Dataset Information

Effectiveness of the Spirometry 360 Quality Improvement Program for Improving Asthma Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To determine the effectiveness of the Spirometry 360 distance learning quality improvement (QI) program for enhancing the processes and outcomes of care for children with asthma. METHODS:Cluster randomized controlled trial involving 25 matched pairs of pediatric primary care practices. Practices were recruited from 2 practice-based research networks: the Slone Center Office-based Research Network at Boston University, Boston, Mass, and the Puget Sound Pediatric Research Network, Seattle, Wash. Study participants included providers from one of the 50 enrolled pediatric practices and 626 of their patients with asthma. Process measures assessed included spirometry test quality and appropriate prescription of asthma controller medications. Outcome measures included asthma-specific health-related quality of life, and outpatient, emergency department, and inpatient utilization for asthma. RESULTS:At baseline, 25.4% of spirometry tests performed in control practices and 50.4% of tests performed in intervention practices were of high quality. During the 6-month postintervention period, 28.7% of spirometry tests performed in control practices and 49.9% of tests performed in intervention practices were of high quality. The adjusted difference-of-differences analysis revealed no intervention effect on spirometry test quality. Adjusted differences-of-differences analysis also revealed no intervention effect on appropriate use of controller medications or any of the parent- or patient-reported outcomes examined. CONCLUSIONS:In this study, the Spirometry 360 distance learning QI program was ineffective in improving spirometry test quality or parent- or patient-reported outcomes. QI programs like the one assessed here may need to focus on practices with lower baseline performance levels or may need to be tailored for those with higher baseline performance.

SUBMITTER: Mangione-Smith R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5673551 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov - Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of the Spirometry 360 Quality Improvement Program for Improving Asthma Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Mangione-Smith Rita R Zhou Chuan C Corwin Michael J MJ Taylor James A JA Rice Fiona F Stout James W JW

Academic pediatrics 20170708 8

<h4>Objective</h4>To determine the effectiveness of the Spirometry 360 distance learning quality improvement (QI) program for enhancing the processes and outcomes of care for children with asthma.<h4>Methods</h4>Cluster randomized controlled trial involving 25 matched pairs of pediatric primary care practices. Practices were recruited from 2 practice-based research networks: the Slone Center Office-based Research Network at Boston University, Boston, Mass, and the Puget Sound Pediatric Research ...[more]

PMID: 28693976

Similar Datasets

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:ObjectivesAssess patient outcomes in patients with suspected infection and the cost-effectiveness of implementing a quality improvement program.Design, setting, and participantsWe conducted an observational single-center study of 13,877 adults with suspected infection between March 1, 2014, and July 31, 2017. The 18-month period before and after the effective date for mandated reporting of the sepsis bundle was examined. The Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score and culture and antibiotic orders were used to identify patients meeting Sepsis-3 criteria from the electronic health record.InterventionsThe following interventions were performed as follows: 1) multidisciplinary sepsis committee with sepsis coordinator and data abstractor; 2) education campaign; 3) electronic health record tools; and 4) a Modified Early Warning System.Main outcomes and measuresPrimary health outcomes were in-hospital death and length of stay. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was calculated and the empirical 95% CI for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was estimated from 5,000 bootstrap samples.ResultsIn multivariable analysis, the odds ratio for in-hospital death in the post- versus pre-implementation periods was 0.70 (95% CI, 0.57-0.86) in those with suspected infection, and the hazard ratio for time to discharge was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.20-1.29). Similarly, a decrease in the odds for in-hospital death and an increase in the speed to discharge was observed for the subset that met Sepsis-3 criteria. The program was cost saving in patients with suspected infection (-$272,645.7; 95% CI, -$757,970.3 to -$79,667.7). Cost savings were also observed in the Sepsis-3 group.Conclusions and relevanceOur health system's program designed to adhere to the sepsis bundle metrics led to decreased mortality and length of stay in a cost-effective manner in a much larger catchment than just the cohort meeting the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services measures. Our single-center model of interventions may serve as a practice-based benchmark for hospitalized patients with suspected infection.

Project description:BackgroundEfforts to improve the quality, safety, and efficiency of health care provision have often focused on changing approaches to the way services are organized and delivered. Continuous quality improvement (CQI), an approach used extensively in industrial and manufacturing sectors, has been used in the health sector. Despite the attention given to CQI, uncertainties remain as to its effectiveness given the complex and diverse nature of health systems. This review assesses the effectiveness of CQI across different health care settings, investigating the importance of different components of the approach.MethodsWe searched 11 electronic databases: MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, AMED, Academic Search Complete, HMIC, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, LISTA, and NHS EED to February 2019. Also, we searched reference lists of included studies and systematic reviews, as well as checking published protocols for linked papers. We selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within health care settings involving teams of health professionals, evaluating the effectiveness of CQI. Comparators included current usual practice or different strategies to manage organizational change. Outcomes were health care professional performance or patient outcomes. Studies were published in English.ResultsTwenty-eight RCTs assessed the effectiveness of different approaches to CQI with a non-CQI comparator in various settings, with interventions differing in terms of the approaches used, their duration, meetings held, people involved, and training provided. All RCTs were considered at risk of bias, undermining their results. Findings suggested that the benefits of CQI compared to a non-CQI comparator on clinical process, patient, and other outcomes were limited, with less than half of RCTs showing any effect. Where benefits were evident, it was usually on clinical process measures, with the model used (i.e., Plan-Do-Study-Act, Model of Improvement), the meeting type (i.e., involving leaders discussing implementation) and their frequency (i.e., weekly) having an effect. None considered socio-economic health inequalities.ConclusionsCurrent evidence suggests the benefits of CQI in improving health care are uncertain, reflecting both the poor quality of evaluations and the complexities of health services themselves. Further mixed-methods evaluations are needed to understand how the health service can use this proven approach.Trial registrationProtocol registered on PROSPERO (CRD42018088309).

Project description:BACKGROUND: Variation in effectiveness of continuous quality improvement (CQI) interventions between services is commonly reported, but with little explanation of how contextual and other factors may interact to produce this variation. Therefore, there is scant information available on which policy makers can draw to inform effective implementation in different settings. In this paper, we explore how patterns of change in delivery of services may have been achieved in a diverse range of health centers participating in a wide-scale program to achieve improvements in quality of care for Indigenous Australians. METHODS: We elicited key informants' interpretations of factors explaining patterns of change in delivery of guideline-scheduled services over three or more years of a wide-scale CQI project, and inductively analyzed these interpretations to propose fine-grained realist hypotheses about what works for whom and in what circumstances. Data were derived from annual clinical audits from 36 health centers operating in diverse settings, quarterly project monitoring reports, and workshops with 12 key informants who had key roles in project implementation. We abstracted potential context-mechanism-outcome configurations from the data, and based on these, identified potential program-strengthening strategies. RESULTS: Several context-specific, mechanism-based explanations for effectiveness of this CQI project were identified. These were collective valuing of clinical data for improvement purposes; collective efficacy; and organizational change towards a population health orientation. Health centers with strong central management of CQI, and those in which CQI efforts were more dependent on local health center initiative and were adapted to resonate with local priorities were both favorable contexts for collective valuing of clinical data. Where health centers had prior positive experiences of collaboration, effects appeared to be achieved at least partly through the mechanism of collective efficacy. Strong community linkages, staff ability to identify with patients, and staff having the skills and support to take broad ranging action, were favorable contexts for the mechanism of increased population health orientation. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides evidence to support strategies for program strengthening described in the literature, and extends the understanding of mechanisms through which strategies may be effective in achieving particular outcomes in different contexts.

Project description:BackgroundSuccessful implementation of pay-for-quality (P4Q) programs mostly depends upon a valid, timely, and reliable data about quality measures generated by providers, and interpreted by payers. The aim of this study was to establish a data reporting method for P4Q program through an action research.MethodsQualitative method was used to align theory with action through a three-cycle action research. The study was conducted in September 15, 2015 to March 15, 2017, in East-Azerbaijan, Iran. The purposeful sampling was used to select participants. The participants included healthcare providers, staff in district health centers (DHC), experts, and managers in the provincial primary health center (PPHC). Data was collected by interviews, focus group discussions, and expert panels. Content analysis was used to synthesize the data. In each step, decisions about data reporting methods were made through a consensus of expert panel members.ResultsThe most important dimensions of data reporting method were data entry and accuracy, data reporting, data analysis and interpretations, the flexibility of method, and training. By establishment of an online data reporting system for the P4Q program, a major improvement was observed in the documentation of performance data, the satisfaction of health care providers and staff (e.g. either in DHCs or PPHC), improvement of the P4Q program and acceptance of the P4Q program by providers. Following the present study, the online system was expanded in Iran's public health system for data collection and estimating the amount of incentive payments in P4Q program. Moreover, more improvements were achieved by linking the system to EMRs and also, providing automated feedback to providers about their own performance.ConclusionsA web-based computerized system with the capability of linking medical record and also its ability to provide feedback to healthcare providers was identified as an appropriate method of data reporting in the P4Q program from the viewpoints of participants in this study.

Project description:Around 110,000 people spend time in critical care units in England and Wales each year. The transition of care from the intensive care unit to the general ward exposes patients to potential harms from changes in healthcare providers and environment. Nurses working on general wards report anxiety and uncertainty when receiving patients from critical care. An innovative form of enhanced capability critical care outreach called 'iMobile' is being provided at King's College Hospital (KCH). Part of the remit of iMobile is to review patients who have been transferred from critical care to general wards. The iMobile team wished to improve the quality of critical care discharge summaries. A collaborative evidence-based quality improvement project was therefore undertaken by the iMobile team at KCH in conjunction with researchers from King's Improvement Science (KIS). Plan, Do, Study, Act (PDSA) methodology was used. Three PDSA cycles were undertaken. Methods adopted comprised: a scoping literature review to identify relevant guidelines and research evidence to inform all aspects of the quality improvement project; a process mapping exercise; informal focus groups / interviews with staff; patient story-telling work with people who had experienced critical care and subsequent discharge to a general ward; and regular audits of the quality of both medical and nursing critical care discharge summaries. The following behaviour change interventions were adopted, taking into account evidence of effectiveness from published systematic reviews and considering the local context: regular audit and feedback of the quality of discharge summaries, feedback of patient experience, and championing and education delivered by local opinion leaders. The audit results were mixed across the trajectory of the project, demonstrating the difficulty of sustaining positive change. This was particularly important as critical care bed occupancy and through-put fluctuates which then impacts on work-load, with new cohorts of staff regularly passing through critical care. In addition to presenting the results of this quality improvement project, we also reflect on the lessons learned and make suggestions for future projects.

Project description:ImportanceMany patients with cancer who would benefit from psychosocial care do not receive it. Implementation strategies may favor the integration of psychosocial care into practice and improve patient outcomes.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of the Humanization in Cancer Care (HuCare) Quality Improvement Strategy vs standard care as improvement of at least 1 of 2 domains (emotional or social function) of patient health-related quality of life at baseline and 3 months. A key secondary aim included investigation of the long-term effect.Design, setting, and participantsHuCare2 was a multicenter, incomplete, stepped-wedge cluster randomized clinical trial, conducted from May 30, 2016, to August 28, 2019, in three 5-center clusters of cancer centers representative of hospital size and geographic location in Italy. The study was divided into 5 equally spaced epochs. Implementation sequence was defined by a blinded statistician; the nature of the intervention precluded blinding for clinical staff. Participants included consecutive adult outpatients with newly diagnosed cancer of any type and stage starting medical cancer treatment.InterventionsThe HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy comprised (1) clinician communication training, (2) on-site visits for context analysis and problem-solving, and (3) implementation of 6 evidence-based recommendations.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the difference between the means of changes of individual scores in emotional or social functions of health-related quality of life detected at baseline and 3-month follow-up (within each group) and during the postintervention epoch compared with control periods (between groups). Long-term effect of the intervention (at 12 months) was assessed as a secondary outcome. Intention-to-treat analysis was used.ResultsA total of 762 patients (475 [62.3%] women) were enrolled (400 HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy and 362 usual care); mean (SD) age was 61.4 (13.1) years. The HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy significantly improved emotional function during treatment (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; 95% CI, 1.04-1.22; P = .008) but not social function (OR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.89-1.09; P = .80). Effect on emotional function persisted at 12 months (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = .04).Conclusions and relevanceIn this trial, the HuCare Quality Improvement Strategy significantly improved the emotional function aspect of health-related quality of life during cancer treatment and at 12 months, indicating a change in clinician behavior and in ward organization. These findings support the need for strategies to introduce psychosocial care; however, more research is needed on factors that may maximize the effects.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03008993.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of the Spirometry 360 Quality Improvement Program for Improving Asthma Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Publications

Effectiveness of the Spirometry 360 Quality Improvement Program for Improving Asthma Care: A Cluster Randomized Trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets