clinics have significant PCMH adoption. However, room for improvement exists in most domains, especially for clinics with fewer providers.

Project description:BackgroundLittle research has directly compared the effectiveness of implementation strategies in any setting, and we know of no prior trials directly comparing how effectively different combinations of strategies support implementation in community health centers. This paper outlines the protocol of the Study of Practices Enabling Implementation and Adaptation in the Safety Net (SPREAD-NET), a trial designed to compare the effectiveness of several common strategies for supporting implementation of an intervention and explore contextual factors that impact the strategies' effectiveness in the community health center setting.Methods/designThis cluster-randomized trial compares how three increasingly hands-on implementation strategies support adoption of an evidence-based diabetes quality improvement intervention in 29 community health centers, managed by 12 healthcare organizations. The strategies are as follows: (arm 1) a toolkit, presented in paper and electronic form, which includes a training webinar; (arm 2) toolkit plus in-person training with a focus on practice change and change management strategies; and (arm 3) toolkit, in-person training, plus practice facilitation with on-site visits. We use a mixed methods approach to data collection and analysis: (i) baseline surveys on study clinic characteristics, to explore how these characteristics impact the clinics' ability to implement the tools and the effectiveness of each implementation strategy; (ii) quantitative data on change in rates of guideline-concordant prescribing; and (iii) qualitative data on the "how" and "why" underlying the quantitative results. The outcomes of interest are clinic-level results, categorized using the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, Maintenance (RE-AIM) framework, within an interrupted time-series design with segmented regression models. This pragmatic trial will compare how well each implementation strategy works in "real-world" practices.DiscussionHaving a better understanding of how different strategies support implementation efforts could positively impact the field of implementation science, by comparing practical, generalizable methods for implementing clinical innovations in community health centers. Bridging this gap in the literature is a critical step towards the national long-term goal of effectively disseminating and implementing effective interventions into community health centers.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02325531.

Project description:ContextLow-income and racial/ethnic minority populations experience disproportionate colorectal cancer (CRC) burden and poorer survival. Novel behavioral strategies are needed to improve screening rates in these groups.BackgroundThe study aimed to test a theoretically based "implementation intentions" intervention for improving CRC screening among unscreened adults in urban safety-net clinics.DesignRandomized controlled trial.Setting/participantsAdults (N=470) aged ≥50 years, due for CRC screening, from urban safety-net clinics were recruited.InterventionThe intervention (conducted in 2009-2011) was delivered via touchscreen computers that tailored informational messages to decisional stage and screening barriers. The computer then randomized participants to generic health information on diet and exercise (Comparison group) or "implementation intentions" questions and planning (Experimental group) specific to the CRC screening test chosen (fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy).Main outcome measuresThe primary study outcome was completion of CRC screening at 26 weeks based on test reports (analysis conducted in 2012-2013).ResultsThe study population had a mean age of 57 years and was 42% non-Hispanic African American, 28% non-Hispanic white, and 27% Hispanic. Those receiving the implementation intentions-based intervention had higher odds (AOR=1.83, 95% CI=1.23, 2.73) of completing CRC screening than the Comparison group. Those with higher self-efficacy for screening (AOR=1.57, 95% CI=1.03, 2.39), history of asthma (AOR=2.20, 95% CI=1.26, 3.84), no history of diabetes (AOR=1.86, 95% CI=1.21, 2.86), and reporting they had never heard that "cutting on cancer" makes it spread (AOR=1.78, 95% CI=1.16, 2.72) were more likely to complete CRC screening.ConclusionsThe results of this study suggest that programs incorporating an implementation intentions approach can contribute to successful completion of CRC screening even among very low-income and diverse primary care populations. Future initiatives to reduce CRC incidence and mortality disparities may be able to employ implementation intentions in large-scale efforts to encourage screening and prevention behaviors.

Dataset Information

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.

Publications

Applying the Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA) approach to a large pragmatic study involving safety net clinics.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets