Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Strategies for the Management of CKD: A Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Quality improvement interventions have enhanced care for other chronic illnesses, but their effectiveness for patients with CKD is unknown. We sought to determine the effects of quality improvement strategies on clinical outcomes in adult patients with nondialysis-requiring CKD.

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials, searching Medline and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care database from January of 2003 to April of 2015. Eligible studies evaluated one or more of 11 prespecified quality improvement strategies, and prespecified study outcomes included at least one process of care measure, surrogate outcome, or hard clinical outcome. We used a random effects model to estimate the pooled risk ratio (RR; dichotomous data) or the mean difference (continuous data).

Results

We reviewed 15 patient-level randomized trials (n=3298 patients), and six cluster-randomized trials (n=30,042 patients). Quality improvement strategies reduced dialysis incidence (seven trials; RR, 0.85; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.74 to 0.97) and LDL cholesterol concentrations (four trials; mean difference, -17.6 mg/dl; 95% CI, -28.7 to -6.5), and increased the likelihood that patients received renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (nine trials; RR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.06 to 1.27). We did not observe statistically significant effects on mortality, cardiovascular events, eGFR, glycated hemoglobin, and systolic or diastolic BP.

Conclusions

Quality improvement interventions yielded significant beneficial effects on three elements of CKD care. Estimates of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies were limited by study number and adherence to quality improvement principles.

Podcast

This article contains a podcast at https://www.asn-online.org/media/podcast/CJASN/2017_09_06_CJASNPodcast_17_10.mp3.

SUBMITTER: Silver SA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5628709 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Strategies for the Management of CKD: A Meta-Analysis.

Silver Samuel A SA Bell Chaim M CM Chertow Glenn M GM Shah Prakesh S PS Shojania Kaveh K Wald Ron R Harel Ziv Z

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20170906 10

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>Quality improvement interventions have enhanced care for other chronic illnesses, but their effectiveness for patients with CKD is unknown. We sought to determine the effects of quality improvement strategies on clinical outcomes in adult patients with nondialysis-requiring CKD.<h4>Design, setting, participants, & measurements</h4>We conducted a systematic review of randomized trials, searching Medline and the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care ...[more]

