Dataset Information

Quality improvement strategies at primary care level to reduce inequalities in diabetes care: an equity-oriented systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity issues.

Methods

Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched to identify randomized controlled studies published between January 2005 and May 2016. We adopted the PROGRESS Plus framework, as a tool to explore differential effects of QI interventions across sociodemographic and economic factors.

Results

From 1903 references fifty-eight randomized trials met the inclusion criteria (with 17.786 participants), mostly carried out in USA. The methodological quality was good for all studies. Almost all studies reported the age, gender/sex and race distribution of study participants. The majority of trials additionally used at least one further PROGRESS-Plus factor at baseline, with education being the most commonly used, followed by income (55%). Large variation was observed between these studies for type of interventions, target populations, and outcomes evaluated. Few studies examined differential intervention effects by PROGRESS-plus factors. Existing evidence suggests that some QI intervention delivered in primary care can improve diabetes-related health outcomes in social disadvantaged population subgroups such as ethnic minorities. However, we found very few studies comparing health outcomes between population subgroups and reporting differential effect estimates of QI interventions.

Conclusions

This review provides evidence that QI interventions for people with diabetes is feasible to implement and highly acceptable. However, more research is needed to understand their effective components as well as the adoption of an equity-oriented approach in conducting primary studies. Moreover, a wider variety of socio-economic characteristics such as social capital, place of residence, occupation, education, and religion should be addressed.

SUBMITTER: Terens N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5975519 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Quality improvement strategies at primary care level to reduce inequalities in diabetes care: an equity-oriented systematic review.

Terens Natalie N Vecchi Simona S Bargagli Anna Maria AM Agabiti Nera N Mitrova Zuzana Z Amato Laura L Davoli Marina M

BMC endocrine disorders 20180529 1

<h4>Background</h4>There is evidence that disparities exist in diabetes prevalence, access to diabetes care, diabetes-related complications, and the quality of diabetes care. A wide range of interventions has been implemented and evaluated to improve diabetes care. We aimed to review trials of quality improvement (QI) interventions aimed to reduce health inequities among people with diabetes in primary care and to explore the extent to which experimental studies addressed and reported equity iss ...[more]

PMID: 29843692

Similar Datasets

Project description:Racial disparities in blood pressure control have been well documented in the United States. Research suggests that many factors contribute to this disparity, including barriers to care at patient, clinician, healthcare system, and community levels. To date, few interventions aimed at reducing hypertension disparities have addressed factors at all of these levels. This paper describes the design of Project ReD CHiP (Reducing Disparities and Controlling Hypertension in Primary Care), a multi-level system quality improvement project. By intervening on multiple levels, this project aims to reduce disparities in blood pressure control and improve guideline concordant hypertension care.Using a pragmatic trial design, we are implementing three complementary multi-level interventions designed to improve blood pressure measurement, provide patient care management services and offer expanded provider education resources in six primary care clinics in Baltimore, Maryland. We are staggering the introduction of the interventions and will use Statistical Process Control (SPC) charting to determine if there are changes in outcomes at each clinic after implementation of each intervention. The main hypothesis is that each intervention will have an additive effect on improvements in guideline concordant care and reductions in hypertension disparities, but the combination of all three interventions will result in the greatest impact, followed by blood pressure measurement with care management support, blood pressure measurement with provider education, and blood pressure measurement only. This study also examines how organizational functioning and cultural competence affect the success of the interventions.As a quality improvement project, Project ReD CHiP employs a novel study design that specifically targets multi-level factors known to contribute to hypertension disparities. To facilitate its implementation and improve its sustainability, we have incorporated stakeholder input and tailored components of the interventions to meet the specific needs of the involved clinics and communities. Results from this study will provide knowledge about how integrated multi-level interventions can improve hypertension care and reduce disparities.ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01566864.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Quality Improvement (QI) initiatives in primary care are effective at improving uptake of evidence based guidelines, but are difficult to implement and sustain. In Australia meso-level health organisations such as Primary health care Organisations (PHCO) offer new opportunities to implement area-wide QI programs. This study sought to identify enablers and barriers to implementation of an existing Australian QI program and to identify strategic directions that PHCOs can use in the ongoing development of QI in this environment. METHODS:Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 15 purposively selected program staff and participants from the Australian Primary Care Collaborative (APCC) QI program. Interviewees included seven people involved in design, administration and implementation of the APCC program and eight primary care providers (seven General Practitioners (GPs) and one practice nurse) who had participated in the program from 2004 to 2014. Interviewees were asked to describe their experience of the program and reflect on what enabled or impeded its implementation. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and iteratively analysed, with early analysis informing subsequent interviews. Identified themes and their implications were reviewed by a GP expert reference group. RESULTS:Implementation enablers and barriers were grouped into five thematic areas: (1) leadership, particularly the identification and utilisation of change champions; (2) organisational culture that supports quality improvement; (3) funding incentives that support a culture of quality and innovation; (4) access to and use of accurate data; and 5) design and utilisation of clinical systems that enable and support these issues. In all of these areas, the active involvement of an overarching external support organisation was considered a key ingredient to successful implementation. CONCLUSION:There are substantial opportunities for PHCOs to play a pivotal role in QI implementation in Australia and internationally. In developing QI programs and policies, such organisations ought to invest their efforts in: (1) identifying and mentoring local leaders; (2) fostering QI culture via development of local peer networks; (3) developing and advocating for alternative funding models to support and incentivise these activities; (4) investing in data and audit tool infrastructure; and (5) facilitation of systems implementation within primary care practices.

Project description:Engaging health care staff in new quality improvement programs is challenging.We developed 2 virtual patient (VP) avatars in the context of a clinic-level quality improvement program. We sought to determine differences in preferences for VPs and the perceived influence of interacting with the VP on clinical staff engagement with the quality improvement program.Using a participatory design approach, we developed an older male smoker VP and a younger female smoker VP. The older male smoker was described as a patient with cardiovascular disease and was ethnically ambiguous. The female patient was younger and was worried about the impact of smoking on her pregnancy. Clinical staff were allowed to choose the VP they preferred, and the more they engaged with the VP, the more likely the VP was to quit smoking and become healthier. We deployed the VP within the context of a quality improvement program designed to encourage clinical staff to refer their patients who smoke to a patient-centered Web-assisted tobacco intervention. To evaluate the VPs, we used quantitative analyses using multivariate models of provider and practice characteristics and VP characteristic preference and analyses of a brief survey of positive deviants (clinical staff in practices with high rates of encouraging patients to use the quit smoking innovation).A total of 146 clinical staff from 76 primary care practices interacted with the VPs. Clinic staff included medical providers (35/146, 24.0%), nurse professionals (19/146, 13.0%), primary care technicians (5/146, 3.4%), managerial staff (67/146, 45.9%), and receptionists (20/146, 13.7%). Medical staff were mostly male, and other roles were mostly female. Medical providers (OR 0.031; CI 0.003-0.281; P=.002) and younger staff (OR 0.411; CI 0.177-0.952; P=.038) were less likely to choose the younger, female VP when controlling for all other characteristics. VP preference did not influence online patient referrals by staff. In high-performing practices that referred 20 or more smokers to the ePortal (13/76), the majority of clinic staff were motivated by or liked the virtual patient (20/26, 77%).Medical providers are more likely motivated by VPs that are similar to their patient population, while nurses and other staff may prefer avatars that are more similar to them.

Project description:BackgroundCare coordination tools and toolkits can be challenging to implement. Practice facilitation, an active but expensive strategy, may facilitate toolkit implementation. We evaluated the comparative effectiveness of distance coaching, a form of practice facilitation, for improving the implementation of care coordination quality improvement (QI) projects.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods evaluation of the Coordination Toolkit and Coaching (CTAC) initiative. Twelve matched US Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were randomized to receive coaching and an online care coordination toolkit ("coached"; n = 6) or access to the toolkit only ("non-coached"; n = 6). We did interviews at six, 12, and 18 months. For coached sites, we'ly collected site visit fieldnotes, prospective coach logs, retrospective coach team debriefs, and project reports. We employed matrix analysis using constructs from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research and a taxonomy of outcomes. We assessed each site's project(s) using an adapted Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews.ResultsEleven sites implemented a local CTAC project. Eight sites (5 coached, 3 non-coached) used at least one tool from the toolkit. Coached sites implemented significantly more complex projects than non-coached sites (11.5 vs 7.5, 95% confidence interval 1.75-6.25, p < 0.001); engaged in more formal implementation processes (planning, engaging, reflecting and evaluating); and generally had larger, more multidisciplinary QI teams. Regardless of coaching status, sites focused on internal organizational improvement and low-intensity educational projects rather than the full suite of care coordination tools. At 12 months, half the coached and non-coached sites had clinic-wide project implementation; the remaining coached sites had implemented most of their project(s), while the remaining non-coached sites had either not implemented anything or conducted limited pilots. At 18 months, coached sites reported ongoing effort to monitor, adapt, and spread their CTAC projects, while non-coached sites did not report much continuing work. Coached sites accrued benefits like improved clinic relationships and team QI skill building that non-coached sites did not describe.ConclusionsCoaching had a positive influence on QI skills of (and relationships among) coached sites' team members, and the scope and rigor of projects. However, a 12-month project period was potentially too short to ensure full project implementation or to address cross-setting or patient-partnered initiatives.Trial registrationNCT03063294 .

Dataset Information

Quality improvement strategies at primary care level to reduce inequalities in diabetes care: an equity-oriented systematic review.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Quality improvement strategies at primary care level to reduce inequalities in diabetes care: an equity-oriented systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets