Despite rapid advances in the clinical and psycho-educational management of diabetes, the quality of care received by the average patient with diabetes remains lackluster. The "collaborative" approach--the Breakthrough Series (BTS; Institute for Healthcare Improvement [IHI]; Boston)--coupled with a Chronic Care Model was used in an effort to improve clinical care of diabetes in 26 health care organizations.
Descriptive and pre-post data are presented from 23 health care organizations participating in the 13-month (August 1998-September 1999) BTS to improve diabetes care. The BTS combined the system changes suggested by the chronic care model, rapid cycle improvement, and evidence-based clinical content to assist teams with change efforts. The characteristics of organizations participating in the diabetes BTS, the collaborative process and content, and results of system-level changes are described.
Twenty-three of 26 teams completed participation. Both chart review and self-report data on care processes and clinical outcomes suggested improvement based on changes teams made in the collaborative. Many of the organizations evidencing the largest improvements were community health centers, which had the fewest resources and the most challenged populations.
The initial Chronic Illness BTS was sufficiently encouraging that replication and evaluation of the BTS collaborative model is being conducted in more than 50 health care systems for diabetes, congestive heart failure, depression, and asthma. This model represents a feasible method of improving the quality of care across different health care organizations and across multiple chronic illnesses.
"However, Glasgow et al. have tested the initial English-version of the PACIC in populations with various chronic conditions and displayed no differences in its psychometric properties across these conditions
. Developers of the chronic care model argued that this model was generic and could be successfully applied to variety of chronic conditions
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Background
Chronic diseases are major causes of disability worldwide with rising prevalence. Most patients suffering from chronic conditions do not always receive optimal care. The Chronic Care Model (CCM) has been developed to help general practitioners making quality improvements. The Patient Assessment of Chronic Illness Care (PACIC) questionnaire was increasingly used in several countries to appraise the implementation of the CCM from the patients’ perspective. The objective of this study was to adapt the PACIC questionnaire in the French context and to test the validity of this adaptation in a sample of patients with multiple chronic conditions.
The PACIC was translated into French language using a forward/backward procedure. The French version was validated using a sample of 150 patients treated for obstructive sleep apnea syndrome (OSAS) and having multiple chronic co-morbidities. Several forms of validity were analysed: content; face; construct; and internal consistency. The construct validity was investigated with an exploratory factorial analysis.
The French-version of the PACIC consisted in 18 items, after merging two pairs of items due to redundancy. The high number of items exhibiting floor/ceiling effects and the non-normality of the ratings suggested that a 5-points rating scale was somewhat inappropriate to assess the patients’ experience of care. The construct validity of the French-PACIC was verified and resulted in a bi-dimensional structure. Overall this structure showed a high level of internal consistency. The PACIC score appeared to be significantly related to the age and self-reported health of the patients.
A French-version of the PACIC questionnaire is now available to evaluate the patients’ experience of care and to monitor the quality improvements realised by the medical structures. This study also pointed out some methodological issues about the PACIC questionnaire, related to the format of the rating scale and to the structure of the questionnaire.
BMC Health Services Research 06/2014; 14(1):269. DOI:10.1186/1472-6963-14-269 · 1.71 Impact Factor
"Much of care managers' time and effort seem to be devoted to educating and motivating depressed older persons (Belnap et al., 2006), and protocols that specify the role are required. However, improved interaction presupposes that healthcare teams have the necessary expertise, relevant patient information , time, and resources to act, rather than just react, as described by Wagner et al. (2001a,b). "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Older people with depression constitute a vulnerable group, and evidence from different parts of the world has demonstrated the need for healthcare improvements at the community level. In this study, we described team members’ perceptions of improvements in the care of older people with depression living in the community after the implementation of the Chronic Care Model, with a focus on delivery-system design, self-management support, and teamwork. This follow-up study was based on focus-group interviews with healthcare team members. The data were analyzed by qualitative content analysis. Four themes emerged: (i) ensuring a pathway to the top level of the organization; (ii) the need for leadership from senior managers; (iii) the need to formalize collaboration; and (iv) increasing self-management. Senior managers should cooperate with specialist care givers and administrators in the community. They must also redesign the delivery system to facilitate teamwork and the self-management ability of older people with depression.
Nursing and Health Sciences 06/2014; 16(4). DOI:10.1111/nhs.12136 · 1.04 Impact Factor
"The approach integrates system-level and region-level improvement priorities15 with locally driven, bottom-up, evidence-based problem-solving that is supported by embedded health services researchers. By doing so, EBQI aims to promote both evidence-enriched local innovation and a culture in which local problem-solving is the norm.16,17 "
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Healthcare systems and their primary care practices are redesigning to achieve goals identified in Patient-Centered Medical Home (PCMH) models such as Veterans Affairs (VA)'s Patient Aligned Care Teams (PACT). Implementation of these models, however, requires major transformation. Evidence-Based Quality Improvement (EBQI) is a multi-level approach for supporting organizational change and innovation spread.
To describe EBQI as an approach for promoting VA's PACT and to assess initial implementation of planned EBQI elements.
Regional and local interdisciplinary clinical leaders, patient representatives, Quality Council Coordinators, practicing primary care clinicians and staff, and researchers from six demonstration site practices in three local healthcare systems in one VA region.
EBQI promotes bottom-up local innovation and spread within top-down organizational priorities. EBQI innovations are supported by a research-clinical partnership, use continuous quality improvement methods, and are developed in regional demonstration sites.
We developed a logic model for EBQI for PACT (EBQI-PACT) with inputs, outputs, and expected outcomes. We describe implementation of logic model outputs over 18 months, using qualitative data from 84 key stakeholders (104 interviews from two waves) and review of study documents.
Nearly all implementation elements of the EBQI-PACT logic model were fully or partially implemented. Elements not fully achieved included patient engagement in Quality Councils (4/6) and consistent local primary care practice interdisciplinary leadership (4/6). Fourteen of 15 regionally approved innovation projects have been completed, three have undergone initial spread, five are prepared to spread, and two have completed toolkits that have been pretested in two to three sites and are now ready for external spread.
EBQI-PACT has been feasible to implement in three participating healthcare systems in one VA region. Further development of methods for engaging patients in care design and for promoting interdisciplinary leadership is needed.
Journal of General Internal Medicine 04/2014; 29(S2). DOI:10.1007/s11606-013-2703-y · 3.42 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.