PMID: 28877926

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To determine the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia. DESIGN:Systematic review and network meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Medline, Embase, Embase Classic, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and clinicaltrials.gov from inception to September 2019, with no language restrictions. Conference proceedings between 2001 and 2019. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Randomised controlled trials that assessed the effectiveness of management strategies for uninvestigated dyspepsia in adult participants (age ?18 years). Strategies of interest were prompt endoscopy; test for Helicobacter pylori and perform endoscopy in participants who test positive; test for H pylori and eradication treatment in those who test positive ("test and treat"); empirical acid suppression; or symptom based management. Trials reported dichotomous assessment of symptom status at final follow-up (?12 months). RESULTS:The review identified 15 eligible randomised controlled trials that comprised 6162 adult participants. Data were pooled using a random effects model. Strategies were ranked according to P score, which is the mean extent of certainty that one management strategy is better than another, averaged over all competing strategies. "Test and treat" ranked first (relative risk of remaining symptomatic 0.89, 95% confidence interval 0.78 to 1.02, P score 0.79) and prompt endoscopy ranked second, but performed similarly (0.90, 0.80 to 1.02, P score 0.71). However, no strategy was significantly less effective than "test and treat." Participants assigned to "test and treat" were significantly less likely to receive endoscopy (relative risk v prompt endoscopy 0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.17 to 0.31, P score 0.98) than all other strategies, except symptom based management (relative risk v symptom based management 0.60, 0.30 to 1.18). Dissatisfaction with management was significantly lower with prompt endoscopy (P score 0.95) than with "test and treat" (relative risk v "test and treat" 0.67, 0.46 to 0.98), and empirical acid suppression (relative risk v empirical acid suppression 0.58, 0.37 to 0.91). Upper gastrointestinal cancer rates were low in all trials. Results remained stable in sensitivity analyses, with minimal inconsistencies between direct and indirect results. Risk of bias of individual trials was high; blinding was not possible because of the pragmatic trial design. CONCLUSIONS:"Test and treat" was ranked first, although it performed similarly to prompt endoscopy and was not superior to any of the other strategies. "Test and treat" led to fewer endoscopies than all other approaches, except symptom based management. However, participants showed a preference for prompt endoscopy as a management strategy for their symptoms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO registration number CRD42019132528.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The European Practice Assessment program provides feedback and outreach visits to primary care practices to facilitate quality improvement in five domains (infrastructure, people, information, finance, and quality and safety). We examined the effectiveness of this program in improving management in primary care practices in Germany, with a focus on the domain of quality and safety. METHODS: In a before-after study, 102 primary care practices completed a practice assessment using the European Practice Assessment instrument at baseline and three years later (intervention group). A comparative group of 102 practices was included that completed their first assessment using this instrument at the time of the intervention group's second assessment. Mean scores were based on the proportion of indicators for which a positive response was achieved by all of the practices, on a scale of 0 to 100. RESULTS: We found significant improvements in all domains between the first and second assessments in the intervention group. In the domain of quality and safety, improvements in scores (mean scores were based on the proportion of indicators for which a positive response was achieved by all of the practices, on a scale of 0 to 100) were observed in the following dimensions: complaint management (from a mean score of 51.2 at first assessment to 80.7 at second assessment); analysis of critical incidents (from 79.1 to 89.6); and quality development, quality policy (from 40.7 to 55.6). Overall scores at the time of the second assessment were significantly higher in the intervention group than in the comparative group. INTERPRETATION: Primary care practices that completed the European Practice Assessment instrument twice over a three-year period showed improvements in practice management. Our findings show the value of the quality-improvement cycle in the context of practice assessment and the use of established organizational standards for practice management with the Europeaen Practice Assessment.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Quality improvement collaboratives (QICs) have been used to improve health care for decades. Evidence on QIC effectiveness has been reported, but systematic reviews to date have little information from low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). OBJECTIVE:To assess the effectiveness of QICs in LMICs. METHODS:We conducted a systematic review following Cochrane methods, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach for quality of evidence grading, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement for reporting. We searched published and unpublished studies between 1969 and March 2019 from LMICs. We included papers that compared usual practice with QICs alone or combined with other interventions. Pairs of reviewers independently selected and assessed the risk of bias and extracted data of included studies. To estimate strategy effectiveness from a single study comparison, we used the median effect size (MES) in the comparison for outcomes in the same outcome group. The primary analysis evaluated each strategy group with a weighted median and interquartile range (IQR) of MES values. In secondary analyses, standard random-effects meta-analysis was used to estimate the weighted mean MES and 95% confidence interval (CI) of the mean MES of each strategy group. This review is registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42017078108. RESULTS:Twenty-nine studies were included; most (21/29, 72.4%) were interrupted time series studies. Evidence quality was generally low to very low. Among studies involving health facility-based health care providers (HCPs), for "QIC only", effectiveness varied widely across outcome groups and tended to have little effect for patient health outcomes (median MES less than 2 percentage points for percentage and continuous outcomes). For "QIC plus training", effectiveness might be very high for patient health outcomes (for continuous outcomes, median MES 111.6 percentage points, range: 96.0 to 127.1) and HCP practice outcomes (median MES 52.4 to 63.4 percentage points for continuous and percentage outcomes, respectively). The only study of lay HCPs, which used "QIC plus training", showed no effect on patient care-seeking behaviors (MES -0.9 percentage points), moderate effects on non-care-seeking patient behaviors (MES 18.7 percentage points), and very large effects on HCP practice outcomes (MES 50.4 percentage points). CONCLUSIONS:The effectiveness of QICs varied considerably in LMICs. QICs combined with other invention components, such as training, tended to be more effective than QICs alone. The low evidence quality and large effect sizes for QIC plus training justify additional high-quality studies assessing this approach in LMICs.

Project description:Although osteoporosis affects 10 million people in the United States, screening and treatment rates remain low. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of the efficacy of quality improvement strategies to improve osteoporosis screening (bone mineral density [BMD]/dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry [DXA] testing) and/or treatment (pharmacotherapy) initiation rates. We developed broad literature search strategies for PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases, and applied inclusion/exclusion criteria to select relevant studies. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed for outcomes of BMD/DXA testing and/or osteoporosis treatment. Forty-three randomized clinical studies met inclusion criteria. For increasing BMD/DXA testing in patients with recent or prior fracture, meta-analyses demonstrated several efficacious strategies, including orthopedic surgeon or fracture clinic initiation of osteoporosis evaluation or management (risk difference 44%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 26%-63%), fracture liaison service/case management (risk difference 43%, 95% CI 23%-64%), multifaceted interventions targeting providers and patients (risk difference 24%, 95% CI 15%-32%), and patient education and/or activation (risk difference 16%, 95% CI 6%-26%). For increasing osteoporosis treatment in patients with recent or prior fracture, meta-analyses demonstrated significant efficacy for interventions of fracture liaison service/case management (risk difference 20%, 95% CI 1%-40%) and multifaceted interventions targeting providers and patients (risk difference 12%, 95% CI 6%-17%). The only quality improvement strategy for which meta-analysis findings demonstrated significant improvement of osteoporosis care for patient populations including individuals without prior fracture was patient self-scheduling of DXA plus education, for increasing the outcome of BMD testing (risk difference 13%, 95% CI 7%-18%). The meta-analyses findings were limited by small number of studies in each analysis; high between-study heterogeneity; sensitivity to removal of individual studies; and unclear risk of bias of included studies. Despite the limitations of the current body of evidence, our findings indicate there are several strategies that appear worthwhile to enact to try to improve osteoporosis screening and/or treatment rates. © 2018 American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Strategies for the Management of CKD: A Meta-Analysis.

Background and objectives

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Results

Conclusions

Podcast

Publications

Effectiveness of Quality Improvement Strategies for the Management of CKD: A Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets